Official Scottie All Star Barnes Thread 9

[tsherkin]

Scottie averaged 19.3 ppg on 52 TS% last season. Siakam is at 24.5 ppg on 56 TS% this season. That's a pretty significant difference no? I think you're forgetting how bad he was last season without Ingram taking the load off him.

Sure, two years ago, Scottie averaged 19.9 ppg on 56.6% TS, which was -1.4% rTS at the time, a similar gap compared to Siakam. Pascal's at higher volume on 56.4% TS right now, which is -1.9% rTS.

I don't know that there's a ton of room to really overcompliment Pascal right now.

Yes, Scottie's a horrible choice as a number one, but that's sort of a tangential conversation at this point. Siakam isn't a good number one either, and he's doing about as poorly as Scottie was in 2024. Not as bad as Barnes was last year, but both seasons do have relevance here.

Let's say you are starting the team from scratch, then what is MOST important?

Really depends on what's available. Again, knowing full well that Scottie isn't a #1 option, this isn't really a salient point.

[canada_dry]

i'm going to be very clear and start by saying the two are COMPLETELY different calibre of players but i had so many debates on the pistons board when killian hayes was there and i feel like a lot of the scottie barnes discourse here follows the same patterns.

in hayes' case, pre-draft he was touted as a great passer and defensive player. coincidentally, those were barnes' two strengths as well. for hayes, some detroit fans fixated on those strengths and ignored the fact that he struggled to bring the ball up the court against ball pressure even though that's something like undrafted PGs can do, he couldn't break anyone down off the dribble or get paint touches at all which is a pretty fundamental guard skill and his shot was all over the place. hard to create advantages to utilize that passing "mastery" in a functional way with none of the other requisite skills. defensively he was solid but again, league-wide he was average more than good, great or elite. hayes was the first pick of troy weaver's regime and it was maddening how long a leash he had and how many minutes he got.

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

Think you're being a bit harsh lol. 20/8/6 with top 20 defence is still very much worth a rookie max. It only becomes an issue if he gets a supermax like Mobley did.

Like if Cade gets a supermax, he immediately becomes overpaid. Money has never dictated skill, it's all about the leverage the player has in a situation.

Top 20 defense is overrated. If he is a top 20 defense, people do not need to ask for a C.
Here was an old scouting report, but I feel they are largely the same, and I agree that he is more an offense-first player.
https://theswishtheory.com/scouting-reports/scottie-barnes/

Barnes is often referred to as a defense-first player, but I think it’s quite the opposite.

You keep saying "if scottie is x/y/z then we wouldn't need "x/y/z" and its just not accurate 95% of the time you say it.

Sent from my SM-S911W using RealGM mobile app

[PushDaRock]

Scottie averaged 19.3 ppg on 52 TS% last season. Siakam is at 24.5 ppg on 56 TS% this season. That's a pretty significant difference no? I think you're forgetting how bad he was last season without Ingram taking the load off him.

Sure, two years ago, Scottie averaged 19.9 ppg on 56.6% TS, which was -1.4% rTS at the time, a similar gap compared to Siakam. Pascal's at higher volume on 56.4% TS right now, which is -1.9% rTS.

I don't know that there's a ton of room to really overcompliment Pascal right now.

Yes, Scottie's a horrible choice as a number one, but that's sort of a tangential conversation at this point. Siakam isn't a good number one either, and he's doing about as poorly as Scottie was in 2024. Not as bad as Barnes was last year, but both seasons do have relevance here.

Let's say you are starting the team from scratch, then what is MOST important?

Really depends on what's available. Again, knowing full well that Scottie isn't a #1 option, this isn't really a salient point.

I think you're dismissing how much worse Scottie's efficiency would be if he tried to replicate the scoring volume of Siakam this season. That extra 5 ppg makes a massive difference.

That 23/24 season, he played 39 games with Siakam and 21 games without. His scoring numbers were even higher with Siakam than without (20.4 ppg vs 18.9 ppg), which really shouldn't even be possible but it speaks to how ill equipped to even be a poor 1st option that he is. Without Siakam that year, he was at 54.7 TS% on 18.9 ppg, which would be the relevant stats to use to judge him as a #1 option rather than his more inflated ones when he had Siakam taking the pressure off him.

[HangTime]

Scottie averaged 19.3 ppg on 52 TS% last season. Siakam is at 24.5 ppg on 56 TS% this season. That's a pretty significant difference no? I think you're forgetting how bad he was last season without Ingram taking the load off him.

Sure, two years ago, Scottie averaged 19.9 ppg on 56.6% TS, which was -1.4% rTS at the time, a similar gap compared to Siakam. Pascal's at higher volume on 56.4% TS right now, which is -1.9% rTS.

I don't know that there's a ton of room to really overcompliment Pascal right now.

Yes, Scottie's a horrible choice as a number one, but that's sort of a tangential conversation at this point. Siakam isn't a good number one either, and he's doing about as poorly as Scottie was in 2024. Not as bad as Barnes was last year, but both seasons do have relevance here.

Let's say you are starting the team from scratch, then what is MOST important?

Really depends on what's available. Again, knowing full well that Scottie isn't a #1 option, this isn't really a salient point.

I think you're dismissing how much worse Scottie's efficiency would be if he tried to replicate the scoring volume of Siakam this season. That extra 5 ppg makes a massive difference.

That 23/24 season, he played 39 games with Siakam and 21 games without. His scoring numbers were even higher with Siakam than without (20.4 ppg vs 18.9 ppg), which really shouldn't even be possible but it speaks to how ill equipped to even be a poor 1st option that he is. Without Siakam that year, he was at 54.7 TS% on 18.9 ppg, which would be the relevant stats to use to judge him as a #1 option rather than his more inflated ones when he had Siakam taking the pressure off him.

Without OG and Pascal, Scottie had to change his role on the fly.

First he took over OG's defensive role, and then incorporated 2 starters to the lineup.

I don't think any other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that.

Scottie's skillset is more diverse (and we've seen it, in rotation type of basis), so it'll take longer for everyone to see the end product.

Others from his class are already in (or have been) refinement mode, and Scottie's already at or near their level, while still in the growth stage.

I think that should speak volumes.



On top of that, I think Scottie's trying to get his "old man game" sorted out now. So when he's in his prime, if he's having a "bad game" he can fall back on the "old man game" while still being in his prime athletically.

We've seen guys add to their game, later in their career. They might struggle at it, and slowly become more comfortable.

[Indeed]

Think you're being a bit harsh lol. 20/8/6 with top 20 defence is still very much worth a rookie max. It only becomes an issue if he gets a supermax like Mobley did.

Like if Cade gets a supermax, he immediately becomes overpaid. Money has never dictated skill, it's all about the leverage the player has in a situation.

Top 20 defense is overrated. If he is a top 20 defense, people do not need to ask for a C.
Here was an old scouting report, but I feel they are largely the same, and I agree that he is more an offense-first player.
https://theswishtheory.com/scouting-reports/scottie-barnes/

Barnes is often referred to as a defense-first player, but I think it’s quite the opposite.

You keep saying "if scottie is x/y/z then we wouldn't need "x/y/z" and its just not accurate 95% of the time you say it.

Sent from my SM-S911W using RealGM mobile app

I am saying your 1st and 2nd options are being paid near-max, now if Barnes is not capable to be, and we are paying him near-max, what can he contribute?

People claim he is a top 20 defense that can justify his contract, but I am not finding that accurate, and those top 20 defensive player (eg. Anunoby) really makes an impact (opponent shooting in the 46%FG).

Afterall, there is a tax line, which is why there is difference between good contract and bad contract.

[Indeed]

Sure, two years ago, Scottie averaged 19.9 ppg on 56.6% TS, which was -1.4% rTS at the time, a similar gap compared to Siakam. Pascal's at higher volume on 56.4% TS right now, which is -1.9% rTS.

I don't know that there's a ton of room to really overcompliment Pascal right now.

Yes, Scottie's a horrible choice as a number one, but that's sort of a tangential conversation at this point. Siakam isn't a good number one either, and he's doing about as poorly as Scottie was in 2024. Not as bad as Barnes was last year, but both seasons do have relevance here.



Really depends on what's available. Again, knowing full well that Scottie isn't a #1 option, this isn't really a salient point.

I think you're dismissing how much worse Scottie's efficiency would be if he tried to replicate the scoring volume of Siakam this season. That extra 5 ppg makes a massive difference.

That 23/24 season, he played 39 games with Siakam and 21 games without. His scoring numbers were even higher with Siakam than without (20.4 ppg vs 18.9 ppg), which really shouldn't even be possible but it speaks to how ill equipped to even be a poor 1st option that he is. Without Siakam that year, he was at 54.7 TS% on 18.9 ppg, which would be the relevant stats to use to judge him as a #1 option rather than his more inflated ones when he had Siakam taking the pressure off him.

Without OG and Pascal, Scottie had to change his role on the fly.

First he took over OG's defensive role, and then incorporated 2 starters to the lineup.

I don't think any other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that.

Scottie's skillset is more diverse (and we've seen it, in rotation type of basis), so it'll take longer for everyone to see the end product.

Others from his class are already in (or have been) refinement mode, and Scottie's already at or near their level, while still in the growth stage.

I think that should speak volumes.



On top of that, I think Scottie's trying to get his "old man game" sorted out now. So when he's in his prime, if he's having a "bad game" he can fall back on the "old man game" while still being in his prime athletically.

We've seen guys add to their game, later in their career. They might struggle at it, and slowly become more comfortable.

Same old, using the potential card, changing roles, injury.
No other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that? That is bull ****.

[Tripod]

Top 20 defense is overrated. If he is a top 20 defense, people do not need to ask for a C.
Here was an old scouting report, but I feel they are largely the same, and I agree that he is more an offense-first player.
https://theswishtheory.com/scouting-reports/scottie-barnes/

You keep saying "if scottie is x/y/z then we wouldn't need "x/y/z" and its just not accurate 95% of the time you say it.

Sent from my SM-S911W using RealGM mobile app

I am saying your 1st and 2nd options are being paid near-max, now if Barnes is not capable to be, and we are paying him near-max, what can he contribute?

People claim he is a top 20 defense that can justify his contract, but I am not finding that accurate, and those top 20 defensive player (eg. Anunoby) really makes an impact (opponent shooting in the 46%FG).

Afterall, there is a tax line, which is why there is difference between good contract and bad contract.

What can he contribute?

Watch games and you can see.

[Indeed]

You keep saying "if scottie is x/y/z then we wouldn't need "x/y/z" and its just not accurate 95% of the time you say it.

Sent from my SM-S911W using RealGM mobile app

I am saying your 1st and 2nd options are being paid near-max, now if Barnes is not capable to be, and we are paying him near-max, what can he contribute?

People claim he is a top 20 defense that can justify his contract, but I am not finding that accurate, and those top 20 defensive player (eg. Anunoby) really makes an impact (opponent shooting in the 46%FG).

Afterall, there is a tax line, which is why there is difference between good contract and bad contract.

What can he contribute?

Watch games and you can see.

And I don't see that worth near-max, which is my point.

[theonlyeastcoastrapsfan]

My concerns with Scottie have been about his maturity, leadership, seriousness - and I’ve been very impressed with him and how’s he’s lead this year. He’s played as well as he can, not perfect, and he’s approached the inclusion of BI and others and been a team guy and leader incredibly well.

[HangTime]

I think you're dismissing how much worse Scottie's efficiency would be if he tried to replicate the scoring volume of Siakam this season. That extra 5 ppg makes a massive difference.

That 23/24 season, he played 39 games with Siakam and 21 games without. His scoring numbers were even higher with Siakam than without (20.4 ppg vs 18.9 ppg), which really shouldn't even be possible but it speaks to how ill equipped to even be a poor 1st option that he is. Without Siakam that year, he was at 54.7 TS% on 18.9 ppg, which would be the relevant stats to use to judge him as a #1 option rather than his more inflated ones when he had Siakam taking the pressure off him.

Without OG and Pascal, Scottie had to change his role on the fly.

First he took over OG's defensive role, and then incorporated 2 starters to the lineup.

I don't think any other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that.

Scottie's skillset is more diverse (and we've seen it, in rotation type of basis), so it'll take longer for everyone to see the end product.

Others from his class are already in (or have been) refinement mode, and Scottie's already at or near their level, while still in the growth stage.

I think that should speak volumes.



On top of that, I think Scottie's trying to get his "old man game" sorted out now. So when he's in his prime, if he's having a "bad game" he can fall back on the "old man game" while still being in his prime athletically.

We've seen guys add to their game, later in their career. They might struggle at it, and slowly become more comfortable.

Same old, using the potential card, changing roles, injury.
No other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that? That is bull ****.

Seriously, it's not BS, It's clear as day, I don't know how people don't see it.

Also, under Nurse, there was no real development, so he's basically 2 years behind, and has already caught up.
Again, he's still growing, while the other are refining.

[Indeed]

Without OG and Pascal, Scottie had to change his role on the fly.

First he took over OG's defensive role, and then incorporated 2 starters to the lineup.

I don't think any other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that.

Scottie's skillset is more diverse (and we've seen it, in rotation type of basis), so it'll take longer for everyone to see the end product.

Others from his class are already in (or have been) refinement mode, and Scottie's already at or near their level, while still in the growth stage.

I think that should speak volumes.



On top of that, I think Scottie's trying to get his "old man game" sorted out now. So when he's in his prime, if he's having a "bad game" he can fall back on the "old man game" while still being in his prime athletically.

We've seen guys add to their game, later in their career. They might struggle at it, and slowly become more comfortable.

Same old, using the potential card, changing roles, injury.
No other star player would be willing to take on a challenge like that? That is bull ****.

Seriously, it's not BS, It's clear as day, I don't know how people don't see it.

Also, under Nurse, there was no real development, so he's basically 2 years behind, and has already caught up.
Again, he's still growing, while the other are refining.

Please stop blaming others for his own issue. Not improving is on him.
He has been largely the same players we drafted even with Darko, maybe refined some of the skills better, but still largely the same without any leap, which we agreed on from above. Nurse or not, that is just excuse of him not developing, stop blaming the coaches, VanVleet, Siakam, Barrett, Ingram, etc.

[tsherkin]

I think you're dismissing how much worse Scottie's efficiency would be if he tried to replicate the scoring volume of Siakam this season. That extra 5 ppg makes a massive difference.

It's possible, but it really depends on the particulars of the team. The spacing, the pace, the quality of defensive rebounding and outlet passing, etc.

I don't want to push it too much, because we know that Scottie isn't a particularly good individual scorer and relies heavily on working off of others. The point I'm trying to make is that Siakam isn't a particularly good example because he has essentially the same weakness in that regard as Scottie, so he's not a particularly good example of a second option who can fill in capably as a #1 option. His time as a primary scoring tool for Toronto mostly had him as a below-league-average volume scorer. His only positive TSAdd seasons are 2019 and his years with Haliburton, and in that title season, he was taking a shade under 12 FGA/g and working of Kawhi and Lowry. Hell, Ibaka was taking a shade more FGA/g than Siakam that year.

You see what I mean?

Like, granted, you can argue that Scottie's worse than that, but Siakam does not do a good job of illustrating your point.

[PushDaRock]

I think you're dismissing how much worse Scottie's efficiency would be if he tried to replicate the scoring volume of Siakam this season. That extra 5 ppg makes a massive difference.

It's possible, but it really depends on the particulars of the team. The spacing, the pace, the quality of defensive rebounding and outlet passing, etc.

I don't want to push it too much, because we know that Scottie isn't a particularly good individual scorer and relies heavily on working off of others. The point I'm trying to make is that Siakam isn't a particularly good example because he has essentially the same weakness in that regard as Scottie, so he's not a particularly good example of a second option who can fill in capably as a #1 option. His time as a primary scoring tool for Toronto mostly had him as a below-league-average volume scorer. His only positive TSAdd seasons are 2019 and his years with Haliburton, and in that title season, he was taking a shade under 12 FGA/g and working of Kawhi and Lowry. Hell, Ibaka was taking a shade more FGA/g than Siakam that year.

You see what I mean?

Like, granted, you can argue that Scottie's worse than that, but Siakam does not do a good job of illustrating your point.

I said a good 2nd option is capable of scaling up to a #1 "at times when necessary". That doesn't mean they're capable of playing in that #1 role at an elite or even above average level, it means stepping up on occasion when it's needed and doing an adequate job. Siakam is a perfectly fine example of my point, because he's been the #1 option on teams before and he's even done it on teams that made the playoffs. I am saying Scottie is not capable of doing that, we have seen him on bad teams that need scoring in which he is still unable to increase his scoring volume. Do we think any team with Scottie as the #1 option is ever making the playoffs either?

[tsherkin]

I said a good 2nd option is capable of scaling up to a #1 "at times when necessary". That doesn't mean they're capable of playing in that #1 role at an elite or even above average level, it means stepping up on occasion when it's needed and doing an adequate job. Siakam is a perfectly fine example of my point, because he's been the #1 option on teams before and he's even done it on teams that made the playoffs.

And I debate that point, because he's been a sub-par #1 option at best without a real driving force behind him. Meantime, the Raptors teams which made the playoffs after 2019 were the 2022 Raptors. They were a pedestrian offense (14th in the league) and the 10th-ranked D, leaning HEAVILY on offensive rebounding (2nd in the league) to drive what offense they had. Minding that they were 27th in the league in team eFG%.

And the reality of that team was that Fred was driving us even though he was scoring a little less than Siakam. So again, not a great example of your point. He was producing second option-level scoring on a mediocre offensive team which won with defense and offensive rebounding, and which got spanked in the first round.

I am saying Scottie is not capable of doing that, we have seen him on bad teams that need scoring in which he is still unable to increase his scoring volume. Do we think any team with Scottie as the #1 option is ever making the playoffs either?

No, a Scottie-led team isn't making the offense. But evaluating the quality of a player as a second option by evaluating his potential/ability as a #1 option is non-sensical. You're trying to say that Pascal scoring a little more on bleh efficiency in a way which doesn't actually drive team offense to any meaningful degree makes him a better second option, and I absolutely do not agree with that point at all.

[PushDaRock]

I said a good 2nd option is capable of scaling up to a #1 "at times when necessary". That doesn't mean they're capable of playing in that #1 role at an elite or even above average level, it means stepping up on occasion when it's needed and doing an adequate job. Siakam is a perfectly fine example of my point, because he's been the #1 option on teams before and he's even done it on teams that made the playoffs.

And I debate that point, because he's been a sub-par #1 option at best without a real driving force behind him. Meantime, the Raptors teams which made the playoffs after 2019 were the 2022 Raptors. They were a pedestrian offense (14th in the league) and the 10th-ranked D, leaning HEAVILY on offensive rebounding (2nd in the league) to drive what offense they had. Minding that they were 27th in the league in team eFG%.

And the reality of that team was that Fred was driving us even though he was scoring a little less than Siakam. So again, not a great example of your point. He was producing second option-level scoring on a mediocre offensive team which won with defense and offensive rebounding, and which got spanked in the first round.

I am saying Scottie is not capable of doing that, we have seen him on bad teams that need scoring in which he is still unable to increase his scoring volume. Do we think any team with Scottie as the #1 option is ever making the playoffs either?

No, a Scottie-led team isn't making the offense. But evaluating the quality of a player as a second option by evaluating his potential/ability as a #1 option is non-sensical. You're trying to say that Pascal scoring a little more on bleh efficiency in a way which doesn't actually drive team offense to any meaningful degree makes him a better second option, and I absolutely do not agree with that point at all.

It's semantics whether you want to consider Siakam horrible, below average or adequate as a #1 option, the point is Scottie is way below whatever level Siakam is at when it comes to volume scoring.

I did not say being a bad first option makes you a better 2nd option. I am saying good 2nd options can usually scale up their scoring when it's needed. Your #1 option is out on the floor let's say 34 mins a night, that means 14 mins a night that someone else has to be the #1 option out on the floor. Whoever is your #2 option is likely going to be the #1 option for those mins, so it absolutely matters that they can take on a bigger role as the "guy" on the floor and not just someone that only plays off the #1 option. This obviously matters even more for injuries and on a night you're missing 2 or 3 starters, more often than not a good 2nd option is capable of carrying a bigger load that night. So, how you function as a #1 absolutely matters when you're the #2 option because you're going to need to play a bigger role at some point out there.

[tsherkin]

It's semantics whether you want to consider Siakam horrible, below average or adequate as a #1 option, the point is Scottie is way below whatever level Siakam is at when it comes to volume scoring.

Sure, but it comes to a point where the difference doesn't mean much. Siakam doesn't actually do a good job of "stepping up" into the first option role, even in bursts, which is what you were talking about.

I did not say being a bad first option makes you a better 2nd option. I am saying good 2nd options can usually scale up their scoring when it's needed.

Which remains not necessarily true, and they more specifically tend to fade out in those contexts, which is precisely WHY they aren't good as first option scorers.

So, how you function as a #1 absolutely matters when you're the #2 option because you're going to need to play a bigger role at some point out there.

Not really. If the team's broader offensive context isn't a disaster, as in on a winning team, that usually isn't a huge deal at all. That becomes more about team-oriented offense instead of individually-driven offense, which is fine for shorter stretches such as when your primary driver isn't on the court.

Meantime, this entire conversation started because you were trying to take a strip out of Scottie by saying he was better suited as a 3rd option than a second option because he can't step up his offense into poor/mediocre first-option territory like Siakam, and that still doesn't really make sense to me. He fills his role just fine when he's allowed to play it, and for 10-15 mpg with a real first option not on the floor, he can be fine in an appropriate team context instead of a disastrous clownshow like we've been fielding the past 8 games or so.

[PushDaRock]

It's semantics whether you want to consider Siakam horrible, below average or adequate as a #1 option, the point is Scottie is way below whatever level Siakam is at when it comes to volume scoring.

Sure, but it comes to a point where the difference doesn't mean much. Siakam doesn't actually do a good job of "stepping up" into the first option role, even in bursts, which is what you were talking about.

I did not say being a bad first option makes you a better 2nd option. I am saying good 2nd options can usually scale up their scoring when it's needed.

Which remains not necessarily true, and they more specifically tend to fade out in those contexts, which is precisely WHY they aren't good as first option scorers.

So, how you function as a #1 absolutely matters when you're the #2 option because you're going to need to play a bigger role at some point out there.

Not really. If the team's broader offensive context isn't a disaster, as in on a winning team, that usually isn't a huge deal at all. That becomes more about team-oriented offense instead of individually-driven offense, which is fine for shorter stretches such as when your primary driver isn't on the court.

Meantime, this entire conversation started because you were trying to take a strip out of Scottie by saying he was better suited as a 3rd option than a second option because he can't step up his offense into poor/mediocre first-option territory like Siakam, and that still doesn't really make sense to me. He fills his role just fine when he's allowed to play it, and for 10-15 mpg with a real first option not on the floor, he can be fine in an appropriate team context instead of a disastrous clownshow like we've been fielding the past 8 games or so.

There in lies the difference between our thought processes I guess. You expect the rest of the team and the role players to step up more with missing starters while I expect our highest paid players to do more of the heavy lifting.

I said he is likely better suited as a 3rd option on most good teams. By good team, I mean HCA teams, so somewhere around Top 8.

New York - Brunson + KAT
Boston - Tatum + Brown
Detroit - Cade + Duren
Magic - Franz + Paolo
OKC - SGA + JDub
Denver - Jokic + Murray
Houston - KD + Sengun
Lakers - Luka + Reaves

Who are you looking at there and saying Scottie should be a #2 option in front of? Duren is the only debatable player.

If you want to extend that to all the over .500 teams, there still isn't many guys you're taking him over as a #2 option.

Sixers - Maxey + Embiid
Cavs - Mitchell + Mobley
Miami - Herro + Powell
ATL - Young + Johnson
Spurs - Wemby + Fox
Minnesota - Edwards + Randle
Warriors - Curry + Butler

Who's he a better #2 than on there? Maybe Mobley? Maybe Embiid if he continues to be washed? I don't think he has a case over anyone else.

So, that's maybe 3 teams at most of the over .500 teams that he "MIGHT" be the #2 option on. I don't think he has a 100% definitive case over anyone on there.

The vast majority of those #2 options can also be #1 options on bad teams.

[brownbobcat]

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

Jalen Johnson broke out after signing his contract, which is good for ATL but unlucky for Jalen. Yes, it's true the Raptors FO almost never plays hardball during negotiations, but the reality is this:
- Toronto is not a free agent destination
- Even borderline top-30 players get paid coming off rookie-scale
- The potential savings on Barnes' contract would have been minimal

Neither Barnes nor his contract are what's preventing Toronto from getting a better player.

[PushDaRock]

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

Jalen Johnson broke out after signing his contract, which is good for ATL but unlucky for Jalen. Yes, it's true the Raptors FO almost never plays hardball during negotiations, but the reality is this:
- Toronto is not a free agent destination
- Even borderline top-30 players get paid coming off rookie-scale
- The potential savings on Barnes' contract would have been minimal

Neither Barnes nor his contract are what's preventing Toronto from getting a better player.

Reality is he made the AS team in Year 3, anyone doing that is getting the rookie max.

The other unfortunate reality is he took a huge step backwards in year 4 and only some smaller improvements in year 5. The production has been virtually the same for a while now which makes it probably unlikely that he takes any unexpected leaps in his game.

That last part is true, but if Scottie was more of a border line top 15 guy rather than borderline top 30, it certainly makes upgrading a lot more appealing because you're thinking you can actually contend with 2 top 15 ish guys.

[tsherkin]

There in lies the difference between our thought processes I guess. You expect the rest of the team and the role players to step up more with missing starters while I expect our highest paid players to do more of the heavy lifting.

I think it's a matter of understanding the players we have, and what their strengths are and are not. You don't look at a guy whose whole shtick is scoring without heavy isolation and then ask him to take on extra burden in that regard and hope it goes well.

I said he is likely better suited as a 3rd option on most good teams. By good team, I mean HCA teams, so somewhere around Top 8.

New York - Brunson + KAT
Boston - Tatum + Brown
Detroit - Cade + Duren
Magic - Franz + Paolo
OKC - SGA + JDub
Denver - Jokic + Murray
Houston - KD + Sengun
Lakers - Luka + Reaves

Who are you looking at there and saying Scottie should be a #2 option in front of? Duren is the only debatable player.

So you've selected some specific teams, for sure. And of those guys, I think Banchero and Duren are the obvious choices, especially as Bane rediscovers his shot. He'd certainly fit into their defensive scheme very well, beyond that.

Replacing KAT is a tough one because he's not a positional match for Scottie, so they end up losing a lot of rebounding if you pick him. The volume isn't a lot different, but they don't use KAT as an iso creator very much, and he's HEAVILY assisted in everything he does. So in that respect, Scottie would fit in fine. But again, that doesn't really line up well in terms of positional stuff and what else he does for the team, so it's a somewhat disingenuous inclusion.

Would take Scottie over Jalen Williams this year, yes. The Thunder have a VERY distributed offense and Williams has been cow patties on offense so far. And wasn't a stunner last year, either.

Sengun is another positional mismatch, so I won't go into that.

Reaves is in the middle of a major breakout season, though he's flashed some of this previously, and he's been linearly progressing since he was a rookie. He's had better scoring tools than Scottie the entire time, so he's a fair enough inclusion, but he's also a guy who may well end up as a #1 some time down the road if he ever leaves LA, assuming he maintains his current level of play.

Brown... is a tougher one. He's playing great right now, which makes it a little different to evaluate him, because he's been inconsistent.

Murray is another who, again, has a positional difference. He doesn't do any better a job at isolating or creating rim pressure, but Scottie wouldn't fit into Denver's game plan because they already have guys at the 3 and 4. Barnes is bigger and a better defender, but his positions are covered already. He'd do well in the abstract with all that ball movement, though. And you can bank on them milking the right corner for him, so he'd be at least a 36% 3pt shooter with Denver regardless. And they get out well in transition, Joker's an insane passer, their spacing is strong, etc, etc. When JM's J is dropping, he can get incandescent, for sure, but that's not a reliable/consistent element of his game either.

If you want to extend that to all the over .500 teams, there still isn't many guys you're taking him over as a #2 option.

Sixers - Maxey + Embiid
Cavs - Mitchell + Mobley
Miami - Herro + Powell
ATL - Young + Johnson
Spurs - Wemby + Fox
Minnesota - Edwards + Randle
Warriors - Curry + Butler

Who's he a better #2 than on there? Maybe Mobley? Maybe Embiid if he continues to be washed? I don't think he has a case over anyone else.

Yeah, Randle is in the middle of what's probably the second-best season of his career. He's highly inconsistent, but he's been very good so far. Butler and Curry are like an interesting inversion, because Steph tends to primarily play off-ball (not that he can't play on-ball).

I'd take Barnes over Fox. This year, it's really more JJ and NAW in terms of actual shooting volume, and I'd take Scottie over NAW. Trae's played 5 games and JJ's been running the show.

Herro's played 6 games for Miami. There, it's been more Powell and Wiggins, and of course I'd take Scottie over Wiggins. Mobley's another of those positional mismatches. Cleveland's also completely inverted itself from a 3P% POV since last year, for the worst. If they can get back to the type of shooting they had last year, then yes, I wouldn't mind Scottie there... but again, Mobley's a DPOY center, so it's not an even comparison in terms of team utility.

The vast majority of those #2 options can also be #1 options on bad teams.

Anyone can be a #1 option on a bad team. It's just often a poor choice, as we've seen many times. Being a #1 option on a bad team literally means nothing save that you're getting the opportunity to loft shots because they don't have a better choice.