- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hawkins looking good so far
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:13 pm to TotesMcGotes
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:13 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:Yea, I don't know what's going on with this 2023 RJ Barrett comparison lol
Using 2023-2024
0
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:13 pm to shel311
quote:
And then you go a step further and compare him to like players, like the top 30 or so, and he doesn't compare very well.
How many of those 30 or so are volume shooters?
Hollinger’s site suggests that last year BI was a healthy amount above average in overall PER and he’s probably the 6-7th best high volume small forward shooter in TS%.
This post was edited on 10/29/23 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:14 pm to cgrand
quote:See my point above about how I think it's arguably more critical that he doesn't drive to the rim anymore. That would help him get to the line more.
more free throws would drastically improve ingrams overall impact on game score. That’s more likely for him to be successful at then all of a sudden launching 3 pointers
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:15 pm to TotesMcGotes
Absolute nonsense to use 2 games as a barometer vs last season.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:17 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
That means for every 100 midrange shots he takes he scores 88 points, for every 100 3 point shots he takes he scores 117 points, 29 points more. He takes at least 8 midranges a game, if just half of those were 3 point shots along with his regular 3 a game then he would be averaging around 5 more ppg, and be more efficient while opening up more space in the paint for Zion/JV to work.
This is a great argument that he could be more efficient, not that he’s inefficient.
And another flaw with this this argument is that you’re assuming flipping the numbers around in some fashion wouldn’t affect the efficiency of those shots.
I sincerely dislike BI’s shot profile, too. But this is a poor argument.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:18 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:I'm only talking about scoring efficiency, so PER isn't relevant here.
Hollinger’s site suggests that last year BI was a healthy amount above average in overall PER and he’s probably the 6-7th best high volume shooter in TS%.
And the bulk of the top 30 have TS% over .600 so he's not even close to top 6 or 7 comparably. He'd be more like bottom 3 ish in TS%.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:20 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:Thing is, you're 100% correct but that could be a bigger part of the issue imo.
And another flaw with this this argument is that you’re assuming flipping the numbers around in some fashion wouldn’t affect the efficiency of those shots.
If changing his shot profile still lends him to be average efficiency at best and at the bottom end of scoring efficiency to his peers, that's a problem.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:20 pm to LSUgrad88
Larry is +7.3
Matt is +33.3
Dyson is +10.1
Kira is -20.2 (I know crazy)
It’s not because he shares the floor with those guys.
The only lineup that has a negative +/- wit BI and Kira together also has Zion in it.
In fact our starting 5 actually has a negative +/- on the season, but BI is the only one that has a negative EFR, so
ETA: In fact the lineup you’re referencing has played a whole 3 minutes together and has a +/- of 0.
Matt is +33.3
Dyson is +10.1
Kira is -20.2 (I know crazy)
It’s not because he shares the floor with those guys.
The only lineup that has a negative +/- wit BI and Kira together also has Zion in it.
In fact our starting 5 actually has a negative +/- on the season, but BI is the only one that has a negative EFR, so
ETA: In fact the lineup you’re referencing has played a whole 3 minutes together and has a +/- of 0.
This post was edited on 10/29/23 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:21 pm to Soggymoss
The inefficiency is why BI's development as a playmaker last season was so important. Those assists of his are critical.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:24 pm to shel311
I clarified that I was referring to small forwards.
His TS% is closer to Booker than Booker’s is to Wenyen Gabriel.
His TS% is closer to Booker than Booker’s is to Wenyen Gabriel.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:26 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:See my post about comparing him to like players, Max contract/best 2 dude on a team/volume shooter.
His TS% is closer to Booker than Booker’s is to Wenyen Gabriel.
Booker was over .600 TS% last season.
This post was edited on 10/29/23 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:31 pm to shel311
Yes comparing him to high volume SFs would suggest he’s fine. Certainly not inefficient, regardless of who you’re comparing him to
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:33 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Yes comparing him to high volume SFs would suggest he’s fine. Certainly not inefficient, regardless of who you’re comparing him to
Maybe saying BI himself is inefficient was a poor choice of words, his shot selection is what’s inefficient and could be better. Midranges are just not an efficient shot in today’s game, and it also leads to teams clogging the paint more on us because they know he’s not shooting the 3 no matter what.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 7:34 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:The 5 positions, as we know them, are largely irrelevant nowadays, so I wouldn't make that type of comparison.
Yes comparing him to high volume SFs would suggest he’s fine. Certainly not inefficient, regardless of who you’re comparing him to
Posted on 10/29/23 at 8:07 pm to Soggymoss
You can’t be expecting anyone to take seriously +/- numbers based on two games. That’s beyond ridiculous.
Posted on 10/29/23 at 8:12 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
Midranges are just not an efficient shot in today’s game,
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that there are very, very few players as good at the midrange game as BI??
Posted on 10/29/23 at 8:20 pm to LSUgrad88
quote:It's still an inefficient shot for even the best midrange shooters in the league, which is why the goal should be to minimize, but not eliminate, that shot as much as you can.
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that there are very, very few players as good at the midrange game as BI??
This post was edited on 10/29/23 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 10/30/23 at 8:37 am to shel311
He has a nice stroke when he shoots
and there’s not much hesitation.
So far, so good.
and there’s not much hesitation.
So far, so good.
Posted on 10/30/23 at 8:40 am to yaboidarrell
Im waiting for tRealStroker to get on the court and I wanna see a lineup of
Zion
Stroker
Matt
Hawk
Herb or Dyson
Call that lineup B.O.B
Zion
Stroker
Matt
Hawk
Herb or Dyson
Call that lineup B.O.B
Posted on 10/30/23 at 9:02 am to LSUgrad88
quote:
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that there are very, very few players as good at the midrange game as BI??
BI is actually pretty much league average in the midrange game, and CJ is actually a little better at the midrange shot percentage wise, so no BI being good at it doesn’t change the fact that its not an efficient shot.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News