Official Scottie All Star Barnes Thread 9

[mdenny]

We need some new Raptors news because we are regurgitating the same info every few weeks...lol

We need some footage of Scottie doing drills with his highschool trainer.

Don't look at his IG story from yesterday, he's back with that same trainer in the gym, along with his highschool buddies.

Good to know. So scotty is still training with the same guy that the Raptors were displeased with 2 summers ago.

I guess 40 million per year doesn't go a long way.

[mdenny]

Yes, and there are different types of elite players.

Guys like Anthony Davis, Embiid, Jaren Jackson Jr., Giannis etc. are elite players but they are not iso closers or guys you can consistently rely on as scorers in 4th quarters.

Scottie is 23 - he's already a 20, 8 and 6 player on average efficiency which is impressive and in rare company. Can he became a 23, 9 and 7 player on above average efficiency and improve his mid-range game and 3 point shooting? Because if he does that he goes from arguably a top 30 player to a top 10 player.

There are elite iso scorers in the NBA like Durant, Steph, Lillard, Luka, Brunson, Haliburton, Booker etc. but not all of these players are the same level of impact player like others.

AD averages 24ppg on 59% TS% across his career, with peaks of 26-28ppg on 58-61% TS%. While being a DPOY level defender.
Embiid averages 28ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 30-35ppg on 61.5-65.5% TS%.
Giannis averages 24ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 28-30ppg on 60-65% TS%. While being a DPOY defender.
JJJ is the closest comparison, and even he exceeds Scottie by a long shot, averaging more ppg, on much better TS% AND being a DPOY player.

No one is complaining about Scottie not being a bucket as an ISO scorer in the 4th Q, the complaints are that he can't even manage LEAGUE AVERAGE efficiency. Go look at the players you gave as examples, he isn't anywhere close to 3 of them, and the 4th still was outshining him at the same age.

I don't know what you've seen to date that makes you think he can magically improve his 3 for no reason, but I don't see it.

I don't think that's the best group of players for Scottie comps, but even then the gap isn't as wide as you're making it seem.

Over their first four seasons:

AD | 20.8 PPG | 9.7 RPG | 1.7 APG | 57.4% TS
Embiid| 23.9 PPG | 11.5 RPG | 3.1 APG | 58.5% TS
Giannis | 14.9 PPG | 6.9 RPG | 3.6 APG | 56.9% TS
JJJ | 15.8 PPG | 5.1 RPG | 1.2 APG | 56.6% TS
Scottie | 17.2 PPG | 7.5 RPG | 5.0 APG | 54.1% TS.

Scottie's not a perfect player and of course the efficiency needs to improve, but I don't see the point in acting like he's finished with development. Every single one of those players above (and the vast majority of players who get rookie max extensions) improved their volume and efficiency as they enter their prime. Why is it unreasonable to project the same for Scottie?

This is perhaps the worst stat technique of all time.

The one where you could literally take EVERY 3rd amd 4th year player and say "hey...at that time they weren't so much different from a very finely selective group of previous players who took uniprecedented leaps and became hall of famers".

The trick is that you could take ANY ROTATIONAL PROSPECT and say the same thing.

[Tripod]

It is certainly true that we should return to speaking of Scottie, and let go of whatever this is about FVV.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot to say about Scottie at the moment which hasn't already been said, which doesn't leave a lot of inspiration for new discussion around Barnes. We've all heard the positions from both sides, and now we just have to wait and see how the season goes... which, unfortunately, is months and months away.

But there are at least a bunch of environmental changes coming and some opportunities to make his life easier, so there's some hope there for us to cling to in the meantime. We could use some positivity in this moment, I suppose. We're not even in the real off-season for the league as a whole, as the playoffs are still ongoing, but it feels like we are in the dog days of summer already, hehe.

Players like Fred and Pascal had proven themselves as being worthy of optimism regarding their ability to play winning basketball by their second and third seasons.

Scotty has literally provided zero evidence that he is worthy of such optimism. Amd he's going into his 5th season.

Yet he is still way more hyped than any other prospect in raptor history lol.

Because it's a cult.

4 seasons in for all 3 players.....scotty's BEST performance would not rank in the top 10 performances of either fred or pascal.

Spews the FVV cult leader.

[tsherkin]

We can point to the 30 game hot streak that inflated the numbers and then another 30 games which tanked his percentages, but overall 60 games isn't an insignificant sample size when the numbers are averaged out.

I'm inclined to disagree with that.

Players like Fred and Pascal had proven themselves as being worthy of optimism regarding their ability to play winning basketball by their second and third seasons.

Fred was an 11/5 player who couldn't hit anything but 3s in his 3rd season; I don't know that this is a fine example. Siakam was MIP by that point.

But yeah, Fred slow-burned, because he was short, not staggeringly athletic and very, very weak outside of his 3pt shooting. He had other skills, but like, he's a fairly particular kind of player. He was -0.0 O-EPM, a 64-game guy who played less than 28 mpg, primarily off the bench. He was spacing and some decent passing. He was also playing behind Lowry. Then, he was injured for a couple seasons but had more responsibility and began slowly working himself into more useful form.

Scottie, for his part, DOES play winning basketball when we don't ask him to shoot too much. He just does not primarily do that via his scoring. He's a strong defender and rebounder who passes well. Overfocusing on scoring is what frequently brings us to extremes about Scottie, like "ZOMG HE'S GONNA BE AMAZING" and "Scotty has literally provided zero evidence that he is worthy of such optimism."

Both are equally inaccurate platforms.

[PushDaRock]

We can point to the 30 game hot streak that inflated the numbers and then another 30 games which tanked his percentages, but overall 60 games isn't an insignificant sample size when the numbers are averaged out.

I'm inclined to disagree with that.

Players like Fred and Pascal had proven themselves as being worthy of optimism regarding their ability to play winning basketball by their second and third seasons.

Fred was an 11/5 player who couldn't hit anything but 3s in his 3rd season; I don't know that this is a fine example. Siakam was MIP by that point.

But yeah, Fred slow-burned, because he was short, not staggeringly athletic and very, very weak outside of his 3pt shooting. He had other skills, but like, he's a fairly particular kind of player. He was -0.0 O-EPM, a 64-game guy who played less than 28 mpg, primarily off the bench. He was spacing and some decent passing. He was also playing behind Lowry. Then, he was injured for a couple seasons but had more responsibility and began slowly working himself into more useful form.

Scottie, for his part, DOES play winning basketball when we don't ask him to shoot too much. He just does not primarily do that via his scoring. He's a strong defender and rebounder who passes well. Overfocusing on scoring is what frequently brings us to extremes about Scottie, like "ZOMG HE'S GONNA BE AMAZING" and "Scotty has literally provided zero evidence that he is worthy of such optimism."

Both are equally inaccurate platforms.

College players are getting drafted over 30 game sample sizes which is half of that. Legacies are being created over the same time length (playoffs).

DeMar has 63 playoff games and is known as one of the greatest playoff chokers of all-time, are we saying that's not enough of a sample size to make that statement?

[tsherkin]

College players are getting drafted over 30 game sample sizes which is half of that. Legacies are being created over the same time length (playoffs).

And?

People overreact to both single college seasons and playoffs all the time. The draft has never been more volatile than it is now that we see primarily one-and-done players.

DeMar has 63 playoff games and is known as one of the greatest playoff chokers of all-time, are we saying that's not enough of a sample size to make that statement?

That is his postseason career at this point. A lot of first round exits and only three extended runs. He choked pretty badly. Within the bounds of his actual skill set and tools, it made sense. Were he younger, it's possible we could see improvement, but that's also a little different than discussing a shooting streak, because it relates to things which were happening in the RS as well. He struggled against good defenses, and at slower tempos. And it wasn't very challenging for a defense to get him bombing long twos, since those were, by volume, his bread and butter anyway. Not really the same thing.

[PushDaRock]

College players are getting drafted over 30 game sample sizes which is half of that. Legacies are being created over the same time length (playoffs).

And?

People overreact to both single college seasons and playoffs all the time. The draft has never been more volatile than it is now that we see primarily one-and-done players.

DeMar has 63 playoff games and is known as one of the greatest playoff chokers of all-time, are we saying that's not enough of a sample size to make that statement?

That is his postseason career at this point. A lot of first round exits and only three extended runs. He choked pretty badly. Within the bounds of his actual skill set and tools, it made sense. Were he younger, it's possible we could see improvement, but that's also a little different than discussing a shooting streak, because it relates to things which were happening in the RS as well. He struggled against good defenses, and at slower tempos. And it wasn't very challenging for a defense to get him bombing long twos, since those were, by volume, his bread and butter anyway. Not really the same thing.

The point I am making is you have major decisions and outcomes decided on far smaller sample sizes so I don't agree with 60 games being meaningless and insignificant as a sample size. It is massive? No, but it's certainly enough games to get some reasonably informed opinions on how a future projection looks.

[tsherkin]

The point I am making is you have major decisions and outcomes decided on far smaller sample sizes so I don't agree with 60 games being meaningless and insignificant as a sample size.

And my counterpoint is that making decisions off of those samples is often a very poor choice, given their volatility, so I don't particularly care.

You can get some information from it, sure. But in this case, it's actually 30 games, not even 60, so it's far, far worse and less useful.

[mdenny]

We can point to the 30 game hot streak that inflated the numbers and then another 30 games which tanked his percentages, but overall 60 games isn't an insignificant sample size when the numbers are averaged out.

I'm inclined to disagree with that.

Players like Fred and Pascal had proven themselves as being worthy of optimism regarding their ability to play winning basketball by their second and third seasons.

Fred was an 11/5 player who couldn't hit anything but 3s in his 3rd season; I don't know that this is a fine example. Siakam was MIP by that point.

But yeah, Fred slow-burned, because he was short, not staggeringly athletic and very, very weak outside of his 3pt shooting. He had other skills, but like, he's a fairly particular kind of player. He was -0.0 O-EPM, a 64-game guy who played less than 28 mpg, primarily off the bench. He was spacing and some decent passing. He was also playing behind Lowry. Then, he was injured for a couple seasons but had more responsibility and began slowly working himself into more useful form.

Scottie, for his part, DOES play winning basketball when we don't ask him to shoot too much. He just does not primarily do that via his scoring. He's a strong defender and rebounder who passes well. Overfocusing on scoring is what frequently brings us to extremes about Scottie, like "ZOMG HE'S GONNA BE AMAZING" and "Scotty has literally provided zero evidence that he is worthy of such optimism."

Both are equally inaccurate platforms.

Bro...scottie has never won anything.

Take a gander at Fred's real plus/minus. Second season to his sixth season. He was a beast of winning basketball. The bench mob was building 10 point leads on a regular basis.

Go even look at Fred's real plus minus in Houston.

The one constant in his entire career.....when he is on the floor, his team scores more points than the opposition. To a staggering degree in every season of his whole career.

Scottie somehow found a way to be very very underwhelming in his real plus/minus through his first four seasons.

If someone can find the stat....I bet Fred is in the top 30 currenr players of career REAL plus minus.

[PushDaRock]

The point I am making is you have major decisions and outcomes decided on far smaller sample sizes so I don't agree with 60 games being meaningless and insignificant as a sample size.

And my counterpoint is that making decisions off of those samples is often a very poor choice, given their volatility, so I don't particularly care.

You can get some information from it, sure. But in this case, it's actually 30 games, not even 60, so it's far, far worse and less useful.

Do you have a choice? You don't get to see players play hundreds of games in high pressure situations to get an entirely accurate gauge for how they perform under those conditions before you draft them or give them a Max Contract.

[tsherkin]

Do you have a choice? You don't get to see players play hundreds of games in high pressure situations to get an entirely accurate gauge for how they perform under those conditions before you draft them or give them a Max Contract.

With the draft? No, but like I said, that's a large part of why the draft is considerably more volatile than it was in decades past. The sample is horridly insufficient.

Bro...scottie has never won anything.

Take a gander at Fred's real plus/minus. Second season to his sixth season. He was a beast of winning basketball. The bench mob was building 10 point leads on a regular basis.

Go even look at Fred's real plus minus in Houston.

His O-EPM is fairly underwhelming until his 4th season. Likewise basically all of his other measures. His shot was useful, and he's been a smart playmaker basically his whole career; non-elite, but still sensible. He's a good player; not one to wildly overvalue, though.

[ConSarnit]

He didn't have a hot shooting month at all this year, so are we expecting a hot shooting month or 2 going forward or will this be the new trend that he just chucks up bricks every month?

Technically, he shot over 35% from 3 in April. It was, of course, only 5 games, but it was there.

The point is we only see last year's shooting as more of a fluke because we now have the benefit of hindsight.

Speak for yourself; I was saying it the whole time and have been saying it the entire time since.

Before this season happened, there was more reason for optimism that he had actually improved his shooting rather than it being a hot streak and that he could actually develop into a decent 3 point shooter.

For some, sure. Was not my stance, remains not my stance.

Sure, if you want to consider that 5 game sample size at 35% a hot streak, have at it.

21/22 0.8 makes on 30.1%
22/23 0.8 makes on 28.1%
23/24 1.7 makes on 34.1%
24/25 1.2 makes on 27.1%

He made over twice the amount of threes per game the previous season than he did in his first 2 years at a much improved percentage. Improved shooting on significantly higher volume usually correlates to at least some level of improvement in skill level. I think it would make a lot more sense to expect him to only slightly regress, maintain that percentage or improve upon it than it would be for him to shoot a career worse 27% instead after the improvement he showed the previous season.

It seems more likely that his “improvement” was a fluke. Prior to Dec 1 of 2023 he shot 38% on 3pa on 100 attempts. Post Dec 1 he shot 32% on 200 attempts. His “improvement” was literally making 6 more 3’s over a 2 month period. That is to say: he didn’t actually improve because the volume was low and we have a far larger sample size that is not a good shooter.

We shouldn’t have been making any judgement calls that Barnes improved because it was based on 6 made field goals. 6 field goals out of 993 3pa career attempts.

[earthtone]

AD averages 24ppg on 59% TS% across his career, with peaks of 26-28ppg on 58-61% TS%. While being a DPOY level defender.
Embiid averages 28ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 30-35ppg on 61.5-65.5% TS%.
Giannis averages 24ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 28-30ppg on 60-65% TS%. While being a DPOY defender.
JJJ is the closest comparison, and even he exceeds Scottie by a long shot, averaging more ppg, on much better TS% AND being a DPOY player.

No one is complaining about Scottie not being a bucket as an ISO scorer in the 4th Q, the complaints are that he can't even manage LEAGUE AVERAGE efficiency. Go look at the players you gave as examples, he isn't anywhere close to 3 of them, and the 4th still was outshining him at the same age.

I don't know what you've seen to date that makes you think he can magically improve his 3 for no reason, but I don't see it.

I don't think that's the best group of players for Scottie comps, but even then the gap isn't as wide as you're making it seem.

Over their first four seasons:

AD | 20.8 PPG | 9.7 RPG | 1.7 APG | 57.4% TS
Embiid| 23.9 PPG | 11.5 RPG | 3.1 APG | 58.5% TS
Giannis | 14.9 PPG | 6.9 RPG | 3.6 APG | 56.9% TS
JJJ | 15.8 PPG | 5.1 RPG | 1.2 APG | 56.6% TS
Scottie | 17.2 PPG | 7.5 RPG | 5.0 APG | 54.1% TS.

Scottie's not a perfect player and of course the efficiency needs to improve, but I don't see the point in acting like he's finished with development. Every single one of those players above (and the vast majority of players who get rookie max extensions) improved their volume and efficiency as they enter their prime. Why is it unreasonable to project the same for Scottie?

This is perhaps the worst stat technique of all time.

The one where you could literally take EVERY 3rd amd 4th year player and say "hey...at that time they weren't so much different from a very finely selective group of previous players who took uniprecedented leaps and became hall of famers".

The trick is that you could take ANY ROTATIONAL PROSPECT and say the same thing.

I didn't choose those players or that method of comparison, just provided more context for the stats. And the point is that the leaps are the opposite of unprecedented. Good players don't peak on their rookie contracts, they continue to improve as they enter their prime.

Averaging 17/7/5 on your rookie contract is much closer to star-level output than 'average rotational prospect'.

You gotta stop watching Pensare man. He's a certified weirdo, and aside from him I don't think the 'Scottie cult' exists. Just people who like his game and don't think he's a completely finished product at 23.

[Scase]

Yes, and there are different types of elite players.

Guys like Anthony Davis, Embiid, Jaren Jackson Jr., Giannis etc. are elite players but they are not iso closers or guys you can consistently rely on as scorers in 4th quarters.

Scottie is 23 - he's already a 20, 8 and 6 player on average efficiency which is impressive and in rare company. Can he became a 23, 9 and 7 player on above average efficiency and improve his mid-range game and 3 point shooting? Because if he does that he goes from arguably a top 30 player to a top 10 player.

There are elite iso scorers in the NBA like Durant, Steph, Lillard, Luka, Brunson, Haliburton, Booker etc. but not all of these players are the same level of impact player like others.

AD averages 24ppg on 59% TS% across his career, with peaks of 26-28ppg on 58-61% TS%. While being a DPOY level defender.
Embiid averages 28ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 30-35ppg on 61.5-65.5% TS%.
Giannis averages 24ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 28-30ppg on 60-65% TS%. While being a DPOY defender.
JJJ is the closest comparison, and even he exceeds Scottie by a long shot, averaging more ppg, on much better TS% AND being a DPOY player.

No one is complaining about Scottie not being a bucket as an ISO scorer in the 4th Q, the complaints are that he can't even manage LEAGUE AVERAGE efficiency. Go look at the players you gave as examples, he isn't anywhere close to 3 of them, and the 4th still was outshining him at the same age.

I don't know what you've seen to date that makes you think he can magically improve his 3 for no reason, but I don't see it.

I don't think that's the best group of players for Scottie comps, but even then the gap isn't as wide as you're making it seem.

Over their first four seasons:

AD | 20.8 PPG | 9.7 RPG | 1.7 APG | 57.4% TS
Embiid| 23.9 PPG | 11.5 RPG | 3.1 APG | 58.5% TS
Giannis | 14.9 PPG | 6.9 RPG | 3.6 APG | 56.9% TS
JJJ | 15.8 PPG | 5.1 RPG | 1.2 APG | 56.6% TS
Scottie | 17.2 PPG | 7.5 RPG | 5.0 APG | 54.1% TS.

Scottie's not a perfect player and of course the efficiency needs to improve, but I don't see the point in acting like he's finished with development. Every single one of those players above (and the vast majority of players who get rookie max extensions) improved their volume and efficiency as they enter their prime. Why is it unreasonable to project the same for Scottie?

Cool now lets dig a little deeper shall we?

Over their first four seasons :

AD top 10 DPOY votes x3, AS x3, NBA 1st x1, NBA def 2nd x1.
Embiid MVP votes x2, DPOY 4th and 2nd place, AS x3, NBA 2nd x2, NBA def 2nd x2.
Giannis MVP votes x1, AS x1, NBA 2nd x1, NBA def 2nd x1.
JJJ DPOY 5th x1, NBA def 1st x1.
Scottie AS x1.

Like I said, the closest to Scottie is JJJ, and even he eclipses him. Scottie is a massive 2.5% TS% below the LOWEST closest comparison, this isn't to **** on Scottie, I am a big Scottie booster, but it is to try and inject some realism into the wild takes that some how he's going to blossom into this massively productive player for no reason.

All those players above had huge signs pointing to large future success, his has pointed to so-so future success. People need to stop comparing him to HOF players who have been faces of the league just because they like the kid.

[tsherkin]

Averaging 17/7/5 on your rookie contract is much closer to star-level output than 'average rotational prospect'.

It is, but when half of that time, you've been a generationally-poor scorer, the output of scoring volume is far less interesting.

Dude defends and rebounds well, but he's a horrendous shooter who has limited athletic tools and limited scoring skills, which drops his ceiling accordingly. New circumstances and some possession shaping should help us extract maximum value from him, of course; he clearly needs to be positioned very specifically to succeed at that aspect of the game, though that isn't really unique to him, nor surprising at all based on all the scouting reports about him. We have very clearly been asking more from him than he has the capacity to deliver. And while we were tanking, that was fine, but that needs to change as we move forward.

Darko seems like a decent coach, so we shall see. And of course Masai has already brought in BI, so it looks as if he is ready to move on from the notion of Scottie as a focal scorer as well, which is good.

[OakleyDokely]

Scottie is going to win MIP next year. It's all about being in the proper role.

[PushDaRock]

Technically, he shot over 35% from 3 in April. It was, of course, only 5 games, but it was there.



Speak for yourself; I was saying it the whole time and have been saying it the entire time since.



For some, sure. Was not my stance, remains not my stance.

Sure, if you want to consider that 5 game sample size at 35% a hot streak, have at it.

21/22 0.8 makes on 30.1%
22/23 0.8 makes on 28.1%
23/24 1.7 makes on 34.1%
24/25 1.2 makes on 27.1%

He made over twice the amount of threes per game the previous season than he did in his first 2 years at a much improved percentage. Improved shooting on significantly higher volume usually correlates to at least some level of improvement in skill level. I think it would make a lot more sense to expect him to only slightly regress, maintain that percentage or improve upon it than it would be for him to shoot a career worse 27% instead after the improvement he showed the previous season.

It seems more likely that his “improvement” was a fluke. Prior to Dec 1 of 2023 he shot 38% on 3pa on 100 attempts. Post Dec 1 he shot 32% on 200 attempts. His “improvement” was literally making 6 more 3’s over a 2 month period. That is to say: he didn’t actually improve because the volume was low and we have a far larger sample size that is not a good shooter.

We shouldn’t have been making any judgement calls that Barnes improved because it was based on 6 made field goals. 6 field goals out of 993 3pa career attempts.

I am not saying differently, it does look like a fluke with hindsight now. I was not sold on Scottie as a shooter either after year 3 but I am only saying there was at least some reason for optimism heading into year 4. He did have a 30 game stretch where he made and took significantly more threes than he ever has in his career. There was certainly concern with how he ended up shooting at the end of year 3 but I disagree with the notion that we could have definitively called a fluke at the time.

[earthtone]

AD averages 24ppg on 59% TS% across his career, with peaks of 26-28ppg on 58-61% TS%. While being a DPOY level defender.
Embiid averages 28ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 30-35ppg on 61.5-65.5% TS%.
Giannis averages 24ppg on 61% TS% across his career, with peaks of 28-30ppg on 60-65% TS%. While being a DPOY defender.
JJJ is the closest comparison, and even he exceeds Scottie by a long shot, averaging more ppg, on much better TS% AND being a DPOY player.

No one is complaining about Scottie not being a bucket as an ISO scorer in the 4th Q, the complaints are that he can't even manage LEAGUE AVERAGE efficiency. Go look at the players you gave as examples, he isn't anywhere close to 3 of them, and the 4th still was outshining him at the same age.

I don't know what you've seen to date that makes you think he can magically improve his 3 for no reason, but I don't see it.

I don't think that's the best group of players for Scottie comps, but even then the gap isn't as wide as you're making it seem.

Over their first four seasons:

AD | 20.8 PPG | 9.7 RPG | 1.7 APG | 57.4% TS
Embiid| 23.9 PPG | 11.5 RPG | 3.1 APG | 58.5% TS
Giannis | 14.9 PPG | 6.9 RPG | 3.6 APG | 56.9% TS
JJJ | 15.8 PPG | 5.1 RPG | 1.2 APG | 56.6% TS
Scottie | 17.2 PPG | 7.5 RPG | 5.0 APG | 54.1% TS.

Scottie's not a perfect player and of course the efficiency needs to improve, but I don't see the point in acting like he's finished with development. Every single one of those players above (and the vast majority of players who get rookie max extensions) improved their volume and efficiency as they enter their prime. Why is it unreasonable to project the same for Scottie?

Cool now lets dig a little deeper shall we?

Over their first four seasons :

AD top 10 DPOY votes x3, AS x3, NBA 1st x1, NBA def 2nd x1.
Embiid MVP votes x2, DPOY 4th and 2nd place, AS x3, NBA 2nd x2, NBA def 2nd x2.
Giannis MVP votes x1, AS x1, NBA 2nd x1, NBA def 2nd x1.
JJJ DPOY 5th x1, NBA def 1st x1.
Scottie AS x1.

Like I said, the closest to Scottie is JJJ, and even he eclipses him. Scottie is a massive 2.5% TS% below the LOWEST closest comparison, this isn't to **** on Scottie, I am a big Scottie booster, but it is to try and inject some realism into the wild takes that some how he's going to blossom into this massively productive player for no reason.

All those players above had huge signs pointing to large future success, his has pointed to so-so future success. People need to stop comparing him to HOF players who have been faces of the league just because they like the kid.

I agree it's a pretty poor group of people to compare Scottie to, just wanted to provide additional context for what they did while they were Scottie's age instead of including their prime seasons and peaks. None of these guys had their best seasons on their rookie contracts, and I don't see any reason to believe Scottie will either. There's more reason to believe he'll continue to develop than to believe he'll stagnate and have no improvement in efficiency throughout the rest of his career IMO.

I don't think it's overrating Scottie to say he's around a Top 50 player in the league at 23. If that doesn't point to 'large future success', what does? What do you define as 'so-so success'? If he can improve that to ~Top 25 during his prime years, that's gotta be significantly better than 'so-so', right?

[mdenny]

Do you have a choice? You don't get to see players play hundreds of games in high pressure situations to get an entirely accurate gauge for how they perform under those conditions before you draft them or give them a Max Contract.

With the draft? No, but like I said, that's a large part of why the draft is considerably more volatile than it was in decades past. The sample is horridly insufficient.

Bro...scottie has never won anything.

Take a gander at Fred's real plus/minus. Second season to his sixth season. He was a beast of winning basketball. The bench mob was building 10 point leads on a regular basis.

Go even look at Fred's real plus minus in Houston.

His O-EPM is fairly underwhelming until his 4th season. Likewise basically all of his other measures. His shot was useful, and he's been a smart playmaker basically his whole career; non-elite, but still sensible. He's a good player; not one to wildly overvalue, though.

Oh yah...where is Fred in career real plus minus?

We're talking about winning basketball right? Real plus minus is a pretty good stat. Where is Fred career wise?

[Scase]

I don't think that's the best group of players for Scottie comps, but even then the gap isn't as wide as you're making it seem.

Over their first four seasons:

AD | 20.8 PPG | 9.7 RPG | 1.7 APG | 57.4% TS
Embiid| 23.9 PPG | 11.5 RPG | 3.1 APG | 58.5% TS
Giannis | 14.9 PPG | 6.9 RPG | 3.6 APG | 56.9% TS
JJJ | 15.8 PPG | 5.1 RPG | 1.2 APG | 56.6% TS
Scottie | 17.2 PPG | 7.5 RPG | 5.0 APG | 54.1% TS.

Scottie's not a perfect player and of course the efficiency needs to improve, but I don't see the point in acting like he's finished with development. Every single one of those players above (and the vast majority of players who get rookie max extensions) improved their volume and efficiency as they enter their prime. Why is it unreasonable to project the same for Scottie?

Cool now lets dig a little deeper shall we?

Over their first four seasons :

AD top 10 DPOY votes x3, AS x3, NBA 1st x1, NBA def 2nd x1.
Embiid MVP votes x2, DPOY 4th and 2nd place, AS x3, NBA 2nd x2, NBA def 2nd x2.
Giannis MVP votes x1, AS x1, NBA 2nd x1, NBA def 2nd x1.
JJJ DPOY 5th x1, NBA def 1st x1.
Scottie AS x1.

Like I said, the closest to Scottie is JJJ, and even he eclipses him. Scottie is a massive 2.5% TS% below the LOWEST closest comparison, this isn't to **** on Scottie, I am a big Scottie booster, but it is to try and inject some realism into the wild takes that some how he's going to blossom into this massively productive player for no reason.

All those players above had huge signs pointing to large future success, his has pointed to so-so future success. People need to stop comparing him to HOF players who have been faces of the league just because they like the kid.

I agree it's a pretty poor group of people to compare Scottie to, just wanted to provide additional context for what they did while they were Scottie's age instead of including their prime seasons and peaks. None of these guys had their best seasons on their rookie contracts, and I don't see any reason to believe Scottie will either. There's more reason to believe he'll continue to develop than to believe he'll stagnate and have no improvement in efficiency throughout the rest of his career IMO.

I don't think it's overrating Scottie to say he's around a Top 50 player in the league at 23. If that doesn't point to 'large future success', what does? What do you define as 'so-so success'? If he can improve that to ~Top 25 during his prime years, that's gotta be significantly better than 'so-so', right?

For sure, and I agree. He's going to continue to develop, but the level at which he will is something I think most people need a reality check for. Case in point, TheGeneral using AD/Embiid/Giannis etc as examples to hold him up to. The level of expectations people have are way out of whack, all of the players (again, save for JJJ) used have shown way more offensive prowess from even year 1 or 2 than Scottie has even in year 4.

Scottie has to improve pretty drastically to just be average, those guys were above average in the same time frame, it's a way wider of a gap than most people care to admit. Starting from a 7/10 makes an 8, 9, 10 much more attainable, than starting at a 4 or 5.