Scottie isn't going to be a #1 option superstar in this league

[tsherkin]

But there is not even a need for that, we will need another max to compete, let's get a #1 and be happy that scottie will be happy. He will give you 20-8-8 in his sleep because I think he is elite at opportunistic scoring/assits.

Sure. He asked a specific question, though, so this isnt really salient to that, right?

If Scottie can put up 20 on league average efficiency while giving us 7 boards, 5 assists and quality D, that's a useful player, no doubt. But the question asked which I answered was about if he maximized his potential.

[Buff]

But there is not even a need for that, we will need another max to compete, let's get a #1 and be happy that scottie will be happy. He will give you 20-8-8 in his sleep because I think he is elite at opportunistic scoring/assits.

Sure. He asked a specific question, though, so this isnt really salient to that, right?

If Scottie can put up 20 on league average efficiency while giving us 7 boards, 5 assists and quality D, that's a useful player, no doubt. But the question asked which I answered was about if he maximized his potential.

Yeah, I didn't follow the whole thread... so, 20-7-5 2+ stocks is "useful" now? Used to be "superstar", or maybe that is only on other teams, lol. Like I said, can't have nice things.

[Dennis 37]

The best player and the number 1 option can be two different questions.

The best player might be the best scorer and the best rebounder, but not the best facilitator or defender. Or might be the best defender, the best facilitator, and only the second best rebounder and scorer. Or a different combination.

Will Scottie be the full package? Yes. Will he necessarily be the best scorer? Maybe not.

[Scase]

There is a collection of posters on this board who have been so incredibly annoying in running the Scotty is savior agenda.

They did so while putting down all our championship players. Probably the only chip us raptor fans will see in our lifetime. But we have to tolerate these forum clowns , unnamed, trash all our chip players while over-hyping a great player like scotty.

Why do random people who you don't know, on a message board, influence you to have so much hate towards a Raptor player? Especially for the one who is going to eventually become the next Michael Jordan.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using RealGM mobile app

10/10 response.

[AbC?]

Raw scoring, scoring at elite efficiency, advantage creation and the gravity that comes with being an elite scorer are all vastly more important than any other facet of basketball. That's what superstars, the best players in the game, the guys who win championships do best. Doncic, Giannis, Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Jokic, Durant level scorer are what you need to win. Tatum is probably the worst "best" player you can have to win a ring and he had a stacked, perfect roster around him. And he is still giving you 27 ppg on 60% TS.

Barnes is a great piece to have but that's what he is. Just a piece, not the guy and never will be the guy. I don't have a solution, it's near impossible to get those real #1s. We all witnessed Kawhi's one year in Toronto and the difference between a run of the mill all-star (Demar) and him.

[YogurtProducer]

Lol you Lowry fan boys ..please stop smoking whatever you are on man, lol. LOWRY was barely above average NBA player and only benefitted from having superstar Kawhi carry the team ... he was the star... Lowry carried no one on any team, at any time ... Franchise player?.. lol post that in the general board... they laugh you out of town.

Lol can we just ban people who are so obviously out of touch with reality?

Lowry in a 6'6", mega athletic frame like VC is easily a HOF player. Outside of being taller and more athletic what did VC do better than Lowry?

Lowry was a better shooter, better defender, better playmaker, better rebounder, better pretty much everything that was onyl held back because he was MAYBE 6 feet tall.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/raptors-lowry-voted-among-nbas-smartest-annual-gms-poll/

The real answer is probably somewhere in between. I think Lowry is somewhat overrated by Raps fans, underrated by everyone else. It does seem like he had a "superstar" impact, but I think we also know there was a ceiling for team success with Lowry as your best player.

However, I'm replying to this discussion in particular because there's really nothing dumber than "if player A was ________, he'd be an all-time great" arguments. If Lowry had VC's body and athleticism, he'd be some different player. Why do we stop at VC? Why not LeBron? How about KG's body? Or Wemby? Can we give him Steph Curry's shot while we're at it?

In the meantime, what does VC's body get out of this? Can we give him Michael Jordan's brain instead? What are we doing here?

Kyle Lowry was Kyle Lowry. He doesn't get bonus points for being 6 feet tall instead of 6'6". What if he just became a gunner due to being able to move in different ways? He certainly had that in him. His body type forced him to play a certain way, and he was extremely effective and successful by playing that way. If you think he is top 10 all-time in basketball IQ, just say that.

Seems pretty simple to me. Lowry was a 6 foot guy who was not overly athletic, who still is a borderline HOFe. He probably would be a better player if he had the body and athletic ability of one of the most athletic players of all time ASSUMING he still had the same IQ, skills, and traits of his 6 foot self. Its a stupid conversation to have, but the post I am replying to said "LOWRY was barely above average NBA player and only benefitted from having superstar Kawhi carry the team". How you took more issue from my reply than that travesty of a post is confusing

But also, what was the ceiling for team success as Lowry as your best player? At the peak we won 2 games in the ECF. That is not really something that should be used against Lowry. That is an accomplishment that what? Like a dozen guys in the last decade can claim?

Since 2015 (last 10 years) - #1 options to win at least 2 ECF/WCF games
Tatum, Luka, Butler, Jokic, Curry, Booker, Kawhi, Trae, Giannis, LBJ, Harden, Durant, Lowry.

Arguably, Lowry had the worst #2 of any of those teams outside of the Butler Heat and Trae Hawks.

[tecumseh18]

I hate to even acknowledge Kingsway's existence, let alone his invariably stupid takes. But when other people quote him, I have to respond.

Raptors had the second best winning percentage in the league three seasons in a row, between 2017 and 2020. Before Kawhi, after Kawhi and during Kawhi (and even then were 17-5 without Kawhi in the lineup). In all three of those seasons, they went 6-0 against the best teams in the West (respectively Rockets, Warriors and Lakers) in their season series,

DeMar (and Casey) left in 2018. Kawhi in 2019. So who was the common denominator in all three of those contending Raptors teams?

[tsherkin]

Raw scoring, scoring at elite efficiency, advantage creation and the gravity that comes with being an elite scorer are all vastly more important than any other facet of basketball. That's what superstars, the best players in the game, the guys who win championships do best. Doncic, Giannis, Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Jokic, Durant level scorer are what you need to win. Tatum is probably the worst "best" player you can have to win a ring and he had a stacked, perfect roster around him. And he is still giving you 27 ppg on 60% TS.

Barnes is a great piece to have but that's what he is. Just a piece, not the guy and never will be the guy. I don't have a solution, it's near impossible to get those real #1s. We all witnessed Kawhi's one year in Toronto and the difference between a run of the mill all-star (Demar) and him.

Yeah, I mean it's really hard to load up dollars on a guy who is very versatile but can't anchor your offense. You'll invariably need that scorer, and he costs. And then complementary pieces also cost, so if you're looking to heavily invest in a guy, you want it to be That Guy. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the usual path. Ultimately, I don't think we're going to be in real contention any time soon, though, and we've seen that you can have guys a couple tiers down and still be competitive for long stretches. If we had another 5- to 7-year stretch of second round exits, I wouldn't be unhappy about it. But we still need to add talent to get there and Scottie does still need to become a league-average-efficiency kind of scorer.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, I didn't follow the whole thread... so, 20-7-5 2+ stocks is "useful" now? Used to be "superstar", or maybe that is only on other teams, lol. Like I said, can't have nice things.

No, that isn't a superstar. It never has been. Conflating box score production with superstardom has always been a fool's game. It's remarkably difficult to be a superstar when you're only a 20 pp scorer, and that much harder when you're actually a GOOD 20 ppg scorer. Also, it's worth noting that box score averages now look more like they did in the 80s, the last time we saw paces like this. 20 ppg and 5 apg is nice without context, but it's also quite achievable from guys who aren't actually high-end offensive players.

In the 80s, for example, Walter Davis, Larry Drew, Alex English, World B Free, Sidney Moncrief, Chris Mullin, Michael Ray Richardson, Reggie Theus, Isiah Thomas, Paul Westphal and Gus Williams all had those kind of seasons. And some of them were good scorers, and some of them weren't. Some of them did it routinely, others only once.

In the 90s, Michael Adams, Dana Barros, Jeff Hornacek, Mitch Richmond, Latrell Sprewell and Damon Stoudamire were among the guys to put out seasons like that. Only a clown would suggest they were superstars.

I understand you're adding his defensive contributions and rebounds to the equation and that not all of those guys had such things and that's reasonable, but a superstar carries a franchise. That means you're an offensive anchor, which Scottie isn't. In some rare cases, it means you're a defensive anchor on an ensemble team, like Ben Wallace. But Scottie also isn't that. He doesn't exert enough impact at either end of the court (or in sum) to have anyone saying anything about superstardom with respect to his game. It just doesn't make any sense. It's the comment of someone who wants it really badly but doesn't have it. That, while I can understand, isn't really a legitimate stance when describing the reality of a player.


Scottie's a solid player right now because he brings the boards, the D and he's a pretty good playmaker, but he's a problem as far as his scoring. He isn't good at it, certainly not good enough for volume possessions to be run through him on a quality offensive team. That's an issue. And that's not what a superstar player looks like, nor has that ever been even adjacent to the definition of superstar.

[Buff]

Yeah, I didn't follow the whole thread... so, 20-7-5 2+ stocks is "useful" now? Used to be "superstar", or maybe that is only on other teams, lol. Like I said, can't have nice things.

No, that isn't a superstar. It never has been. Conflating box score production with superstardom has always been a fool's game. It's remarkably difficult to be a superstar when you're only a 20 pp scorer, and that much harder when you're actually a GOOD 20 ppg scorer. Also, it's worth noting that box score averages now look more like they did in the 80s, the last time we saw paces like this. 20 ppg and 5 apg is nice without context, but it's also quite achievable from guys who aren't actually high-end offensive players.

In the 80s, for example, Walter Davis, Larry Drew, Alex English, World B Free, Sidney Moncrief, Chris Mullin, Michael Ray Richardson, Reggie Theus, Isiah Thomas, Paul Westphal and Gus Williams all had those kind of seasons. And some of them were good scorers, and some of them weren't. Some of them did it routinely, others only once.

In the 90s, Michael Adams, Dana Barros, Jeff Hornacek, Mitch Richmond, Latrell Sprewell and Damon Stoudamire were among the guys to put out seasons like that. Only a clown would suggest they were superstars.

I understand you're adding his defensive contributions and rebounds to the equation and that not all of those guys had such things and that's reasonable, but a superstar carries a franchise. That means you're an offensive anchor, which Scottie isn't. In some rare cases, it means you're a defensive anchor on an ensemble team, like Ben Wallace. But Scottie also isn't that. He doesn't exert enough impact at either end of the court (or in sum) to have anyone saying anything about superstardom with respect to his game. It just doesn't make any sense. It's the comment of someone who wants it really badly but doesn't have it. That, while I can understand, isn't really a legitimate stance when describing the reality of a player.


Scottie's a solid player right now because he brings the boards, the D and he's a pretty good playmaker, but he's a problem as far as his scoring. He isn't good at it, certainly not good enough for volume possessions to be run through him on a quality offensive team. That's an issue. And that's not what a superstar player looks like, nor has that ever been even adjacent to the definition of superstar.

ohhhh, did you just call me a clown? is everyhing ok in your life there buddy? Fine... call him a "star" and realize that that jump is way less significant than from "useful" to what Scottie provides.

I had forgotten how angry people get in here.

[tsherkin]

[
ohhhh, did you just call me a clown?

No, I did not. I said that about a specific opinion which you did not espouse, about players which you did not mention.

I do not think you are a clown. I think you have a very different definition of superstar than I do and I was using a list of players you would never call superstars to illustrate the point.

[anotherhomer]

Raw scoring, scoring at elite efficiency, advantage creation and the gravity that comes with being an elite scorer are all vastly more important than any other facet of basketball. That's what superstars, the best players in the game, the guys who win championships do best. Doncic, Giannis, Kawhi, Lebron, Curry, Jokic, Durant level scorer are what you need to win. Tatum is probably the worst "best" player you can have to win a ring and he had a stacked, perfect roster around him. And he is still giving you 27 ppg on 60% TS.

Barnes is a great piece to have but that's what he is. Just a piece, not the guy and never will be the guy. I don't have a solution, it's near impossible to get those real #1s. We all witnessed Kawhi's one year in Toronto and the difference between a run of the mill all-star (Demar) and him.

Yeah, I mean it's really hard to load up dollars on a guy who is very versatile but can't anchor your offense. You'll invariably need that scorer, and he costs. And then complementary pieces also cost, so if you're looking to heavily invest in a guy, you want it to be That Guy. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's the usual path. Ultimately, I don't think we're going to be in real contention any time soon, though, and we've seen that you can have guys a couple tiers down and still be competitive for long stretches. If we had another 5- to 7-year stretch of second round exits, I wouldn't be unhappy about it. But we still need to add talent to get there and Scottie does still need to become a league-average-efficiency kind of scorer.

i have to agree...that's why Ujiri was willing to give up a haul for an aging Damian Lillard

[Clay Davis]

Ya but I think there's a difference between being a quality scorer and being a closer. Giannis, for instance, was a quality scorer but Khris Middleton was the closer. Different rizz.

Depends on the style, I guess. Giannis had some big games. HE was 't the end-of-clock guy, sure, but he was all they needed in terms of a focal scorer. Anyway, the question is sort of an odd one to me. If Scottie maximizes his potential, that means he's added a proper jumper from all ranges and a dribble game, right? Like, maximizing all his potential skills.

Any player who reaches their maximum potential is going to be at a level where they could lead a title team, in essence, so to me, that question doesn't have enough restriction on it to have meaning. Does that make sense? Like, Scottie isn't dumb. And he isn't unathletic. He isn't an elite athlete, but let's be real, we've seen dudes without big burst play the change-of-pace game and wield a strong jumper and handle just fine. And Barnes is 6'8 with a power frame, so he's got some tools to work with. When he turns his body to guard the ball, he can get things done. If he decided he wanted to just live at the elbow, he'd do quite well there if he could hit the J from that range, especially with a little Dirk fade. So he could potentially be quite dangerous.

But yeah, think of 2011 Dirk. He didn't have lift. He didn't have great burst anymore. He authored the slowest spin move in the history of all creation against Bosh in Game 2 of the Finals to get the go-ahead bucket. So it can be done. Dirk is 7 feet, of course, but even still. So yeah, with full potential realized, Scottie would be fine as a focal guy. But because he lacks elite athleticism and doesn't have the shot right now and all that, what it would take to get there is a larger mountain to climb, I guess. But he'd be pretty nasty if he maxed out.

OK this is a problem of semantics lol but by "reach his potential" I essentially just meant materialized into the projection that people say is the most realistic trajectory for how his rizz will develop: a very, very good glue-guy.

[tsherkin]

OK this is a problem of semantics lol but by "reach his potential" I essentially just meant materialized into the projection that people say is the most realistic trajectory for how his rizz will develop: a very, very good glue-guy.

Oh, I see.

If that's the case, no way on God's green earth does he lead a title team, no.

[Buff]

[
ohhhh, did you just call me a clown?

No, I did not. I said that about a specific opinion which you did not espouse, about players which you did not mention.

I do not think you are a clown. I think you have a very different definition of superstar than I do and I was using a list of players you would never call superstars to illustrate the point.

Cool then.

I'd play a little bit,
Westbrook has been widely considered a superstar,
Kawhai himself is a career 20/6/3 with 2.4 stocks, but superstar by defense.
Tatum is 23-7-3.5 less than 2 stocks...

Are those 3 points really that significant with the downgrade in defense? I think the labeling of superstar is somehow fickle.
You made the point that stars carry teams to which I disagree, stars carry teams with *other* stars. Leave Kobe without a second star and it was lottery land or Curry without Klay and Durant. I think these 2 guys are superstars, not sure...

In any case, just scratch superstar y pretend I said "star". Scottie is definitively a star, no?

[tsherkin]

[
Westbrook has been widely considered a superstar,

True. And his weakness is that he's an ass scorer with no range to speak of. But he was also one of the best shot creators in league history, as far as creating for his teammates. He'd be a loose inclusion as a superstar, and it almost certainly be restricted to 2017 and maybe a couple of seasons near that, because his impact profile wasn't really first-tier otherwise.

Kawhai himself is a career 20/6/3 with 2.4 stocks, but superstar by defense.

Sure, but he also wasn't a superstar his whole career. He has, like, a 5-season window from 2017-2021 maybe where that's the case. And he's been too limited otherwise. Plus, he has never been a high-end creator for others. And his D fell off some as his scoring load increased, as is normal. What he does happen to be is dramatically superior to Scottie as a scorer, and that makes a difference. He's also a good perimeter rebounder and defender.

Tatum is 23-7-3.5 less than 2 stocks...

Again, career numbers. No one is calling Tatum a superstar for those early seasons. So these career averages are all irrelevant. And even then, Tatum isn't really a superstar. He's a first option who has trouble when his 3pt shot falls off, and is otherwise a very versatile player. But he IS a +2% rTS RS scorer, or thereabouts.

Are those 3 points really that significant with the downgrade in defense? I think the labeling of superstar is somehow fickle.
You made the point that stars carry teams to which I disagree, stars carry teams with *other* stars. Leave Kobe without a second star and it was lottery land or Curry without Klay and Durant. I think these 2 guys are superstars, not sure...

Depends on what you're expecting them to carry the team to. You need a proper team for a title, for sure. A superstar will be generally capable of carrying you to 50+ wins without much around him, though.

In any case, just scratch superstar y pretend I said "star". Scottie is definitively a star, no?

He's a borderline inclusion as an AS to me, though. He shoots a lot at an inefficient rate, so he scores a lot. He shouldn't be shooting this much, so that scoring volume doesn't mean a lot to me at all. It's replaceable stuff. His rebounding and playmaking and defense are nice, but his overall impact profile isn't super impressive at the moment, no. The potential is there, but he isn't that at the moment, You focus a lot on his box score production, but like, there's an ocean of difference between him and real stars for the most part. Leastwise any kind of semi-perennial star instead of your injury replacement or one-off types.

[Buff]

He's a borderline inclusion as an AS to me, though. He shoots a lot at an inefficient rate, so he scores a lot. He shouldn't be shooting this much, so that scoring volume doesn't mean a lot to me at all. It's replaceable stuff. His rebounding and playmaking and defense are nice, but his overall impact profile isn't super impressive at the moment, no. The potential is there, but he isn't that at the moment, You focus a lot on his box score production, but like, there's an ocean of difference between him and real stars for the most part. Leastwise any kind of semi-perennial star instead of your injury replacement or one-off types.

Look, I wasn't even making the case for superstadom. The case I was making is that you will need a second star and it is pretty clear that even the supernovas need *at least* another top guy. If that other top guy we get Scottie is a scorer then that team can win a championship no doubt in my mind.

The AS stuff I think is weak, Bosh made it 20 million times in a row and could you ell me in all honesty you rather have Bosh than Scottie? If we are winning, Scottie is perennial AS no question asked.

Edit: Thinking about Westbrook, can you remember a nightly threat of triple double not being considered a superstar? It is so damn rare.

[hype_2004]

When we start winning and he's putting up 22+/10+/8+ consistently then he will be considered a superstar, it's all about team success.

[tsherkin]

Look, I wasn't even making the case for superstadom. The case I was making is that you will need a second star and it is pretty clear that even the supernovas need *at least* another top guy. If that other top guy we get Scottie is a scorer then that team can win a championship no doubt in my mind.

A team need two at least, for sure. Scottie? If he doesn't improve as a scorer, I don't think he can count. Then he's more like a third guy. Scoring matters a lot. And it's not a cheap thing to acquire a good scorer.

The AS stuff I think is weak, Bosh made it 20 million times in a row and could you ell me in all honesty you rather have Bosh than Scottie? If we are winning, Scottie is perennial AS no question asked.

Bosh was a considerably better scorer and a better rebounder. Yes, he was a lot better than Scottie is at the moment.

Edit: Thinking about Westbrook, can you remember a nightly threat of triple double not being considered a superstar? It is so damn rare.

Rare, yes. And at his peak, he was good enough that it didn't matter until they were playing a good defense. Westbrook's problems extend from being both an idiot and totally lacking in any kind of quality ability to finish shots. But he was such an overpowering athlete that he could just smash north-south and hit shooters and cutters and it worked out exceedingly well most of the time. But he had very obvious and exploitable weaknesses.

[Buff]

A team need two at least, for sure. Scottie? If he doesn't improve as a scorer, I don't think he can count. Then he's more like a third guy. Scoring matters a lot. And it's not a cheap thing to acquire a good scorer.

We need to get one no matter what (need 2). Other than that, agree to disagree. I do believe in Scottie particularly because he's got a major leap in maturity coming to him. And I have seen the most dominant stretches practically EVER on some Scotties games. Where he literally becomes unstoppable.

Bosh was a considerably better scorer and a better rebounder. Yes, he was a lot better than Scottie is at the moment.

Toronto's Bosh? I'm sorry, that man was a playoff b***tch that would only take contested elbow jumpers. Let alone play no defense. This is a hard disagree for me.

Rare, yes. And at his peak, he was good enough that it didn't matter until they were playing a good defense. Westbrook's problems extend from being both an idiot and totally lacking in any kind of quality ability to finish shots. But he was such an overpowering athlete that he could just smash north-south and hit shooters and cutters and it worked out exceedingly well most of the time. But he had very obvious and exploitable weaknesses.

Westbrook have never taking anyone anywhere not even as #3. I'll take prime Scottie over prime Westbrook anytime. That's another no defense stat padding guy. Scottie for me.