EvanZ wrote:Small guards who have high usage (30%+) are always bad defenders. I don't think it's a coincidence. There is only so much energy you can expend in a game on both ends.
Energy is part of it. But I'd argue it's also mindset. If you are your team's star and carry it on offense, you just can't have the mindset to play defense like someone whose playing time and NBA career depends on it.
So yeah, it's very valid to ask: is Scoot good enough at carrying your offense that you are willing to take a hit on defense? And if you believe his role on offense should be as a second or tertiary option, the question becomes whether that is worth drafting with the 2nd or 3rd pick – even if you believe that he can be a good defender in this role.
I'd like to take a step back and evaluate Scoot independent of the hype and highlights that are naturally present in the mind. And I'd like to ask myself the question: do I buy the shooting upside and, if not, can I justify ranking him even at #3? Because historically, I've been very skeptical of PGs who lack a reliable jumper (especially pull-up 3, but off-ball shooting also matters).
In some cases, it has worked out. Morant is the most recent example. Fox also has taken an important step this year (but he seemed to have been available in trade talks earlier, so I'm not sure he's really a success-story yet – especially since we haven't seen him in the playoffs either).
But in a lot of other cases, it has not worked out. In terms of recent top-picks, DSJ is an example. Mudiay is another one. Suggs could be next in line. Athleticism played a big role in their appeal and a lot of people were willing to bet on their physical profile believing the questionable shot will either come around or not matter all that much in the NBA.
Not sure if this thread is the right place to have an honest, constructive and open-minded (and open-ended!) debate about Scoot's ranking, though. Seeing how the two factions are currently approaching this topic, I'm inclined to believe it is not.