SGA vs Garland

[yoyoboy]

Ranked 2 spots apart in ESPN's top 100 at 46 and 48 (arguably too low for both). SGA is 24 years old while Garland is 22 years old. Who's better right now and who are you taking going forward, and why?

[yoyoboy]

I’m obviously biased but I’m taking Garland simply because I think he’s already demonstrated ability to be the engine of a very good team (when the Cavs were healthy) and a leader at two years younger. It’s far easier to see him fitting into a more team-oriented construct of a contender where he’s not the best player on the team, due to his off-ball ability, while SGA wouldn’t have nearly the same impact in such a role imo. Defensively, despite SGA’s vastly superior tools, I honestly don’t think he’s demonstrated more than Garland thus far. Plus-minus metrics have never painted Garland as that bad of a defender and he’s actually a decent positive by three-year RAPM. While it’s likely he’s being inflated there, it’s hard to make the case that he’s a legitimately bad defender when the analytics point to the complete opposite. And Garland is just an awesome playmaker, especially in regards to his interior passing, and I think he makes his teammates better/causes them to have fun playing with him to a degree SGA doesn’t. Finally, Garland has just improved so much each season and he’s two years younger, so I’m willing to bet more on him fulfilling all of his potential than I am with Shai. In particular, I think he really hasn’t shown just how good of a shooter he’ll be in his prime yet. His FT% and his 3P% for his age, specifically considering how most of his threes are self-created and came in an offense with little spacing and little creation among the other four in the starting lineup, make me really believe that he could be the most lethal shooter of the post-Curry era.

I understand the points in SGA's favor. He's 6'6 with a 6'11 wingspan, so that automatically gives him more potential defensively, though he hasn't manifested that yet. He's demonstrated that he's unquestionably an elite scorer in this league. 24 ppg on 58% TS in the past 2 seasons (91 games) off a diet of mostly self-created looks and while handily leading the league in drives per game the past 2 years is very impressive. Finally, it's entirely possible we haven't seen him at his best playing on a tanking OKC roster with little talent. Perhaps he'd exhibit more defensive energy on a team making an effort to win games. Maybe we haven't seen how much he could thrive in a lower usage role, as he's sort of had to slot into that position based on the absence of talent around him. However, I think that can go both ways. I think it's partially concerning that SGA hasn't shown more ability to provide lift to such a bad roster, with relatively uninspiring plus-minus numbers. And I think his game actually lends itself more to being a primary creator while I'm not entirely sure he's ideal in the role of a #1 on a contender.

19-22 RAPM:
Garland: +2.34
SGA: +1.01

19-22 Luck-Adjusted RAPM:
Garland: +0.63
SGA: +0.93

21-22 RAPM:
Garland: +3.39
SGA: -0.12

21-22 Luck-Adjusted RAPM:
Garland: +1.68
SGA: +0.98

21-22 LEBRON:
Garland: +2.47
SGA: +2.50

21-22 EPM:
Garland: +4.0
SGA: +2.7

21-22 DRIP:
Garland: +1.4
SGA: +2.2

21-22 DARKO:
Garland: +1.9
SGA: +1.4

SGA has prettier box score production, but Garland's advanced metrics, especially once you account for his age advantage and the fact that he has worse priors weighing him down, are more inspiring. When you delve more into specific talent indicators, SGA has some real stand out abilities in terms of his sheer ability to break down a defense and score, which is obviously very valuable in playoff situations. His size will always be something that matters in terms of projecting potential. But I guess I just really believe in DG being a guy who contributes heavily to winning games for an elite team in his prime. I think he's the smarter player who's going to play the right way and improve the facets of his game that facilitate team success. To me, it says a lot that he seems to have the reputation across the league as someone who's your favorite star's favorite young player, so to speak. Steph, Draymond, LeBron, CP3, and so many other have gone out of their way to speak about how much they like Garland. I also think as #2s, Garland is clearly the kind of guy you would want, being a naturally unselfish guy who shows great off-the-ball ability and has more portable skills as his usage scales down. So with all of that in mind, I would lean Garland going forward. I know though, most hardcore basketball fans are extremely high on SGA and I can't blame them, so I'm looking forward to hearing other opinions.

[Colbinii]

SGA has a higher ceiling as a player due to his combination of size and skill-set.

I prefer Garland currently and have his realistic outcome [what I assume he will become] to be better than what I predict SGA will become.

[Cavsfansince84]

SGA might be better as your best player but I think Garland scales better if you want to contend.

[Jaivl]

Ranked 2 spots apart in ESPN's top 100 at 46 and 48 (arguably too low for both). SGA is 24 years old while Garland is 22 years old. Who's better right now and who are you taking going forward, and why?

Arguably?? That's borderline slander lol.

[70sFan]

I think they are similar level, but I like watching SGA so much more... which isn't to say that Garland isn't fun to watch.