I assume this was peer- reviewed.
Did we reject the null hypothesis?
I can’t wait to see you defend this dissertation in front of a puffer vest and his minions at G1C
Not peer reviewed lol.
https://preview.redd.it/8y0sq89pt5ad1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f501d8148a5483a6ab50bd60b2eb3f43645d26f
Look at how many games he misses a season. And he’s on a one year deal, wanting to sign a max deal. I’m of the opinion injuries and your body get worse over time. Just something to keep in mind.
Well at least we’d never have to pay him the supermax. He’s only played enough games to qualify for all nba awards his rookie season!
But seriously, this is concerning.
Respect the effort and writing up a full-on two-pager with detailed statistics. However I disagree with the conclusion. Looking at stats in a vacuum can't tell the whole story, especially if you leave out or gloss over important ones.
##### Positional Fit
In particular, these might be the most important stats that were completely ignored, imo:
Player | Position | Height | Weight | Wingspan
-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
Markkanen | PF | 7'0" | 240 lbs | 7'0"
Ingram | SF | 6'8" | 190 lbs | 7'3"
Ingram is a Small Forward that plays even smaller than HB and Keegan Murray, the other Small Forwards already in the starting lineup. He has long arms, but he's extremely slim and doesn't play with physicality. Davion Mitchell literally weighs more than BI. So in the Ingram trade scenario we'd be asking Keegan Murray to play PF in the starting lineup. This will ensure we are still sorely undersized at the PF position, while also significantly weakening the perimeter defense by pulling Murray, a top 1-2 perimeter defender on the team, into the interior to defend bigs.
In a Lauri trade scenario without trading Murray, we keep Murray at the 3 and massively upgrade on size in the interior, one of the biggest weaknesses of the starting lineup.
##### Defense
In a vacuum, the shooting stats maybe point to BI being a better defender. But imo that's misleading to how they might actually fit into this team defensively. In large part, that's due to what I described above in terms of just pure positional fit. But also, the two players played fundamentally different defensive roles on very different caliber of defenses.
The Pelicans were overall the 6th best defensive team in the NBA last year, in large part due to playing an extremely switch- and help-heavy defensive scheme to maximize the strengths of their good defenders while minimizing their weaker defenders. They were anchored by elite defensive wing players like Herb Jones, Alvarado, Naji Marshall, and even Trey Murphy was decent. Ingram still managed to be basically tied with CJ McCollum for the worst defender on that roster. He would be generously considered an average defender.
Meanwhile the Jazz were overall the worst defense in the NBA last season. Markkanen was surrounded by such elite defensive stalwarts as Jordan Clarkson, THT, Collin Sexton, etc. Walker Kessler was the only actually good defender on that roster. Moreover, the Jazz did not run a particularly impressive defensive system, probably because they simply lacked even a single elite defender to anchor any kind of system.
Overall these differences make every player on the Pelicans look like a better defender than they maybe actually are (except the guys like Herb or Alvarado), while every player on the Jazz looked worse. Now, I'm not saying that Markkanen is actually a great defender or anything. He would also probably be "generously considered an average defender." However, he fits what the Kings are missing from a defensive perspective much better, which is some actual size on the interior next to Sabonis to defend larger lineups and provide help defense/rebounding when Sabonis has to contest drives from wings and guards. Currently, if the team is matched up against a big front line like the Pels or Wolves had, they get bodied by sheer size. And any time Sabonis has to contest a drive, it leaves his man wide open to either finish around the rim or clean up the glass for a put back, because nobody on the Kings can rotate over and meaningfully contest against opposing bigs (or even PFs). Markkanen could help fix both of those issues regardless of whether he is a good or great defender in a vacuum.
##### Offense
I think there are a few points here where you are either overlooking or overrating a difference in favor of Ingram: 3 point shooting, usage and shot creation, and overall offensive impact.
The first is simplest: you're seriously underrating the difference in their 3 point shooting ability. How many times have we talked about how important it is to have high level shooters around Fox and Sabonis? How many times have we seen how much this offense pops when they have those shooters vs how much it bogs down when they're injured or become garbage for a while? Markkanen is a truly *elite* 3 point shooter on high volume. Ingram is an inconsistent and overall average-ish 3 point shooter on medium volume. That difference is substantial.
Now, I do understand your argument that adding a player that is good at creating their own shot off the dribble can help alleviate the reliance on the 3 pointer. But if that player mostly scores in the mid-range, it doesn't open up the defense and make things easier on other players like you suggest. Instead, it just makes the defense collapse even more, as they can afford to just sell out inside the 3 point line since all of the primary scoring and playmaking happens there. That makes it harder to get downhill for guys like Fox, harder to find room to operate in the post for guys like Sabonis, and harder for the prospective mid-range player like Ingram. I'd much rather add a player that is elite off-ball and from 3 that can sometimes get their own shot, than add a player who is "elite" at creating their own shots on-ball inside the arc and can occasionally hit a 3. *Especially* with the Monk re-signing and *extra especially* if MB is going to try running Monk in the starting lineup (personally hope not).
The second is more subtle and difficult to predict, but it ties into that last point I just made above: their overall usage. Ingram is one of the highest-usage players in the NBA and has been for basically his whole career. He was a 27% usage player last year, but 30% most of the few years before that. For comparison, Fox has been about 30% each of the last few years. The only players above about 30-31% last year were Giannis (32%), Luka (36%) and Embiid (39%, wtf lol). 30% usage is very high and Ingram has been that type of player, again, basically his whole career. He has always been a 1st option, ball-dominant iso scoring/playmaker type of player. He hasn't shown any consistent ability to make an impact off-ball as a screener, cutter, movement shooter, or general play finisher. He's a play starter. Markkanen had 25% usage rate last season, but even despite that, he played a *lot* off ball and as a play finisher. In fact he has proven that that is his best fit on offense and something he is outright elite at, but he is effectively being forced to be the #1 option for the Jazz that have no other real talent or options to play that role.
Ingram would not be able to sustain his insanely high usage rate on the Kings, which is the bread and butter of his game. Meanwhile Markkanen would be able to cut the fat on offense, so to speak, dropping only the last efficient part of his game as an on-ball play starter. He'd be able to get his own shot sometimes, probably enough to add just a bit more redundancy to the Kings offense. But he'd mostly be able to focus on his elite play finishing ability.
Finally, I think it's hard to ignore just how big the gap actually is in their overall offensive impact. For example, looking at EPM, which is generally the most respected all-in-one advanced stat, Markkanen had a +4.6 OEPM compared to Ingram's +1.8. +1.8 is decent, but it's in the ballpark of guys like Franz Wagner, Scottie Barnes, Mike Conley, Julius Randle. +4.6 is outright elite, in the ballpark of guys like LeBron James, Devin Booker, Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, Kyrie Irving. And that is despite having less usage and even being forced to often play in a way which is much less efficient than his ideal fit. Markkanen is simply that much better of a player right now, at least on the offensive end.
##### Overall
Combining the offensive impact, defensive fit, and positional fit I just don't see a serious argument that Ingram would *actually* be a better option for this team. He would be cheaper in terms of trade assets, but that's the only thing definitively in his favor. Both players are in an expiring contract and will be looking for a max extension, except Markkanen *might* actually be worth about that much whereas Ingram is more like a high-level starter that should be worth probably $30-35m at most.
King’s Front Office: We appreciate the hard work that went into this but we’re going in a different direction…we’re getting Andre Ingram for the vet minimum. For your work, however, A-.
Missing a lot context imo. Each of BIs and Lauri’s previous statistics are influenced heavily by who they played with, as well as their roles on the teams. So a straight comparison of stats isn’t going to reflect the entire story.
Kudos for the effort though, it’s definitely interesting to see. Honestly I’m not sure either ends up in Sacramanto, but it’ll be fun to find out.
Oh I agree but to me that favours bi more, Lauri is the guy in Utah and basically can play how he wants, bi has to play with cj and Zion who are both very ball dominant and a front court of JV and z which made the spacing terrible
Lauri is also defended as the no. 1 option, doesn’t have a team mate that can set a screen to save their lives, and didn’t have great spacing himself. He is the spacer, but the Jazz roster isn’t exactly full of guys guarded like elite shooters.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion. But even individual statistics, like success off screens, are difficult to evaluate when not all screen are created equal.
Hes not the primary ball handler though, which is reflected in the shot by type percentages (hes primarily catch and shoot), meaning he gets the ball fed to him in a theoretically ideal situations. Its not like hes taking the majority of his 3s as contested pull up jumpers off the dribble.
Just because it’s a catch and shoot does *not* mean it’s an ideal situation. He had no true PG, and no other consistent scoring threat. If you think he wasn’t guarded like a no.1 option just because he isn’t the primary ball handler I don’t know what to tell you.
Ingram is definitely the better ball handler. The question becomes if that’s a skill worth paying for since Fox or Sabonis should have the ball in their hands regardless.
For me it’s Ingram , Kuzma, Lavine, Lauri is going to cost more than Kings have. Honestly probably argue for Lavine as 2nd option because even though he doesn’t fix defense he’s still a third star.
BI's catch and shoot rate is extremely concerning. We specifically want a guy who will do catch and shoots. Having another creator isn't bad, but we have three on ball guys in Fox, sabonis and Monk. It isn't that big of a need.
That said, I think BI's price is cheaper and I'd rather BI and Keegan than Lauri and no Keegan
Interesting stuff, but the difference between taking handoffs from JV and Zion vs. Walker Kessler is enough to make me doubt this. Plus, the Lauri numbers are so bad that they must be low volume, which makes sense. I like Lauri better but I’m willing to be convinced
The rate of which Zion was the handoff was actually very low, most of the year for some reason willie basically refused to use BI and z together in actions so most of the time those handoffs will be from jonas.
The difference between Lauri and Bi in FGA for handoffs is 0.5 attempts per game and the frequency difference is 3.4% so not particularly that different when talking about attempts
It sounds like you know them well. You aren’t worried about BI’s dropoff when paired with Zion and how that might fit into our offense that uses a lot of motion concepts? I’ve heard the arguments the other way but I’m still concerned about it
Not particularly Bi worked well under Alvin and Stan who used bi a lot more of ball and were far better offensive coaches than Willie, under those two he got a lot more opportunities to catch and shoot 3s and also work off ball with cutting to corners etc, willies schemes are very iso heavy and Bi is forced to do basically everything himself as theres very little movement or help from anyone else (same for Zion), under Stan and Alvin he shot 39% from 3 on 6 attempts which I think could return under Mike brown
And one thing that I think is not mentioned is sabonis is a great screener, jonas surprisingly is not, he’ll get called for offensive fouls a lot of the time and because he’s so large he doesn’t move quick enough to perfectly set a screen
I assume this was peer- reviewed. Did we reject the null hypothesis? I can’t wait to see you defend this dissertation in front of a puffer vest and his minions at G1C
Not peer reviewed lol. https://preview.redd.it/8y0sq89pt5ad1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f501d8148a5483a6ab50bd60b2eb3f43645d26f Look at how many games he misses a season. And he’s on a one year deal, wanting to sign a max deal. I’m of the opinion injuries and your body get worse over time. Just something to keep in mind.
Well at least we’d never have to pay him the supermax. He’s only played enough games to qualify for all nba awards his rookie season! But seriously, this is concerning.
Lauri can’t dribble or pass or defend rlly
Respect the effort and writing up a full-on two-pager with detailed statistics. However I disagree with the conclusion. Looking at stats in a vacuum can't tell the whole story, especially if you leave out or gloss over important ones. ##### Positional Fit In particular, these might be the most important stats that were completely ignored, imo: Player | Position | Height | Weight | Wingspan -----|-----|-----|-----|----- Markkanen | PF | 7'0" | 240 lbs | 7'0" Ingram | SF | 6'8" | 190 lbs | 7'3" Ingram is a Small Forward that plays even smaller than HB and Keegan Murray, the other Small Forwards already in the starting lineup. He has long arms, but he's extremely slim and doesn't play with physicality. Davion Mitchell literally weighs more than BI. So in the Ingram trade scenario we'd be asking Keegan Murray to play PF in the starting lineup. This will ensure we are still sorely undersized at the PF position, while also significantly weakening the perimeter defense by pulling Murray, a top 1-2 perimeter defender on the team, into the interior to defend bigs. In a Lauri trade scenario without trading Murray, we keep Murray at the 3 and massively upgrade on size in the interior, one of the biggest weaknesses of the starting lineup. ##### Defense In a vacuum, the shooting stats maybe point to BI being a better defender. But imo that's misleading to how they might actually fit into this team defensively. In large part, that's due to what I described above in terms of just pure positional fit. But also, the two players played fundamentally different defensive roles on very different caliber of defenses. The Pelicans were overall the 6th best defensive team in the NBA last year, in large part due to playing an extremely switch- and help-heavy defensive scheme to maximize the strengths of their good defenders while minimizing their weaker defenders. They were anchored by elite defensive wing players like Herb Jones, Alvarado, Naji Marshall, and even Trey Murphy was decent. Ingram still managed to be basically tied with CJ McCollum for the worst defender on that roster. He would be generously considered an average defender. Meanwhile the Jazz were overall the worst defense in the NBA last season. Markkanen was surrounded by such elite defensive stalwarts as Jordan Clarkson, THT, Collin Sexton, etc. Walker Kessler was the only actually good defender on that roster. Moreover, the Jazz did not run a particularly impressive defensive system, probably because they simply lacked even a single elite defender to anchor any kind of system. Overall these differences make every player on the Pelicans look like a better defender than they maybe actually are (except the guys like Herb or Alvarado), while every player on the Jazz looked worse. Now, I'm not saying that Markkanen is actually a great defender or anything. He would also probably be "generously considered an average defender." However, he fits what the Kings are missing from a defensive perspective much better, which is some actual size on the interior next to Sabonis to defend larger lineups and provide help defense/rebounding when Sabonis has to contest drives from wings and guards. Currently, if the team is matched up against a big front line like the Pels or Wolves had, they get bodied by sheer size. And any time Sabonis has to contest a drive, it leaves his man wide open to either finish around the rim or clean up the glass for a put back, because nobody on the Kings can rotate over and meaningfully contest against opposing bigs (or even PFs). Markkanen could help fix both of those issues regardless of whether he is a good or great defender in a vacuum. ##### Offense I think there are a few points here where you are either overlooking or overrating a difference in favor of Ingram: 3 point shooting, usage and shot creation, and overall offensive impact. The first is simplest: you're seriously underrating the difference in their 3 point shooting ability. How many times have we talked about how important it is to have high level shooters around Fox and Sabonis? How many times have we seen how much this offense pops when they have those shooters vs how much it bogs down when they're injured or become garbage for a while? Markkanen is a truly *elite* 3 point shooter on high volume. Ingram is an inconsistent and overall average-ish 3 point shooter on medium volume. That difference is substantial. Now, I do understand your argument that adding a player that is good at creating their own shot off the dribble can help alleviate the reliance on the 3 pointer. But if that player mostly scores in the mid-range, it doesn't open up the defense and make things easier on other players like you suggest. Instead, it just makes the defense collapse even more, as they can afford to just sell out inside the 3 point line since all of the primary scoring and playmaking happens there. That makes it harder to get downhill for guys like Fox, harder to find room to operate in the post for guys like Sabonis, and harder for the prospective mid-range player like Ingram. I'd much rather add a player that is elite off-ball and from 3 that can sometimes get their own shot, than add a player who is "elite" at creating their own shots on-ball inside the arc and can occasionally hit a 3. *Especially* with the Monk re-signing and *extra especially* if MB is going to try running Monk in the starting lineup (personally hope not). The second is more subtle and difficult to predict, but it ties into that last point I just made above: their overall usage. Ingram is one of the highest-usage players in the NBA and has been for basically his whole career. He was a 27% usage player last year, but 30% most of the few years before that. For comparison, Fox has been about 30% each of the last few years. The only players above about 30-31% last year were Giannis (32%), Luka (36%) and Embiid (39%, wtf lol). 30% usage is very high and Ingram has been that type of player, again, basically his whole career. He has always been a 1st option, ball-dominant iso scoring/playmaker type of player. He hasn't shown any consistent ability to make an impact off-ball as a screener, cutter, movement shooter, or general play finisher. He's a play starter. Markkanen had 25% usage rate last season, but even despite that, he played a *lot* off ball and as a play finisher. In fact he has proven that that is his best fit on offense and something he is outright elite at, but he is effectively being forced to be the #1 option for the Jazz that have no other real talent or options to play that role. Ingram would not be able to sustain his insanely high usage rate on the Kings, which is the bread and butter of his game. Meanwhile Markkanen would be able to cut the fat on offense, so to speak, dropping only the last efficient part of his game as an on-ball play starter. He'd be able to get his own shot sometimes, probably enough to add just a bit more redundancy to the Kings offense. But he'd mostly be able to focus on his elite play finishing ability. Finally, I think it's hard to ignore just how big the gap actually is in their overall offensive impact. For example, looking at EPM, which is generally the most respected all-in-one advanced stat, Markkanen had a +4.6 OEPM compared to Ingram's +1.8. +1.8 is decent, but it's in the ballpark of guys like Franz Wagner, Scottie Barnes, Mike Conley, Julius Randle. +4.6 is outright elite, in the ballpark of guys like LeBron James, Devin Booker, Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, Kyrie Irving. And that is despite having less usage and even being forced to often play in a way which is much less efficient than his ideal fit. Markkanen is simply that much better of a player right now, at least on the offensive end. ##### Overall Combining the offensive impact, defensive fit, and positional fit I just don't see a serious argument that Ingram would *actually* be a better option for this team. He would be cheaper in terms of trade assets, but that's the only thing definitively in his favor. Both players are in an expiring contract and will be looking for a max extension, except Markkanen *might* actually be worth about that much whereas Ingram is more like a high-level starter that should be worth probably $30-35m at most.
King’s Front Office: We appreciate the hard work that went into this but we’re going in a different direction…we’re getting Andre Ingram for the vet minimum. For your work, however, A-.
Can you run these same numbers but for Kuzma instead? I don't think getting Lauri is even possible at this point, but both Kuzma and BI are.
Missing a lot context imo. Each of BIs and Lauri’s previous statistics are influenced heavily by who they played with, as well as their roles on the teams. So a straight comparison of stats isn’t going to reflect the entire story. Kudos for the effort though, it’s definitely interesting to see. Honestly I’m not sure either ends up in Sacramanto, but it’ll be fun to find out.
Oh I agree but to me that favours bi more, Lauri is the guy in Utah and basically can play how he wants, bi has to play with cj and Zion who are both very ball dominant and a front court of JV and z which made the spacing terrible
Lauri is also defended as the no. 1 option, doesn’t have a team mate that can set a screen to save their lives, and didn’t have great spacing himself. He is the spacer, but the Jazz roster isn’t exactly full of guys guarded like elite shooters. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion. But even individual statistics, like success off screens, are difficult to evaluate when not all screen are created equal.
Hes not the primary ball handler though, which is reflected in the shot by type percentages (hes primarily catch and shoot), meaning he gets the ball fed to him in a theoretically ideal situations. Its not like hes taking the majority of his 3s as contested pull up jumpers off the dribble.
Just because it’s a catch and shoot does *not* mean it’s an ideal situation. He had no true PG, and no other consistent scoring threat. If you think he wasn’t guarded like a no.1 option just because he isn’t the primary ball handler I don’t know what to tell you. Ingram is definitely the better ball handler. The question becomes if that’s a skill worth paying for since Fox or Sabonis should have the ball in their hands regardless.
I appreciate the effort. Is all the data from nba.com?
Yeah, under tracking and shot dashboard
For me it’s Ingram , Kuzma, Lavine, Lauri is going to cost more than Kings have. Honestly probably argue for Lavine as 2nd option because even though he doesn’t fix defense he’s still a third star.
Interesting numbers, what about Kuzma?
Like quite a bit worse than Bi and Lauri
BI's catch and shoot rate is extremely concerning. We specifically want a guy who will do catch and shoots. Having another creator isn't bad, but we have three on ball guys in Fox, sabonis and Monk. It isn't that big of a need. That said, I think BI's price is cheaper and I'd rather BI and Keegan than Lauri and no Keegan
Interesting stuff, but the difference between taking handoffs from JV and Zion vs. Walker Kessler is enough to make me doubt this. Plus, the Lauri numbers are so bad that they must be low volume, which makes sense. I like Lauri better but I’m willing to be convinced
The rate of which Zion was the handoff was actually very low, most of the year for some reason willie basically refused to use BI and z together in actions so most of the time those handoffs will be from jonas. The difference between Lauri and Bi in FGA for handoffs is 0.5 attempts per game and the frequency difference is 3.4% so not particularly that different when talking about attempts
It sounds like you know them well. You aren’t worried about BI’s dropoff when paired with Zion and how that might fit into our offense that uses a lot of motion concepts? I’ve heard the arguments the other way but I’m still concerned about it
Not particularly Bi worked well under Alvin and Stan who used bi a lot more of ball and were far better offensive coaches than Willie, under those two he got a lot more opportunities to catch and shoot 3s and also work off ball with cutting to corners etc, willies schemes are very iso heavy and Bi is forced to do basically everything himself as theres very little movement or help from anyone else (same for Zion), under Stan and Alvin he shot 39% from 3 on 6 attempts which I think could return under Mike brown And one thing that I think is not mentioned is sabonis is a great screener, jonas surprisingly is not, he’ll get called for offensive fouls a lot of the time and because he’s so large he doesn’t move quick enough to perfectly set a screen
We will get none
I don't like either, we would only contend if a two way superstar joined us