Official Scottie All Star Barnes Thread 9

[OakleyDokely]

There's no reason Barnes can't be an all-defensive player who competes for DPOY.

It's possible. Of all things, defense is not my concern with Barnes.

Offensively the fit is tricky, but as long as the efficiency is averagish, his playmaking, transition ability, bully ball make him useful in a lot of different schemes.

We shall see. This season, he was a profound waste of skin as a scorer, so he's got a long way to go just to reach "average" at this point. This fuels my heavy skepticism about him. The passing is nice, he's pretty good in transition... and that's about where his offensive value ends right now. So we need to see meaningful development from him on O before I really worry too much about that becoming a potential reality. Specifically inside the parameters of a comparison to Mobley, he doesn't even come close, obviously.

We've all been over this before. He needs to exploit his size. He needs to screen like an adult. He needs to stop taking ATB 3s, but could get away taking some corner 3s. He's got some kind of mid-range/post game to work with. We need him out in transition even more (though he did pretty well in that regard, in all truthfulness). We need to just strip the idea of shooting more than 12 feet from the basket out of his game, I think, and focus on using him adjacent to and inside of the key for him to become an efficient scorer. And we need to get him back on the offensive boards a bit; he did okay, but he was better over his first three seasons and that was helpful.

I have very limited expectations from Barnes on O at this point. Love his D, but I don't think his passing is really worth a lot of effort for us unless he can really get his crap together doing other things as a lower-volume scorer. I hope to see it, but he doesn't make me enthusiastic.

Now, pessimism and me being a downer aside, I love his defense. And I'm hopeful that in even the near-worst case scenario (aka no real change but maybe he shoots less), his defensive play and passing will make up for his poor scoring, and that the scoring will be covered by the improved overall team context on offense. Ingram coming in, another year of development for the kids, maybe RJ looking a little better, etc, etc.

I just... I guess I responded because I don't see Scottie anywhere near Mobley's value on offense, so the comparison kind of got me rambling. They're very distant in value on that side of the floor.

It mostly comes down to catch and shoot 3s.

Barnes was showing progression until this year. He went from 28% to 30% to 38% over his first 3 years. This year he fell back to the high 20s. When the ball isn't in hands, whether or not he can hit an open 3 is really the key for me. If he can do it at a mid to high 30% level and he eliminates all the other 3pt attempts, the offense is much more viable.

[tsherkin]

It mostly comes down to catch and shoot 3s.

Barnes was showing progression until this year. He went from 28% to 30% to 38% over his first 3 years.

That's not really progression, that's a single season of improvement over a relatively short sample. 28-30% isn't anything meaningful, at least IMHO.

This year he fell back to the high 20s. When the ball isn't in hands, whether or not he can hit an open 3 is really the key for me. If he can do it at a mid to high 30% level and he eliminates all the other 3pt attempts, the offense is much more viable.

[/quote]

It's a lot of ifs. He's been a pretty bad 3pt shooter for 3 out of 4 seasons, and weak from the corner the entire time. It's not really a great look for advancing proficiency, particularly without improvement of note in his FT shooting.

I suspect he had a down year this season, of course, I mean he was brutally useless, but I don't really have any optimism for him as a 3pt shooter at all. Not in any meaningful timeframe, at least.

[OakleyDokely]

It mostly comes down to catch and shoot 3s.

Barnes was showing progression until this year. He went from 28% to 30% to 38% over his first 3 years.

That's not really progression, that's a single season of improvement over a relatively short sample. 28-30% isn't anything meaningful, at least IMHO.

This year he fell back to the high 20s. When the ball isn't in hands, whether or not he can hit an open 3 is really the key for me. If he can do it at a mid to high 30% level and he eliminates all the other 3pt attempts, the offense is much more viable.

It's a lot of ifs. He's been a pretty bad 3pt shooter for 3 out of 4 seasons, and weak from the corner the entire time. It's not really a great look for advancing proficiency, particularly without improvement of note in his FT shooting.

I suspect he had a down year this season, of course, I mean he was brutally useless, but I don't really have any optimism for him as a 3pt shooter at all. Not in any meaningful timeframe, at least.

I'd consider it progression because his volume has increased pretty dramatically since his rookie year. Similar %s but on a greater volume is a win for me.

I'm not sure how much importance I place on this past season numbers because they let him take whatever shot he wanted and the team lineups weren't consistent or very good.

[tsherkin]

I'd consider it progression because his volume has increased pretty dramatically since his rookie year. Similar %s but on a greater volume is a win for me.

I guess where we differ is that I don't see that as improvement. Shooting that poorly is still terrible, and that percentage is fairly common. It's not like we'd expect him to shoot 15% from 3 on that higher volume, it's a pretty standard percentage for guys who shouldn't be taking the shot. But anyway, we can agree to disagree on that. I can at least appreciate your point, even if I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure how much importance I place on this past season numbers because they let him take whatever shot he wanted and the team lineups weren't consistent or very good.

Yes, this past season's specific numbers are a little volatile for various reasons, no doubt. But his specific TS% was similar to his second season and he had a lot of the same basic faults. And he's never been particularly stunning at the stuff that would make him efficient without the ball to begin with, so I am skeptical of his potential there. He was brutal in year 2, he was mediocre as a rookie, even in his BEST season, he was still below average, and then he was legendarily garbage this year for various reasons.

For me, none of that adds up to optimism for this upcoming season in whatever role he has, speaking on scoring of course. I'm trying, I just don't see it. But I'm hoping I'm wrong, and that he can start doing a few more things with extra room and other passers, and all the little things we've all bandied back and forth about all year. It would be nice if he could be a semi-competent scoring threat for us in reduced volume, as opposed to a lodestone.

[OakleyDokely]

I guess it depends on your expectations but if he can be a 18ish ppg guy on a 56ish TS%, pile a bunch of rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, deflections while having an all-defensive type impact anchoring a top half of the league defense, that's a really impactful player who met my expectations.

[Spates]

It mostly comes down to catch and shoot 3s.

Barnes was showing progression until this year. He went from 28% to 30% to 38% over his first 3 years.

That's not really progression, that's a single season of improvement over a relatively short sample. 28-30% isn't anything meaningful, at least IMHO.

This year he fell back to the high 20s. When the ball isn't in hands, whether or not he can hit an open 3 is really the key for me. If he can do it at a mid to high 30% level and he eliminates all the other 3pt attempts, the offense is much more viable.

It's a lot of ifs. He's been a pretty bad 3pt shooter for 3 out of 4 seasons, and weak from the corner the entire time. It's not really a great look for advancing proficiency, particularly without improvement of note in his FT shooting.

I suspect he had a down year this season, of course, I mean he was brutally useless, but I don't really have any optimism for him as a 3pt shooter at all. Not in any meaningful timeframe, at least.

I'd consider it progression because his volume has increased pretty dramatically since his rookie year. Similar %s but on a greater volume is a win for me.

I'm not sure how much importance I place on this past season numbers because they let him take whatever shot he wanted and the team lineups weren't consistent or very good.

But the numbers are consistently pretty bad. Optimism is appreciated but in this case it's blind to the truth, which is, aside from two months in his career (November and December, 2023) Scottie has been a 3pt shooter. His 3pt avg for 23/24 out of context is cause for celebration but the value is in the weeds.

His 34% from 3 in 23/24 isn't reflective of consistency throughout the season. I think a more honest take is that his average was bolstered by a hot shooting streak. He had a great start to the season averaging 39-40% above the break but as soon as his hot streak ended, his numbers dropped to around 26% and his volume dropped as well.

His corner 3 numbers are so low in volume that his future as a corner shooter is harder to project. That said, it feels inevitable that he'll need to grow as a corner shooter as he'll be sharing the court with IQ and BI who are both primarily above the break shooters and efficient at it

[Scase]

We're putting everything on the table (IQ/#9/Yak/RJ), to build around a guy who just put up a .52 TS% and was the worst 3 point shooter of his draft class. Seems risky, to say the least.

Building around, and using as a foundational piece are two different things. Scottie can be an extremely valuable core piece to a winning team, what he cannot be is the centrepiece. There is nothing wrong with the former, and I don't think our FO is dumb enough for the latter....but they’ve proved otherwise before.

[tsherkin]

I guess it depends on your expectations

I suppose.

but if he can be a 18ish ppg guy on a 56ish TS%, pile a bunch of rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, deflections while having an all-defensive type impact anchoring a top half of the league defense, that's a really impactful player who met my expectations.

I'd rather him be more like a 15 ppg player doing that, and then I'd be fairly happy. Given the team we have now, I don't really want to run him the ball enough for him to get 18+ ppg. He's needed 15+ FGA/g for that, and we have better options at this point.

I very much like his D. I'd like to find a way to make him remain useful enough on O to justify him being on the floor without screwing up our offense for that reason, for sure. I just don't like automatically assigning certain volumes of scoring to him because he fully isn't worth it on that end right now.

He needs to go back to being like a 10, 12 FGA/g guy, and then it'll be just fine and I'll STFU about Barnes' offense, you know?

[Mikistan]

Sometimes, a player just isn't very good.

A yes the isn't very good players that get rookie of the year and all star replacement nods. Checks out

I guess this is a fair reply to that comment, but it's also important to remember that everything is relative.

Barnes is very good at basketball, clearly. He's top 40-60 in the world, with arguments to be made to be higher.

When compared to those other people in his peer group... top 5 draft pick, max contract, face of the franchise (league? ), All-Star, and so on... well maybe then he's not very good.

I have to come back to how old he is. This fanbase loved demar and he got how many opportunities to grow in the lead role? At least Scottie fills up the stat sheet and plays d man, let's count our blessings not constantly prop up call out culture imo

[TakeYourHeart]

We're putting everything on the table (IQ/#9/Yak/RJ), to build around a guy who just put up a .52 TS% and was the worst 3 point shooter of his draft class. Seems risky, to say the least.

Building around, and using as a foundational piece are two different things. Scottie can be an extremely valuable core piece to a winning team, what he cannot be is the centrepiece. There is nothing wrong with the former, and I don't think our FO is dumb enough for the latter....but they’ve proved otherwise before.

I agree in theory but his limitations are such that you have to build around him even if he's just a foundational piece. Like Ja can't be the PG.

[Scase]

We're putting everything on the table (IQ/#9/Yak/RJ), to build around a guy who just put up a .52 TS% and was the worst 3 point shooter of his draft class. Seems risky, to say the least.

Building around, and using as a foundational piece are two different things. Scottie can be an extremely valuable core piece to a winning team, what he cannot be is the centrepiece. There is nothing wrong with the former, and I don't think our FO is dumb enough for the latter....but they’ve proved otherwise before.

I agree in theory but his limitations are such that you have to build around him even if he's just a foundational piece. Like Ja can't be the PG.

They are building "around" mobley in CLE, but thats based on his defence and hand fed shots. The same can be done for Scottie, that doesn't mean we couldn't have Ja as the PG, if anything having someone who can both facilitate and break down defenders from the 3 would be very helpful for a team with Scottie.

[tsherkin]

They are building "around" mobley in CLE, but thats based on his defence and hand fed shots. The same can be done for Scottie, that doesn't mean we couldn't have Ja as the PG, if anything having someone who can both facilitate and break down defenders from the 3 would be very helpful for a team with Scottie.

They are building their defense around him. They are building their O around Mitchell and Garland. Mobley is a tertiary piece on offense who is important, but not the foundation of what they do.

Ja isn't worth it. He's off-court trouble, he has availability issues, he's an inefficient volume scorer. He hasn't been particularly good in the playoffs.

In theory, he'd be a valuable get. He drives a lot, even if he doesn't get all the way to the rim as often as you'd expect. He even has a pretty reasonable middle game. No real consistency beyond the foul line, but enough to force a D to respect the pull-up.

In practice, a guy who has played 60+ games once in the last 4 years due to a mixture of suspensions and injuries (and who has only played more than 63 games once, as a rookie) is a tough pill to swallow, IMHO.

EDIT:

With Scottie, we appear to be slowly adding pieces to render him less important on offense, but where do you put him as just a defensive roleplayer? The 4/5, probably, with a frontcourt counterpart who can stretch to the 3. That could work.

[Scase]

They are building "around" mobley in CLE, but thats based on his defence and hand fed shots. The same can be done for Scottie, that doesn't mean we couldn't have Ja as the PG, if anything having someone who can both facilitate and break down defenders from the 3 would be very helpful for a team with Scottie.

They are building their defense around him. They are building their O around Mitchell and Garland. Mobley is a tertiary piece on offense who is important, but not the foundation of what they do.

Ja isn't worth it. He's off-court trouble, he has availability issues, he's an inefficient volume scorer. He hasn't been particularly good in the playoffs.

In theory, he'd be a valuable get. He drives a lot, even if he doesn't get all the way to the rim as often as you'd expect. He even has a pretty reasonable middle game. No real consistency beyond the foul line, but enough to force a D to respect the pull-up.

In practice, a guy who has played 60+ games once in the last 4 years due to a mixture of suspensions and injuries (and who has only played more than 63 games once, as a rookie) is a tough pill to swallow, IMHO.

EDIT:

With Scottie, we appear to be slowly adding pieces to render him less important on offense, but where do you put him as just a defensive roleplayer? The 4/5, probably, with a frontcourt counterpart who can stretch to the 3. That could work.

Much like every player, it all comes down to cost. I don't think he would be wildly expensive for all the reasons you mentioned, personally I'd rather have him over RJ/IQ, he's not a perfect fit, but no player that might be available is.

If we are open to testing the waters on a player like BI, I see no reason we wouldn't do it for a player like Ja, potential cost being the only real issue.

[tsherkin]

Much like every player, it all comes down to cost. I don't think he would be wildly expensive for all the reasons you mentioned, personally I'd rather have him over RJ/IQ, he's not a perfect fit, but no player that might be available is.

Cost, indeed. But cost comes in more ways than just assets moved, right? We already have injury issues, and we're signing ourselves into a guaranteed ceiling as a team with him at the forefront, and what's likely to be a pretty limited window, too.

If we are open to testing the waters on a player like BI, I see no reason we wouldn't do it for a player like Ja, potential cost being the only real issue.

Yeah, I mean if we somehow give up bubkiss for him, sure. I don't think Memphis is that stupid, though.

[Scase]

Much like every player, it all comes down to cost. I don't think he would be wildly expensive for all the reasons you mentioned, personally I'd rather have him over RJ/IQ, he's not a perfect fit, but no player that might be available is.

Cost, indeed. But cost comes in more ways than just assets moved, right? We already have injury issues, and we're signing ourselves into a guaranteed ceiling as a team with him at the forefront, and what's likely to be a pretty limited window, too.

If we are open to testing the waters on a player like BI, I see no reason we wouldn't do it for a player like Ja, potential cost being the only real issue.

Yeah, I mean if we somehow give up bubkiss for him, sure. I don't think Memphis is that stupid, though.

But that's literally what we're doing with BI, he's the supposed "big move" and it hinges around a guy playing just as few games as a guy who was suspended essentially an entire season for being stupid.

You have a better chance controlling stupid than injuries.

As for the cost, I don't think it's anything to do with stupidity, but rather where they are right now. Based on things the FO has said, they were extremely disappointed with last season, and they already moved Bane, it could be the start of a rebuild for them so it might be more realistic than not. If they move JJJ, I don't see how they keep Ja or get a kings ransom for him.

Is there a risk with getting him? For sure, but I'd rather take a risk on a guy who in his 3rd year in the league has already shown more than every single player on our roster has in their entire careers. THAT is the type of buy low I'd like us to go after, again assuming his value is perceived as lower due to rebuilding/his previous health/stupidity issues.

Ja has 3 years left, at an AAV 500k lower than BI, I don't see how it's any worse. The window is limited all the same.

[tsherkin]

But that's literally what we're doing with BI, he's the supposed "big move" and it hinges around a guy playing just as few games as a guy who was suspended essentially an entire season for being stupid.

Right, but if we're going win-now, then having two guys on the floor who are major injury risks seems at odds with that play, no?

You have a better chance controlling stupid than injuries.

Morant is both...

As for the cost, I don't think it's anything to do with stupidity, but rather where they are right now. Based on things the FO has said, they were extremely disappointed with last season, and they already moved Bane, it could be the start of a rebuild for them so it might be more realistic than not. If they move JJJ, I don't see how they keep Ja or get a kings ransom for him.

There's no reason for them to ship him to us for nothing. Someone else will almost surely bid more.

Is there a risk with getting him? For sure, but I'd rather take a risk on a guy who in his 3rd year in the league has already shown more than every single player on our roster has in their entire careers. THAT is the type of buy low I'd like us to go after, again assuming his value is perceived as lower due to rebuilding/his previous health/stupidity issues.

Can't get with that on this one. He's a inefficient small guard with no shot with an established injury history heading into his late 20s. It's only going to get worse, even if he never gets suspended again.

I don't really see the point for us. We're better off with RJ, or moving him for something else. Frontcourt help, perhaps.

[HangTime]

They are building "around" mobley in CLE, but thats based on his defence and hand fed shots. The same can be done for Scottie, that doesn't mean we couldn't have Ja as the PG, if anything having someone who can both facilitate and break down defenders from the 3 would be very helpful for a team with Scottie.

They are building their defense around him. They are building their O around Mitchell and Garland. Mobley is a tertiary piece on offense who is important, but not the foundation of what they do.

Ja isn't worth it. He's off-court trouble, he has availability issues, he's an inefficient volume scorer. He hasn't been particularly good in the playoffs.

In theory, he'd be a valuable get. He drives a lot, even if he doesn't get all the way to the rim as often as you'd expect. He even has a pretty reasonable middle game. No real consistency beyond the foul line, but enough to force a D to respect the pull-up.

In practice, a guy who has played 60+ games once in the last 4 years due to a mixture of suspensions and injuries (and who has only played more than 63 games once, as a rookie) is a tough pill to swallow, IMHO.

EDIT:

With Scottie, we appear to be slowly adding pieces to render him less important on offense, but where do you put him as just a defensive roleplayer? The 4/5, probably, with a frontcourt counterpart who can stretch to the 3. That could work.

I think we're adding pieces to make him even more important/effective on offense, it's just not as a number 1 scorer on an average basis.

He's the true number 1 option, without having to be a Number 1 scorer.

It's like Haliburton and Pascal. Haliburton is the true #1 option, Pascal is just the leading scorer, who can do some "traditional" first option stuff.
They basically created an illusion.

I think Ingram presence can do a lot for Scottie, but also be the "traditional" first option.

If we trade for KD, the trio would unleash Point Scottie, into that Magic Johnson role "a true #1", and everyone will finally realize why Scottie sees himself as a PG, where 90% of people don't.

RJ and Pascal are on a similar wave length, put Pascal is just more refined in his play style.

Haliburton, Nash, Kidd, Magic, and Scottie are on similar wave length on offense as "true" first options.

[Scase]

But that's literally what we're doing with BI, he's the supposed "big move" and it hinges around a guy playing just as few games as a guy who was suspended essentially an entire season for being stupid.

Right, but if we're going win-now, then having two guys on the floor who are major injury risks seems at odds with that play, no?

You have a better chance controlling stupid than injuries.

Morant is both...

As for the cost, I don't think it's anything to do with stupidity, but rather where they are right now. Based on things the FO has said, they were extremely disappointed with last season, and they already moved Bane, it could be the start of a rebuild for them so it might be more realistic than not. If they move JJJ, I don't see how they keep Ja or get a kings ransom for him.

There's no reason for them to ship him to us for nothing. Someone else will almost surely bid more.

Is there a risk with getting him? For sure, but I'd rather take a risk on a guy who in his 3rd year in the league has already shown more than every single player on our roster has in their entire careers. THAT is the type of buy low I'd like us to go after, again assuming his value is perceived as lower due to rebuilding/his previous health/stupidity issues.

Can't get with that on this one. He's a inefficient small guard with no shot with an established injury history heading into his late 20s. It's only going to get worse, even if he never gets suspended again.

I don't really see the point for us. We're better off with RJ, or moving him for something else. Frontcourt help, perhaps.

As opposed a guy on a fresh contract heading into his early 30's with a worse injury history? I get what you are saying in that having multiple guys with that situation is a risk, but again one of those guys is significantly better than anyone else on the team. Why half ass it and have a mediocre season hinge on a guy who is 28 vs on both of them. If it pans out the success would be pretty damn good, if it doesn't it would be just as bad.

We'd be better off with him replacing RJ full stop, would we be better off using RJ to fill up other gaps, yeah most likely, but this is all off the back of Ja being "available" and the Raps (as usual) apparently being a destination. If this was just a random discussion mid season based on nothing I agree, it's fruitless, but it's the offseason and there are rumours. So the discussion comes down to adding said player, not just moving RJ for a centre or something.

[tsherkin]

I think we're adding pieces to make him even more important/effective on offense, it's just not as a number 1 scorer on an average basis.

He's the true number 1 option, without having to be a Number 1 scorer.

Is he? You're basically talking about leveraging his passing, but BI is at least as good a passer and considerably better with the ball. He isn't just gonna be a movement shooter for us.

I think Ingram presence can do a lot for Scottie, but also be the "traditional" first option.

I'd be surprised, because Ingram is better than Scottie at basically every component of offense.

If we trade for KD, the trio would unleash Point Scottie, into that Magic Johnson role "a true #1", and everyone will finally realize why Scottie sees himself as a PG, where 90% of people don't.

Point Scottie is pretty overstated. What we were seeing there is he's pretty decent with the ball in transition and he's a good passer when he drives, but there are trade-offs with giving him those possessions because he's so mediocre as a scorer and no threat at all beyond the foul line.

Haliburton, Nash, Kidd, Magic, and Scottie are on similar wave length on offense as "true" first options.

The problem with most of those guys is that they were competent scorers. Hali, Nash and Magic were/are all HIGHLY efficient.

Kidd got away with being a poor scorer in the slowest era of NBA history, and by being a considerably better playmaker than Scottie.

Not sure any of those are particularly good examples, though Kidd is at least in a similar model.

[HangTime]

I think we're adding pieces to make him even more important/effective on offense, it's just not as a number 1 scorer on an average basis.

He's the true number 1 option, without having to be a Number 1 scorer.

Is he? You're basically talking about leveraging his passing, but BI is at least as good a passer and considerably better with the ball. He isn't just gonna be a movement shooter for us.

I think Ingram presence can do a lot for Scottie, but also be the "traditional" first option.

I'd be surprised, because Ingram is better than Scottie at basically every component of offense.

If we trade for KD, the trio would unleash Point Scottie, into that Magic Johnson role "a true #1", and everyone will finally realize why Scottie sees himself as a PG, where 90% of people don't.

Point Scottie is pretty overstated. What we were seeing there is he's pretty decent with the ball in transition and he's a good passer when he drives, but there are trade-offs with giving him those possessions because he's so mediocre as a scorer and no threat at all beyond the foul line.

Haliburton, Nash, Kidd, Magic, and Scottie are on similar wave length on offense as "true" first options.

The problem with most of those guys is that they were competent scorers. Hali, Nash and Magic were/are all HIGHLY efficient.

Kidd got away with being a poor scorer in the slowest era of NBA history, and by being a considerably better playmaker than Scottie.

Not sure any of those are particularly good examples, though Kidd is at least in a similar model.

I think it's because of their surroundings, they get breathing room.

again, people might think it's an excuse, but Scottie had minimal breathing room, by design.

teams could collapse on him if he got by the initial defender, and he'd be able to find the wide open "non" shooter like Davion (filling Quickely's role on offense).
We didn't have alot of guys that were respected as shooters (a bunch of rookies, and guys trying to work on threes), so Scottie was able create the shots for them, they just missed a lot.

If they collapsed late, then Scottie got to work on tougher finishes at the rim, or tougher kick outs (regardless of the make or miss).

The injuries sunk his percentages, but the barrage of threes were to make it comfortable to add to his to repertoire.
If he's healthy, i do think he can be a 35-37% on 4-5 attempts.


If We add some respected vet-shooters, like Detroit did with Harris/Hardaway/Beasley, then you'd see a better Scottie instantly.

But last season was about developing the team as a whole, so on the surface, or through the box scores, Scottie looks like he regressed.


I believe if you swapped Scottie into Cade's spot on Detroit, the Piston as a whole are better, but the point distribution get spread out more. On top of that, Ausar being the lead defender, would allow Scottie conserve more energy being the "help" defender.

Energy balance, between offence and defence might be the hardest thing for him when he's constantly the lead defender.

You know how there's advanced stats,
This is like an advanced look. Something deeper that could explain a lot, when people on see "bad" numbers on the surface.