Elephant in the room but isn't Barnes suppose to be getting better?

[Tha Cynic]

Banchero and Franz aren't good comparisons in this situation.

Banchero: 20 ppg -> 22.6 ppg -> 26 ppg
Franz: 15.2 ppg -> 18.6 ppg -> 19.7 ppg -> 24.2 ppg

Scottie: 15.3 ppg -> 15.3 ppg -> 19.9 ppg -> 19.2 ppg

We can look at efficiency or whatever, but those guys have increased their production as a scorer every single year while Scottie has taken a backwards step in 2 of his 3 seasons. We can say stuff like development isn't linear but it also doesn't typically look like this either. He's in year 4 now and has been a day 1 starter averaging 34 mpg in his career, he hasn't been bad offensively from a lack of opportunity. If you can find me someone with the same development path as him that ended up really good offensively, I'm all ears and would be more open to that possibility.

Yes, because they are actively trying to score more regardless of their efficiency, and that's not how Barnes plays. Are you saying Barnes should have an arbitrary number of points he should try to reach and should do whatever he can do to reach it, because that's how Banchero plays for example.

If you want a guy who’s trying to be a 25-30 PPG player, that’s not Barnes. He will never be that and he has never shown he wants to be that. His entire career he has always focused his energy more on defense than offense.

The number of points is the problem. Those guys scaled up their scoring and are still more efficient than Barnes. Scoring 25ppg on 55 TS% isn’t very good. Scoring 19ppg on 53 TS% is horrible. Not being a volume scorer should make you MORE efficient.

Explain the “saves his energy for defense” argument. So in order for him to be good on defense he doesn’t have the energy to be efficient on offense? Who wants that type of player? So now we’ve got a guy who can only be good on one side of the ball because he doesn’t have the energy to do both? Glad we’re paying the max for that!

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots. He needs to get more efficient.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

I don’t need multiple stats posted over and over again showing me he has been inefficient this season. No **** he had been bad. My comment is more about whether he can get more efficient and whether patience is warranted. Or we can just turn this thread into people posting the same stats and everyone agreeing with each other that he sucks and needs to be made the 5th option which is what was happening.

[Tha Cynic]

What's funny is that if Scottie regressed twice as much defensively but gave even 2-4 more ppg last year compared to this year, people would be saying his rizz has improved markedly.

I don't think he has gotten worse. Quite the opposite actually. It's clear that his focus coming into this year and throughout the year has been his defense.

This is a great post and exactly what I see from a ton of posters here.

[PushDaRock]

Yes, because they are actively trying to score more regardless of their efficiency, and that's not how Barnes plays. Are you saying Barnes should have an arbitrary number of points he should try to reach and should do whatever he can do to reach it, because that's how Banchero plays for example.

If you want a guy who’s trying to be a 25-30 PPG player, that’s not Barnes. He will never be that and he has never shown he wants to be that. His entire career he has always focused his energy more on defense than offense.

The number of points is the problem. Those guys scaled up their scoring and are still more efficient than Barnes. Scoring 25ppg on 55 TS% isn’t very good. Scoring 19ppg on 53 TS% is horrible. Not being a volume scorer should make you MORE efficient.

Explain the “saves his energy for defense” argument. So in order for him to be good on defense he doesn’t have the energy to be efficient on offense? Who wants that type of player? So now we’ve got a guy who can only be good on one side of the ball because he doesn’t have the energy to do both? Glad we’re paying the max for that!

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

If you guys want, we can all just leave and let you all post numbers and agree with each other lol. Or go after one guy who makes extremely outlandish claims on the positive side. See he sucks on offense right now!!!

He never has shown he wants to be a 25-30 ppg scorer because he knows he isn't capable of being one. It's pretty pointless saying he doesn't want to score that much when he also can't even if he wanted to.

Most players are in fact able to scale down from very high USG and get more efficient if they lower their USG (eg. Siakam) if they have actual scoring talent.

So, basically you're saying he's not a volume scorer but he's also not efficient because he doesn't get easy shots? How is this a positive for his offensive potential going forward?

[Tha Cynic]

The number of points is the problem. Those guys scaled up their scoring and are still more efficient than Barnes. Scoring 25ppg on 55 TS% isn’t very good. Scoring 19ppg on 53 TS% is horrible. Not being a volume scorer should make you MORE efficient.

Explain the “saves his energy for defense” argument. So in order for him to be good on defense he doesn’t have the energy to be efficient on offense? Who wants that type of player? So now we’ve got a guy who can only be good on one side of the ball because he doesn’t have the energy to do both? Glad we’re paying the max for that!

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

If you guys want, we can all just leave and let you all post numbers and agree with each other lol. Or go after one guy who makes extremely outlandish claims on the positive side. See he sucks on offense right now!!!

He never has shown he wants to be a 25-30 ppg scorer because he knows he isn't capable of being one. It's pretty pointless saying he doesn't want to score that much when he also can't even if he wanted to.

Most players are in fact able to scale down from very high USG and get more efficient if they lower their USG (eg. Siakam) if they have actual scoring talent.

So, basically you're saying he's not a volume scorer but he's also not efficient because he doesn't get easy shots? How is this a positive for his offensive potential going forward?

What I am saying is that he’s working on his offense and it’s trending more towards secondary scoring. He’s not trying to scale back to a role player, and it would be stupid to do that over having him refine his offense.

Think more Kyle Lowry than Derozan in our previous offence. Difference is he doesn’t already have the three so he needs to improve his scoring.

I’m expecting a guy who stays at 21-22 on better efficiency while being elite defensively. I can see him being a top two scoring option in 4th quarter but don’t actively see him carry teams on offense for the first 3.

It’s basically how he has always played but the efficiency is what will change him as a player. He has already shown he can score well in high pressure situations in the 4th.

[ConSarnit]

Yes, because they are actively trying to score more regardless of their efficiency, and that's not how Barnes plays. Are you saying Barnes should have an arbitrary number of points he should try to reach and should do whatever he can do to reach it, because that's how Banchero plays for example.

If you want a guy who’s trying to be a 25-30 PPG player, that’s not Barnes. He will never be that and he has never shown he wants to be that. His entire career he has always focused his energy more on defense than offense.

The number of points is the problem. Those guys scaled up their scoring and are still more efficient than Barnes. Scoring 25ppg on 55 TS% isn’t very good. Scoring 19ppg on 53 TS% is horrible. Not being a volume scorer should make you MORE efficient.

Explain the “saves his energy for defense” argument. So in order for him to be good on defense he doesn’t have the energy to be efficient on offense? Who wants that type of player? So now we’ve got a guy who can only be good on one side of the ball because he doesn’t have the energy to do both? Glad we’re paying the max for that!

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots. He needs to get more efficient.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

I don’t need multiple stats posted over and over again showing me he has been inefficient this season. No **** he had been bad. My comment is more about whether he can get more efficient and whether patience is warranted. Or we can just turn this thread into people posting the same stats and everyone agreeing with each other that he sucks and needs to be made the 5th option which is what was happening.

He is, by way of his terrible efficiency absolutely taking too many shots. There are only 2 guys in the league with >25% usage and worse TS%. That’s 2 out of something like 50. His offensive play is not fine. 25% usage at 53 TS% is damaging to a team. Barnes probably couldn’t even scale his scoring if he wanted to based on how inefficient he already is. If he tried to scale up to 25ppg he’d probably be one of the least efficient volume scorers of all-time. He doesn’t have the repertoire to scale up his scoring.

Of course patience is warranted. We have no choice. If he doesn’t improve we are stuck with him because he’ll be a bad contract.

I’m sorry but I do not understand what your argument is outside of “wait it out”. I also don’t understand what point you are trying to make by saying Barnes “uses his energy on defense” as if that is some type of excuse for his terrible inefficiency. Are you saying that next year he’ll use more energy on offense but that will come at the cost of his defense? I don’t understand why he can’t do both considering he isn’t some heliocentric player like Harden or Luka where the entire offense is run through him.

If your main contention is patience I can understand that, even if that notion isn’t great imo considering we’re paying him the max next season. If you’re contending Barnes can only play offense or defense (but not both) then that is a huge issue going forward (but I will admit maybe I am interpreting your post incorrectly).

[PushDaRock]

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

If you guys want, we can all just leave and let you all post numbers and agree with each other lol. Or go after one guy who makes extremely outlandish claims on the positive side. See he sucks on offense right now!!!

He never has shown he wants to be a 25-30 ppg scorer because he knows he isn't capable of being one. It's pretty pointless saying he doesn't want to score that much when he also can't even if he wanted to.

Most players are in fact able to scale down from very high USG and get more efficient if they lower their USG (eg. Siakam) if they have actual scoring talent.

So, basically you're saying he's not a volume scorer but he's also not efficient because he doesn't get easy shots? How is this a positive for his offensive potential going forward?

What I am saying is that he’s working on his offense and it’s trending more towards secondary scoring. He’s not trying to scale back to a role player, and it would be stupid to do that over having him refine his offense.

Think more Kyle Lowry than Derozan in our previous offence. Difference is he doesn’t already have the three so he needs to improve his scoring.

I’m expecting a guy who stays at 21-22 on better efficiency while being elite defensively. I can see him being a top two scoring option in 4th quarter but don’t actively see him carry teams on offense for the first 3.

It’s basically how he has always played but the efficiency is what will change him as a player. He has already shown he can score well in high pressure situations in the 4th.

What exactly are we refining though? He doesn't do a single thing offensively right now that is above average efficiency that can scale.

Where would you rank him offensively among Ingram, IQ and RJ? If we are trying to win next year, what would be the reasoning for him getting enough touches to score 21-22 ppg over those guys based on what he has shown in his career?

I am more than happy if he's able to do what you are expecting, I'm just not thinking it's a likely outcome.

[Tha Cynic]

The number of points is the problem. Those guys scaled up their scoring and are still more efficient than Barnes. Scoring 25ppg on 55 TS% isn’t very good. Scoring 19ppg on 53 TS% is horrible. Not being a volume scorer should make you MORE efficient.

Explain the “saves his energy for defense” argument. So in order for him to be good on defense he doesn’t have the energy to be efficient on offense? Who wants that type of player? So now we’ve got a guy who can only be good on one side of the ball because he doesn’t have the energy to do both? Glad we’re paying the max for that!

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots. He needs to get more efficient.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

I don’t need multiple stats posted over and over again showing me he has been inefficient this season. No **** he had been bad. My comment is more about whether he can get more efficient and whether patience is warranted. Or we can just turn this thread into people posting the same stats and everyone agreeing with each other that he sucks and needs to be made the 5th option which is what was happening.

He is, by way of his terrible efficiency absolutely taking too many shots. There are only 2 guys in the league with >25% usage and worse TS%. That’s 2 out of something like 50. His offensive play is not fine. 25% usage at 53 TS% is damaging to a team. Barnes probably couldn’t even scale his scoring if he wanted to based on how inefficient he already is. If he tried to scale up to 25ppg he’d probably be one of the least efficient volume scorers of all-time. He doesn’t have the repertoire to scale up his scoring.

Of course patience is warranted. We have no choice. If he doesn’t improve we are stuck with him because he’ll be a bad contract.

I’m sorry but I do not understand what your argument is outside of “wait it out”. I also don’t understand what point you are trying to make by saying Barnes “uses his energy on defense” as if that is some type of excuse for his terrible inefficiency. Are you saying that next year he’ll use more energy on offense but that will come at the cost of his defense? I don’t understand why he can’t do both considering he isn’t some heliocentric player like Harden or Luka where the entire offense is run through him.

If your main contention is patience I can understand that, even if that notion isn’t great imo considering we’re paying him the max next season. If you’re contending Barnes can only play offense or defense (but not both) then that is a huge issue going forward (but I will admit maybe I am interpreting your post incorrectly).

My main contention is patience. He will not carry a team on offense but he will score at least 20 a game on better efficiency. I’m also not using his worst offensive stretch of his career to define him as what he will be for his whole career.

I never said anything about playing only defense or offense. I am saying he will always be a guy who balances both but do see him getting more efficient on offense.

Yes the numbers don’t show this right now.

[Tripod]

I have said multiple times he needs to get more efficient. You didn’t read what I responded to. The reason why you should be better on less shots is because those shots you get are easier shots. We’re not using Barnes that way and he’s also not putting up 20 shots a game to get to 23-25 like Banchero clearly does if you watch him play. Generally Barnes’ play in the offense is fine and it never feels like he’s taking too many shots. He needs to get more efficient.

My comment was that Barnes has never shown he wants to be a 25-30 PPG scorer and you will never get that from Barnes as he’s not that type of player. The comparison was on the efficiency and poster responded with points per game. Poster claimed using poor efficiency from Banchero and Wagner as a bad comparison. Scale up means nothing if you’re shooting terribly and scale down means nothing if the shots are shots you would take trying to score 25. The arguments here don’t match what we’re doing on the court. We’re not using Barnes like a rebounder who only does one thing on offense working off others.

I don’t need multiple stats posted over and over again showing me he has been inefficient this season. No **** he had been bad. My comment is more about whether he can get more efficient and whether patience is warranted. Or we can just turn this thread into people posting the same stats and everyone agreeing with each other that he sucks and needs to be made the 5th option which is what was happening.

He is, by way of his terrible efficiency absolutely taking too many shots. There are only 2 guys in the league with >25% usage and worse TS%. That’s 2 out of something like 50. His offensive play is not fine. 25% usage at 53 TS% is damaging to a team. Barnes probably couldn’t even scale his scoring if he wanted to based on how inefficient he already is. If he tried to scale up to 25ppg he’d probably be one of the least efficient volume scorers of all-time. He doesn’t have the repertoire to scale up his scoring.

Of course patience is warranted. We have no choice. If he doesn’t improve we are stuck with him because he’ll be a bad contract.

I’m sorry but I do not understand what your argument is outside of “wait it out”. I also don’t understand what point you are trying to make by saying Barnes “uses his energy on defense” as if that is some type of excuse for his terrible inefficiency. Are you saying that next year he’ll use more energy on offense but that will come at the cost of his defense? I don’t understand why he can’t do both considering he isn’t some heliocentric player like Harden or Luka where the entire offense is run through him.

If your main contention is patience I can understand that, even if that notion isn’t great imo considering we’re paying him the max next season. If you’re contending Barnes can only play offense or defense (but not both) then that is a huge issue going forward (but I will admit maybe I am interpreting your post incorrectly).

My main contention is patience. He will not carry a team on offense but he will score at least 20 a game on better efficiency. I’m also not using his worst offensive stretch of his career to define him as what he will be for his whole career.

I never said anything about playing only defense or offense. I am saying he will always be a guy who balances both but do see him getting more efficient on offense.

Yes the numbers don’t show this right now.

I don't see the 20+ pts per game with how our depth is growing and adding BI.

I have used this term before, but I can see a bit of cannibalism on stats among our guys across the board because there is only 1 ball.

Adding BI...his pts are going to come from someone's touches. And reality is with our current top 5 guys, Barnes is the worst natural scorer. On the flipside, he also seems fine deferring pts if he is getting assists and making an impact on defense, and of course chipping in scoring wise. But he gets as much joy from a nice assist than from scoring and not everyone is like that. Compare that to if RJ was asked to do the same, it wouldn't make sense because RJ thinks as a scorer 1st and isn't good defensively.

We have a full starting 5 who can get 20+ on any given night, but that's not going to happen. We "should" be able to take advantage of mismatches and exploit them. And on any given night, that could be a different guy. And honestly if it means we are winning lots, who cares. I don't think D.Mitchell is upset his PPG has dropped by 4pts in 2 years as well as his attempts, as the team is winning mote. And he is a natural scorer.

Let Yak and Barnes be inside guys who get few plays run for them but are scoring options when other plays break down or when defenses adjust.

Win games and who cares if they are all 15-20 pt guys.

Oh...and trade Gradey for Lively.

[tsherkin]

My main contention is patience. He will not carry a team on offense but he will score at least 20 a game on better efficiency.

Again, though... based on what, other than raw hope? Literally nothing suggests that he will do that.

I’m also not using his worst offensive stretch of his career to define him as what he will be for his whole career.

Are you defining his first 4 seasons as "his worst offensive stretch of his career?" Because he's been pretty ass from the word 'go.'

[dballislife]

if hes on a great team with great players, i be happy with a efficient 18ppg with great defense in his prime...maybe push for 10 boards and 7 dimes instead of focusing so much on scoring which isn't his best thing

[tsherkin]

if hes on a great team with great players, i be happy with a efficient 18ppg with great defense in his prime...maybe push for 10 boards and 7 dimes instead of focusing so much on scoring which isn't his best thing

I don't think we'll see 10 boards, and 18 is still probably asking too much given his various deficiencies. But 15/8/7 with his defense is still a pretty strong contribution. And if he's finally able to reach league average efficiency in doing so, that would be an excellent player.

[PushDaRock]

He is, by way of his terrible efficiency absolutely taking too many shots. There are only 2 guys in the league with >25% usage and worse TS%. That’s 2 out of something like 50. His offensive play is not fine. 25% usage at 53 TS% is damaging to a team. Barnes probably couldn’t even scale his scoring if he wanted to based on how inefficient he already is. If he tried to scale up to 25ppg he’d probably be one of the least efficient volume scorers of all-time. He doesn’t have the repertoire to scale up his scoring.

Of course patience is warranted. We have no choice. If he doesn’t improve we are stuck with him because he’ll be a bad contract.

I’m sorry but I do not understand what your argument is outside of “wait it out”. I also don’t understand what point you are trying to make by saying Barnes “uses his energy on defense” as if that is some type of excuse for his terrible inefficiency. Are you saying that next year he’ll use more energy on offense but that will come at the cost of his defense? I don’t understand why he can’t do both considering he isn’t some heliocentric player like Harden or Luka where the entire offense is run through him.

If your main contention is patience I can understand that, even if that notion isn’t great imo considering we’re paying him the max next season. If you’re contending Barnes can only play offense or defense (but not both) then that is a huge issue going forward (but I will admit maybe I am interpreting your post incorrectly).

My main contention is patience. He will not carry a team on offense but he will score at least 20 a game on better efficiency. I’m also not using his worst offensive stretch of his career to define him as what he will be for his whole career.

I never said anything about playing only defense or offense. I am saying he will always be a guy who balances both but do see him getting more efficient on offense.

Yes the numbers don’t show this right now.

I don't see the 20+ pts per game with how our depth is growing and adding BI.

I have used this term before, but I can see a bit of cannibalism on stats among our guys across the board because there is only 1 ball.

Adding BI...his pts are going to come from someone's touches. And reality is with our current top 5 guys, Barnes is the worst natural scorer. On the flipside, he also seems fine deferring pts if he is getting assists and making an impact on defense, and of course chipping in scoring wise. But he gets as much joy from a nice assist than from scoring and not everyone is like that. Compare that to if RJ was asked to do the same, it wouldn't make sense because RJ thinks as a scorer 1st and isn't good defensively.

We have a full starting 5 who can get 20+ on any given night, but that's not going to happen. We "should" be able to take advantage of mismatches and exploit them. And on any given night, that could be a different guy. And honestly if it means we are winning lots, who cares. I don't think D.Mitchell is upset his PPG has dropped by 4pts in 2 years as well as his attempts, as the team is winning mote. And he is a natural scorer.

Let Yak and Barnes be inside guys who get few plays run for them but are scoring options when other plays break down or when defenses adjust.

Win games and who cares if they are all 15-20 pt guys.

Oh...and trade Gradey for Lively.

The role you are describing for him is basically Ben Simmons. It's probably trending that way where if he can get to a prime Ben Simmons level type impact on the floor, we are pretty happy.

[Tripod]

My main contention is patience. He will not carry a team on offense but he will score at least 20 a game on better efficiency. I’m also not using his worst offensive stretch of his career to define him as what he will be for his whole career.

I never said anything about playing only defense or offense. I am saying he will always be a guy who balances both but do see him getting more efficient on offense.

Yes the numbers don’t show this right now.

I don't see the 20+ pts per game with how our depth is growing and adding BI.

I have used this term before, but I can see a bit of cannibalism on stats among our guys across the board because there is only 1 ball.

Adding BI...his pts are going to come from someone's touches. And reality is with our current top 5 guys, Barnes is the worst natural scorer. On the flipside, he also seems fine deferring pts if he is getting assists and making an impact on defense, and of course chipping in scoring wise. But he gets as much joy from a nice assist than from scoring and not everyone is like that. Compare that to if RJ was asked to do the same, it wouldn't make sense because RJ thinks as a scorer 1st and isn't good defensively.

We have a full starting 5 who can get 20+ on any given night, but that's not going to happen. We "should" be able to take advantage of mismatches and exploit them. And on any given night, that could be a different guy. And honestly if it means we are winning lots, who cares. I don't think D.Mitchell is upset his PPG has dropped by 4pts in 2 years as well as his attempts, as the team is winning mote. And he is a natural scorer.

Let Yak and Barnes be inside guys who get few plays run for them but are scoring options when other plays break down or when defenses adjust.

Win games and who cares if they are all 15-20 pt guys.

Oh...and trade Gradey for Lively.

The role you are describing for him is basically Ben Simmons. It's probably trending that way where if he can get to a prime Ben Simmons level type impact on the floor, we are pretty happy.

Yeah Prime Simmons was an All Star, top 5 defensive player and was all NBA and finished top 12 on MVP voting.

And Barnes isn't afraid of getting fouled or taking a 3.

But my point was more that some of these guys counting stats might dip just due to better depth and adding a top scorer, but if we are winning lots, who cares.

I have used this example before, but vs Memphis Barbes had JJJ on him and struggled. Well adding BI means JJJ likely guards BI instead of Barnes so Barnes vs Wells is a much better matchup for him. Still have to execute, but the point remains. And with JJJ on BI, JJJ is likely out by the arc so if RJ drives, he doesn't have to worry about JJJ.

I am just looking forward to seeing all the pieces finally play together and see how things fit. And if we are winning lots, don't care if we don't have a 20 pt guy on our team.

[tsherkin]

The role you are describing for him is basically Ben Simmons. It's probably trending that way where if he can get to a prime Ben Simmons level type impact on the floor, we are pretty happy.

I'd be thrilled if Barnes could fill that role as well as Ben Simmons, but with willingness to shoot/take a foul. Simmons. An efficient 16/8/8 player with strong D is very valuable. Barnes has a long way to go, though, because Simmons was a 58-60% TS guy (and above league average at the time), and Scottie is very, very far from that. But if he could, that'd be an extremely valuable player. Simmons at the time was an AS for a reason.

[Tha Cynic]

I don't see the 20+ pts per game with how our depth is growing and adding BI.

I have used this term before, but I can see a bit of cannibalism on stats among our guys across the board because there is only 1 ball.

Adding BI...his pts are going to come from someone's touches. And reality is with our current top 5 guys, Barnes is the worst natural scorer. On the flipside, he also seems fine deferring pts if he is getting assists and making an impact on defense, and of course chipping in scoring wise. But he gets as much joy from a nice assist than from scoring and not everyone is like that. Compare that to if RJ was asked to do the same, it wouldn't make sense because RJ thinks as a scorer 1st and isn't good defensively.

We have a full starting 5 who can get 20+ on any given night, but that's not going to happen. We "should" be able to take advantage of mismatches and exploit them. And on any given night, that could be a different guy. And honestly if it means we are winning lots, who cares. I don't think D.Mitchell is upset his PPG has dropped by 4pts in 2 years as well as his attempts, as the team is winning mote. And he is a natural scorer.

Let Yak and Barnes be inside guys who get few plays run for them but are scoring options when other plays break down or when defenses adjust.

Win games and who cares if they are all 15-20 pt guys.

Oh...and trade Gradey for Lively.

The role you are describing for him is basically Ben Simmons. It's probably trending that way where if he can get to a prime Ben Simmons level type impact on the floor, we are pretty happy.

Yeah Prime Simmons was an All Star, top 5 defensive player and was all NBA and finished top 12 on MVP voting.

And Barnes isn't afraid of getting fouled or taking a 3.

But my point was more that some of these guys counting stats might dip just due to better depth and adding a top scorer, but if we are winning lots, who cares.

I have used this example before, but vs Memphis Barbes had JJJ on him and struggled. Well adding BI means JJJ likely guards BI instead of Barnes so Barnes vs Wells is a much better matchup for him. Still have to execute, but the point remains. And with JJJ on BI, JJJ is likely out by the arc so if RJ drives, he doesn't have to worry about JJJ.

I am just looking forward to seeing all the pieces finally play together and see how things fit. And if we are winning lots, don't care if we don't have a 20 pt guy on our team.

I don’t think we are scaling back Barnes to his rookie levels. I think it’s more likely one of our three offense only players in the starting lineup is traded for a defensive player who can shoot the 3. RJ is barely a plus player while having the best season of his career, so I expect he will be traded at some point. Barnes doesn’t take that many shots to begin with. He can stay at the same amount (16-17 fga) and work on his efficiency. Scaling back would mean we barely see him attempt to score, which makes no sense and would not make him an effective player.

[Los_29]

Scottie’s offense has to scale down next year because he’s so wildly inefficient and they will have better offensive weapons in BI, RJ and IQ. Potentially their lottery pick as well. If Scottie maintains this usage it’s actually bad for the team.

[tsherkin]

I don’t think we are scaling back Barnes to his rookie levels. I think it’s more likely one of our three offense only players in the starting lineup is traded for a defensive player who can shoot the 3.

It seems a mistake to keep making the same mistake and hoping for a different result.

RJ is barely a plus player while having the best season of his career, so I expect he will be traded at some point.

That said, this seems to be quite likely. Especially if RJ can't figure out how to hit his free throws. His seasonal efficiency is above his career average but still quite a bit below league average, and he's only had 2 full months at/above league-average. Which is very concerning.

Barnes doesn’t take that many shots to begin with. He can stay at the same amount (16-17 fga) and work on his efficiency.

Again, though, beyond blind hope at odds with his trend, skill set and physical tools, there isn't a lot to suggest that he's magically going to leap forward in efficiency. He wasn't efficient at lower volume, so the arrival of Ingram probably won't do much for him. He can't C+S well, he isn't an elite athlete and he is taking primarily wide open 3s to begin with (and blows from the corner), so those things won't improve with roster improvements. And at 16+ FGA/g, that's a lot of shots. We're actually better off peeling shots from Scottie and sending them to BI and Ingram, and then seeing what Gradey et al have going forward.

Now, the problem becomes (as you said in this post and I"ve said repeatedly) what happens to Scottie's value as he has less active scoring possessions, right? His passing is about the only meaningful component of his offensive value, so we may have to give some of that up in order to minimize the damage from his scoring, emphasizing his defense instead. But that playmaking will be at least in part covered by Ingram, who is at least as good in that regard as Scottie.

I don't think maintaining Scottie's offensive relevance is something we need to care about. He isn't a significant needle-mover. He's even less so if IQ is healthy and Ingram's playing. The main value that he was providing is that he was someone the D had any reason to care about at all and he was helping Barrett get off-ball. Decent dynamic with Poeltl. But that will be replaced by Ingram and if we have Quickley and BI and Barrett going, all of them are better scorers than Scottie, so the overall offensive environment should improve.

In an ideal world, we have Scottie running in transition. Sometimes grabbing a DRB and advancing the ball to leverage his passing, but mostly running so he can receive a pass and get transition looks. We try to get him screening and getting and getting ORBs for us and squeeze as many hustle-play points out of him as we can to maximize his efficiency, because we'll need what he does bring on O CONSIDERABLY less next season.

[youreachiteach]

Or he has more space and time to operate with better shooting and thus improves his efficiency. And no, Ingram passing is not on the same level as Scottie's. In fact, he will be the one to have to adapt to Darko's system unlike Scottie, for whom a system like this benefits his one useful skill.

[tsherkin]

Or he has more space and time to operate with better shooting and thus improves his efficiency.

But that's nonsense, because he shoots too poorly in volume when he has TONS of space. This is statistically evident. Spacing and defender distance are not Scottie's problem.

[Clutch0z24]

if hes on a great team with great players, i be happy with a efficient 18ppg with great defense in his prime...maybe push for 10 boards and 7 dimes instead of focusing so much on scoring which isn't his best thing

Yeah problem is hes getting paid like and treated like he is the franchise player number 1 option.....So if he is not performing like that there will be chatter about his game.....Hes a natural 2nd/3rd option.