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

[ConSarnit]

His best case scenario is probably a Scottie Pippen type player.

His worst case scenario is probably a better version of Aaron Gordon.

"Better" is probably aggressive. Gordon is already a better shooter as a complementary player. And he also shares ball-handling duties for the Nuggets at times, is himself a strong defender and has considerably more offensive value.

"Worst case" Scottie is the level of offensive player he was in 24-25, which is much worse than Aaron Gordon, not a better version.

Best case, though. I mean, best case for Scottie is that he learns how to shoot. And if he does that, it opens up the potential that he can be worth 15 shots a game. Which in turn opens up his utility as more of an on-ball guy than Gordon, which becomes a little more interesting for the sake of comparisons.

Now tell me how Aaron Gordon was offensively before teaming up with Jokic, one of the greatest players of all-time who makes everyone around him much, much better. Can you give me his offensive stats in his prime Orlando years?

You don't think that if Scottie played alongside Jokic, his efficiency would increase?

I've had debates with you on this but look at Gordon's 3 point shooting in his career - 31% in 2020, 33% in 2021, 33% in 2022, 29% in 2024 and this year he had an outlier year and shot a mind boggling 43% from 3.

Go look at Gordon's fg percentage in his Orlando years, the dude routinely shot in the low 40s from the field. Now he shoots above 50% with Jokic.

Before that Gordon routinely shot under 30% from 3 in his first few years.

Aaron Gordon TS:

2017 - 53%
2018 - 53%
2019 - 54% (23 years old, same age as Scottie)
2020 - 52%
2021 - 55%
2022 - 60% (DENVER)
2023 - 62%
2024 - 61%
2025 - 65% (almost 30 years old)

THE BIG OUTLIER IS PLAYING WITH JOKIC.

What type of argument is this? That Barnes would look better playing with a top 5 offensive player of all-time? How exactly are we going to get that player to make Barnes look better?

Shouldn’t the worry be that Barnes is on Gordon’s path but there is no Jokic coming to save his efficiency?

[tsherkin]

Now tell me how Aaron Gordon was offensively before teaming up with Jokic, one of the greatest players of all-time who makes everyone around him much, much better. Can you give me his offensive stats in his prime Orlando years?

You don't think that if Scottie played alongside Jokic, his efficiency would increase?

Maybe?

That notion is predicated on him being able to hit shots he hasn't shot he can hit, and on leveraging skills where he hasn't really excelled when the opportunity has arisen. It's certainly likely that he would be MORE efficient than he's been with us, of course, but I wouldn't suggest it to be that likely that he would make the same improvements Gordon has, especially with less of Aaron's athletic tools.

THE BIG OUTLIER IS PLAYING WITH JOKIC.

Yes, it's an impact element because usage matters, this much is clear. But again, Aaron Gordon is more athletic than Scottie, which is also a big deal. Scottie is considerably less useful wielding even the tools he does have. Gordon is much more aggressive. And he's been better above the break than Scottie has even when he's shooting with a defender no where near him in his time in Toronto, which is also a meaningful factor.

Yes, Scottie being cast as a primary initiator is a problem. Aaron Gordon being cast as such in Orlando was also a problem, because neither are suited to that much on-ball action.

But what you're doing here is essentially illustrating my earlier point about why the OP is quite accurate, yes? And why Scottie has poor suitability to any kind of offensive primacy in general.

[TheGeneral99]

Now tell me how Aaron Gordon was offensively before teaming up with Jokic, one of the greatest players of all-time who makes everyone around him much, much better. Can you give me his offensive stats in his prime Orlando years?

You don't think that if Scottie played alongside Jokic, his efficiency would increase?

Maybe?

That notion is predicated on him being able to hit shots he hasn't shot he can hit, and on leveraging skills where he hasn't really excelled when the opportunity has arisen. It's certainly likely that he would be MORE efficient than he's been with us, of course, but I wouldn't suggest it to be that likely that he would make the same improvements Gordon has, especially with less of Aaron's athletic tools.

THE BIG OUTLIER IS PLAYING WITH JOKIC.

Yes, it's an impact element because usage matters, this much is clear. But again, Aaron Gordon is more athletic than Scottie, which is also a big deal. Scottie is considerably less useful wielding even the tools he does have. Gordon is much more aggressive. And he's been better above the break than Scottie has even when he's shooting with a defender no where near him in his time in Toronto, which is also a meaningful factor.

Yes, Scottie being cast as a primary initiator is a problem. Aaron Gordon being cast as such in Orlando was also a problem, because neither are suited to that much on-ball action.

But what you're doing here is essentially illustrating my earlier point about why the OP is quite accurate, yes? And why Scottie has poor suitability to any kind of offensive primacy in general.

Aaron Gordon was a poor 3 point shooter until this year, which was a major outlier in his career and only happened in his 10th year in the league.

You may be right, but I think it's still way too premature to draw a firm conclusion when he's just 23 years old, especially given that our team was intentionally tanking for the last 1.5 years and routinely sitting out Scottie in games and in 4th quarters.

Lowry for instance shot 26% from 3 in 2008, 26% in 2009, and 27% in 2010 before becoming a very good 3 point shooter in 2011.

Shai shot 30% from 3 in 2022, 34% in 2023, 35% in 2024 and this year he shot 38%.

Jokic shot 33% from 3 in 2016, 32% in 2017, 40% in 2018, 31% in 2019 etc. before becoming more consistent from distance.

[TheGeneral99]

"Better" is probably aggressive. Gordon is already a better shooter as a complementary player. And he also shares ball-handling duties for the Nuggets at times, is himself a strong defender and has considerably more offensive value.

"Worst case" Scottie is the level of offensive player he was in 24-25, which is much worse than Aaron Gordon, not a better version.

Best case, though. I mean, best case for Scottie is that he learns how to shoot. And if he does that, it opens up the potential that he can be worth 15 shots a game. Which in turn opens up his utility as more of an on-ball guy than Gordon, which becomes a little more interesting for the sake of comparisons.

Now tell me how Aaron Gordon was offensively before teaming up with Jokic, one of the greatest players of all-time who makes everyone around him much, much better. Can you give me his offensive stats in his prime Orlando years?

You don't think that if Scottie played alongside Jokic, his efficiency would increase?

I've had debates with you on this but look at Gordon's 3 point shooting in his career - 31% in 2020, 33% in 2021, 33% in 2022, 29% in 2024 and this year he had an outlier year and shot a mind boggling 43% from 3.

Go look at Gordon's fg percentage in his Orlando years, the dude routinely shot in the low 40s from the field. Now he shoots above 50% with Jokic.

Before that Gordon routinely shot under 30% from 3 in his first few years.

Aaron Gordon TS:

2017 - 53%
2018 - 53%
2019 - 54% (23 years old, same age as Scottie)
2020 - 52%
2021 - 55%
2022 - 60% (DENVER)
2023 - 62%
2024 - 61%
2025 - 65% (almost 30 years old)

THE BIG OUTLIER IS PLAYING WITH JOKIC.

What type of argument is this? That Barnes would look better playing with a top 5 offensive player of all-time? How exactly are we going to get that player to make Barnes look better?

Shouldn’t the worry be that Barnes is on Gordon’s path but there is no Jokic coming to save his efficiency?

My point was to say that that Barnes is and will be better than Aaron Gordon.

[tsherkin]

Aaron Gordon was a poor 3 point shooter until this year, which was a major outlier in his career and only happened in his 10th year in the league.

Yes. You aren't going to find me disagreeing that being cast in a supporting role on offense was good for him. I have already noted that in my previous post. Camping much more in the corner is helping his percentage a lot. Likewise, being able to hop in from the dunker spot or cut down after setting a high screen, exploiting other primary initiation, is also hugely helpful. There, of course, his aggression and athletic advantages matter.

You may be right, but I think it's still way too premature to draw a firm conclusion when he's just 23 years old, especially given that our team was intentionally tanking for the last 1.5 years and routinely sitting out Scottie in games and in 4th quarters.

Non-elite athlete. No natural shooting ability, long known since prior to the draft. Not an aggressive guy with any consistency. When we're talking about him in the context of being a focal scorer and/or superstar, we already know the answer: he isn't that guy.

If your contention is that he could potentially turn into a solid supporting scoring in the low/mid teens, then we have nothing to argue about: I think that's possible as well. This entire time, my entire line of discussion has been centered around what Scottie looks like in a featured role, because that's what this thread is actually about.

He's a better corner 3pt shooter at this point in his career than Aaron Gordon was over his first four seasons. I have been saying for AGES that we should get him under the break and into the corners more, because he would instantly turn into more of a 35-36% shooter from 3 if we could eliminate ATB 3s.

He hasn't been an efficient player on lower volume even earlier in his career, which leaves me questioning a lot of things about his ability to be a quality supporting cast guy because he isn't particularly savvy off-ball, he isn't a dominant athlete and he isn't aggressive, but he MIGHT look a little different if he was cast around someone who was a high-end playmaker with a strong ability to break down the initial defense.

It's the root of all compliments I have for him not based on his defense. He has the potential to be a decent contributor if he can narrow his role down into more optimized shot types and let him focus on his D, where he is excellent.

[tsherkin]

My point was to say that that Barnes is and will be better than Aaron Gordon.

On offense, this is doubtful. Overall, it depends on what his defensive ceiling is, which becomes a much more intriguing discussion.

[TheGeneral99]

My point was to say that that Barnes is and will be better than Aaron Gordon.

On offense, this is doubtful. Overall, it depends on what his defensive ceiling is, which becomes a much more intriguing discussion.

I will disagree with you here and my position is that Gordon benefits significantly from playing with one of the most dominant offensive players and facilitators in NBA history. Gordon only takes 10 shots a game and most of those shots are wide open or he is getting easy basket from cuts due to the wizardry of Jokic. Obviously he had an incredibly efficient year this year with his outlier 3 point shooting, but historically he's been a poor 3 point shooter his entire career. Last year he shot a terrible 29% from 3.

Gordon was an inefficient player on Orlando on a mediocore or bad team and as not as good of a rebounder or facilitator as Scottie. He also was the 3rd option on those teams after guys like Vucevic and Fournier, AND despite being a 3rd or 4th option he was still inefficient as hell.

[ConSarnit]

draymond pretty much spent his career playing great d, putting up 10 or less inefficient points, and looking to pass the ball a lot and to 2 of the best shooters in history...i mean with his career 8 pts avg on 45% shooting, he was great but not that great, he literally needs to play with a 25-30 guy and another 20-25 guy to win

Again, this is the problem. Your focus, like many others is on the offensive stats for measuring Dray's value. Those don't pick up his true value. Just on offense alone, it is his setting up the offence with calls, picks or passes that helps it function, which many stats will not capture. And his greatest value is on D, which is harder to measure.

Warriors defensive rating drop without Draymond this season: 4.4 points per 100.

That’s the difference between the best defense and the 6th best defense


Warriors offensive rating drop without Steph this season: 12.5 points per 100.

That’s MORE than the difference between the best offense and the 30th best offense.

The impact Steph has on offense is (and always has been) far greater than the impact Draymond has on defense.

Steph is one of then most impactful on/off players of all-time. This isn’t a dig at Draymond but he’s not even close to the same stratosphere as Steph as a player. The entire Warriors team goes into the tank when Steph is absent and it has been that way for a decade.

[TheGeneral99]

Aaron Gordon was a poor 3 point shooter until this year, which was a major outlier in his career and only happened in his 10th year in the league.

Yes. You aren't going to find me disagreeing that being cast in a supporting role on offense was good for him. I have already noted that in my previous post. Camping much more in the corner is helping his percentage a lot. Likewise, being able to hop in from the dunker spot or cut down after setting a high screen, exploiting other primary initiation, is also hugely helpful. There, of course, his aggression and athletic advantages matter.

You may be right, but I think it's still way too premature to draw a firm conclusion when he's just 23 years old, especially given that our team was intentionally tanking for the last 1.5 years and routinely sitting out Scottie in games and in 4th quarters.

Non-elite athlete. No natural shooting ability, long known since prior to the draft. Not an aggressive guy with any consistency. When we're talking about him in the context of being a focal scorer and/or superstar, we already know the answer: he isn't that guy.

If your contention is that he could potentially turn into a solid supporting scoring in the low/mid teens, then we have nothing to argue about: I think that's possible as well. This entire time, my entire line of discussion has been centered around what Scottie looks like in a featured role, because that's what this thread is actually about.

He's a better corner 3pt shooter at this point in his career than Aaron Gordon was over his first four seasons. I have been saying for AGES that we should get him under the break and into the corners more, because he would instantly turn into more of a 35-36% shooter from 3 if we could eliminate ATB 3s.

He hasn't been an efficient player on lower volume even earlier in his career, which leaves me questioning a lot of things about his ability to be a quality supporting cast guy because he isn't particularly savvy off-ball, he isn't a dominant athlete and he isn't aggressive, but he MIGHT look a little different if he was cast around someone who was a high-end playmaker with a strong ability to break down the initial defense.

It's the root of all compliments I have for him not based on his defense. He has the potential to be a decent contributor if he can narrow his role down into more optimized shot types and let him focus on his D, where he is excellent.

We will have to disagree.

You see Scottie ideally as a 3rd or 4th option on low usage and appear to say that he's already almost reached his ceiling.

I don't think he's reached his ceiling and I see Scottie as likely being able to be a very good 2nd option that can score 22-23ppg on solid efficiency.

We'll see what happens.

[ConSarnit]

My point was to say that that Barnes is and will be better than Aaron Gordon.

On offense, this is doubtful. Overall, it depends on what his defensive ceiling is, which becomes a much more intriguing discussion.

I will disagree with you here and my position is that Gordon benefits significantly from playing with one of the most dominant offensive players and facilitators in NBA history. Gordon only takes 10 shots a game and most of those shots are wide open or he is getting easy basket from cuts due to the wizardry of Jokic. Obviously he had an incredibly efficient year this year with his outlier 3 point shooting, but historically he's been a poor 3 point shooter his entire career. Last year he shot a terrible 29% from 3.

Gordon was an inefficient player on Orlando on a mediocore or bad team and as not as good of a rebounder or facilitator as Scottie. He also was the 3rd option on those teams after guys like Vucevic and Fournier, AND despite being a 3rd or 4th option he was still inefficient as hell.

In his 2nd and 4th year in ORL Gordon lead the team in FGA. Barnes hasn’t lead the Raptors once.

Gordon’s reb% over his first 4 years in ORL: 12.5%

Barnes reb% over his first 4 years: 11.9%

Gordon’s TS+ in ORL: 97

Barnes’ TS+ in TOR: 94

Edit: was wrong about Gordon’s scoring role and the years

[tsherkin]

I will disagree with you here and my position is that Gordon benefits significantly from playing with one of the most dominant offensive players and facilitators in NBA history. Gordon only takes 10 shots a game and most of those shots are wide open or he is getting easy basket from cuts due to the wizardry of Jokic. Obviously he had an incredibly efficient year this year with his outlier 3 point shooting, but historically he's been a poor 3 point shooter his entire career. Last year he shot a terrible 29% from 3.

Gordon was an inefficient player on Orlando on a mediocore or bad team and as not as good of a rebounder or facilitator as Scottie. He also was the 3rd option on those teams after guys like Vucevic and Fournier, AND despite being a 3rd or 4th option he was still inefficient as hell.

None of this addresses what I'm saying; you're just repeating yourself. I'm curious, are you even reading what I write?

Yes, Aaron Gordon was inefficient a role similar to Scottie's (by volume) on a bad Orlando squad for several years, and he was ill-suited to it. No, Scottie isn't actually a meaningfully better playmaker. They were running the ball through Elfrid Payton and DJ Augustin a lot by the time Gordon was starting to shoot more. Trying it some with Evan Fournier, running the ball a lot through Vucevic. He wasn't deployed in the same fashion as is Barnes with Toronto. In Denver, he's showing a lot more ball-handling and passing ability, in part because he's allowed to do it and, of course, in part because he's got better finishers around him.

We agree that specifically 3pt shooting looks better because of how he's used and who's drawing defensive attention, but you're forgetting that Gordon is a FAR better player at being physical and moving without the ball, attacking with his power and athleticism. He's a far better screener, he's a much better partner in the PnR. These things are huge parts of why he thrives in Denver's offense.

We will have to disagree.

You see Scottie ideally as a 3rd or 4th option on low usage and appear to say that he's already almost reached his ceiling.

I don't think he's reached his ceiling and I see Scottie as likely being able to be a very good 2nd option that can score 22-23ppg on solid efficiency.

Nothing about his skill set or mentality suggests this right now, like at all. What do you consider solid efficiency, by the way?

[TheGeneral99]

I will disagree with you here and my position is that Gordon benefits significantly from playing with one of the most dominant offensive players and facilitators in NBA history. Gordon only takes 10 shots a game and most of those shots are wide open or he is getting easy basket from cuts due to the wizardry of Jokic. Obviously he had an incredibly efficient year this year with his outlier 3 point shooting, but historically he's been a poor 3 point shooter his entire career. Last year he shot a terrible 29% from 3.

Gordon was an inefficient player on Orlando on a mediocore or bad team and as not as good of a rebounder or facilitator as Scottie. He also was the 3rd option on those teams after guys like Vucevic and Fournier, AND despite being a 3rd or 4th option he was still inefficient as hell.

None of this addresses what I'm saying; you're just repeating yourself. I'm curious, are you even reading what I write?

Yes, Aaron Gordon was inefficient a role similar to Scottie's (by volume) on a bad Orlando squad for several years, and he was ill-suited to it. No, Scottie isn't actually a meaningfully better playmaker. They were running the ball through Elfrid Payton and DJ Augustin a lot by the time Gordon was starting to shoot more. Trying it some with Evan Fournier, running the ball a lot through Vucevic. He wasn't deployed in the same fashion as is Barnes with Toronto. In Denver, he's showing a lot more ball-handling and passing ability, in part because he's allowed to do it and, of course, in part because he's got better finishers around him.

We agree that specifically 3pt shooting looks better because of how he's used and who's drawing defensive attention, but you're forgetting that Gordon is a FAR better player at being physical and moving without the ball, attacking with his power and athleticism. He's a far better screener, he's a much better partner in the PnR. These things are huge parts of why he thrives in Denver's offense.

We will have to disagree.

You see Scottie ideally as a 3rd or 4th option on low usage and appear to say that he's already almost reached his ceiling.

I don't think he's reached his ceiling and I see Scottie as likely being able to be a very good 2nd option that can score 22-23ppg on solid efficiency.

Nothing about his skill set or mentality suggests this right now, like at all. What do you consider solid efficiency, by the way?

I still think you are criminally underrating Barnes offensively and neglect the fact that our team has been intentionally tanking for 1.5 years and stifling Barnes ability to showcase his talent.

If you recall in the first half of the 2023-2024 season before we tanked, Barnes looked fantastic and this was supported by every advanced metric:

https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nba/news/scottie-barnes-stats-nba-impactful-players-raptors/4a1baf3d19c7ffffc52a26c7

Box Plus-Minus (BPM) rates Barnes as the No. 10 player in the league, right ahead of Jayson Tatum and Donovan Mitchell.

It's still early enough in the season that these numbers aren't very stable, but they do reflect that Barnes has been terrific thus far. His basic box score stats of 19.6 points, 9.1 rebounds and 5.5 assists per game only reflect a small fraction of how good he's been.

Barnes has graded out as a solid offensive player by the advanced stats. EPM has him as the No. 47 player in terms of offensive impact, slightly above the likes of James Harden and Mikal Bridges.

Barnes has been working inside of a shoebox because of the lack of shooting threats beside him, yet he's been one of the best players at creating high-value assists. Per PBP Stats, he is 13th in the league in assists leading to 3-pointers and 11th in assists at the rim. He's been great at making laser-quick decisions with his passing.

Barnes is a great rebounder, better even than his 9.1 rebounds per game suggests. While other guys are collecting off misses that fall right to them, Barnes is fighting tooth and nail for many of his. He has one of the higher contested rebounding percentages of any of the star forwards in the league.

Player Rebounds per Game Contested Rebound %
Jayson Tatum 8.7 17.6%
Kevin Durant 6.4 22.4%
LeBron James 8.0 23.0%
Giannis Antetokounmpo 10.8 34.1%
Scottie Barnes 9.1 38.9%

Barnes is one of the better guys in the league at boxing out as well, allowing other teammates to collect rebounds. His 2.0 box outs per game leads the Raptors, ahead even of all of their centers.

[tsherkin]

I still think you are criminally underrating Barnes offensively and neglect the fact that our team has been intentionally tanking for 1.5 years and stifling Barnes ability to showcase his talent.

I really don't consider us tanking to be meaningful at all. If he was an actual first option-level scorer, that wouldn't matter at all. He isn't, and has a library of weaknesses and deficiencies, so we see the issues he has. For one, he has no range. For another, he struggles to get all the way to the rim. For another, he doesn't have elite athleticism. For another, he doesn't use his own physical tools terribly well. It goes on. None of this interrupts his ability to become a more useful offensive player, but within the context of this thread (which you seem to be heartily ignoring each time I make reference to it), there's a near-zero chance that he turns into that level of player.

As far as being a second option, it also seems unlikely for a host of different reasons.

If you recall in the first half of the 2023-2024 season before we tanked, Barnes looked fantastic and this was supported by every advanced metric:

Yeah, on the back of shooting 40% on 6 ATB 3s per game, which he is basically never going to manage over a full season. So why would this be relevant? We discussed his 2024 3pt shooting already.

And yeah, great, he's a solid rebounder. We know this. Now he needs to learn how to screen like an adult. And he needs more aggression in his game. And more range on his jumper, and a better post game to compensate for his lack of elite lateral quickness or an explosive first step. There are just too many pieces missing for him to be a super-relevant volume scorer.

You're projecting "solid efficiency" on "22-23 ppg," but he hasn't even managed league average efficiency OR 20 ppg (albeit quite close). Like, yeah, maybe in his 9th season when he's finally had enough development and exactly perfect circumstances, and a much better player ahead of him, he could DeRozan himself. Maybe. Probably not. DDR was a 52.3% TS, 98 TS+, -190.0 TSAdd guy over his first 443 games. And he remained not worthwhile as our focal scorer his entire time with us, and continues to be a poor choice as a focal option. He isn't the model we want to use with Scottie.

And now, we have no incentive to keep forcing the issue with him, and lots of incentive to just cut his shooting volume down as much as possible while focusing on other guys. So it just doesn't really make sense to keep blundering forward with Scottie in a volume role.

[MoneyBall]

If Haliburton is the new benchmark then yes.

[DreamTeam09]

My point was to say that that Barnes is and will be better than Aaron Gordon.

On offense, this is doubtful. Overall, it depends on what his defensive ceiling is, which becomes a much more intriguing discussion.

I will disagree with you here and my position is that Gordon benefits significantly from playing with one of the most dominant offensive players and facilitators in NBA history. Gordon only takes 10 shots a game and most of those shots are wide open or he is getting easy basket from cuts due to the wizardry of Jokic. Obviously he had an incredibly efficient year this year with his outlier 3 point shooting, but historically he's been a poor 3 point shooter his entire career. Last year he shot a terrible 29% from 3.

Gordon was an inefficient player on Orlando on a mediocore or bad team and as not as good of a rebounder or facilitator as Scottie. He also was the 3rd option on those teams after guys like Vucevic and Fournier, AND despite being a 3rd or 4th option he was still inefficient as hell.

I mean if we can't even agree that Scottie Barnes is a better offensive player AG then who has never cracked 18ppg or 4ast a game then I'm noteven sure what to do, I certainly wouldn't entertain that discussion any further. Clearly ppl value different things and come up with their own justification on what makes a good NBA player.
I for one value facilitators, offensive initiators, offensive hubs over efficient play finishers because it is drastically more important & difficult to do one than the other. My goodness, AG is better than Scottie barnes now, absolute madness, S/o to AG too, one of my fav players

[tsherkin]

I mean if we can't even agree that Scottie Barnes is a better offensive player AG then who has never cracked 18ppg or 4ast a game

Raw volume means only so much. Barnes' highest-scoring seasons come on comparable efficiency, but higher shooting volume. And his season this past year was one of the worst seasons at volume this century. Not sure you want to stand on volume to author a pro-Scottie's offense type of argument.

I for one value facilitators, offensive initiators, offensive hubs over efficient play finishers because it is drastically more important & difficult to do one than the other. My goodness, AG is better than Scottie barnes now, absolute madness, S/o to AG too, one of my fav players

I value facilitators and offensive initiators, but their value is heavily mitigated if they are dreadful scoring threats like Scottie. Especially when the nature of what he does to create for others is highly replaceable by more contemporary playmakers.

AG is better than Scottie because he's a better fit in his current role. He's a very good complementary player. He's got tools and a mindset which help him exceed Scottie in that regard.

I believe Scottie has the potential to look better in a more complementary role, we just need to see it happen. Because it didn't over his first two seasons, when he was 5th on the team in FGA/g (both years). He has basically a hot December 2023 going for him as the primary argument as to why he has future potential, shooting at a rate no one being realistic thinks is any sort of sustainable (especially at that volume) for him given his performance outside of that month. He's a career 30% shooter who has shot 29% from 3 outside of December 2023, but people keep talking about the 23-24 season as if it was some meaningful indicator of shooting improvement for some reason.

So yeah. AG isn't any BETTER-positioned than Scottie to be a #1 option, but that's because it's a dumb idea to feature EITHER of them in that role. Right at the moment, AG is a better offensive player because he has tools, an approach and a context which allow him to play to a complementary role. Scottie, who most likely WOULD shoot better from 3 than he does now if he was shooting a lot more from the corner, still isn't a particularly impressive off-ball guy, isn't a good screener (it's a major criticism of his game at the moment) and isn't the athlete Gordon is, would clearly not be as effective in a similar role.

Meantime, volume stats are only so meaningful in this context, particularly in a season like 24-25 when Scottie was 61st out of 61 guys scoring 19+ ppg in scoring efficiency. He shot a lot, so he scored a lot, and he did a horrendous job of it, which isn't a selling point. We've seen seasons like that all across NBA history, and they aren't worthy of mention.

Any argument about the players in a broader context has to be authored around Scottie's defensive potential. He has All-D potential. AG is a good defender, but he isn't that kind of guy. Scottie has that potential, but not while he's shooting way too much for his tools. He definitely isn't the guy you want as a first or second option.

As a third option, if he can show value in the corners (he's actually about 3% worse than league average from the corners, though obviously AG was worse for his first 4 or 5 seasons as well), there's some discussion that at 10-12 FGA/g, there's utility to throwing him more than just transition possessions to leverage his playmaking... but at that stage, who do you have ahead of him?

In Toronto, he isn't a meaningfully superior playmaker to BI, and he isn't a lot better than 2025 RJ, either (though RJ wasn't a hugely superior scoring force). And then with Quick coming back, that's three different guys to whom we can distribute playmaking, rendering the need for Scottie's playmaking somewhat moot.

[YogurtProducer]

I'd rather have RJ. Fox isn't an efficient volume scorer and RJ at least draws fouls and gets to the rim, seems to be improving as a playmaker, etc.

WILD.

Fox is a much better player. Would be a bad fit here salary wise and the fact that he is another mid range guy who doesnt fit next to IQ, but he gets to the rate at a better rate than RJ, shoots the 3 better than RJ, better playmaker than RJ, etc.

Fox is a career .324 FTr guy. His shooting splits are 47.0 / 33.0 / 74.6, with a career TS% of 55.7%.

In 25-26, he posted 56.0% TS (53.7% in the abbreviated sample with SAS after the trade), on 46.3 / 31.0 / 82.7.

He's not that dissimilar to RJ as a playmaker. He's not consistently better from 3 outside of the one season everyone likes to remember from him in 2023.

And RJ? Career .321 FTr, .312 with us in the 25-26 season. So no, Fox isn't meaningfully better at getting to the line. Also, RJ gets 33.5% of his shots in the RA on his career, 35.4% last season. Fox? 20.5% on his career, 20.7% last year.

Who cares about career though? Fox is much better player today than he was year 1-4 for example.

Fox has led teams to the 45-50 win mark as the best player. Averaged 27/5/6 on 60TS% in a season before. And in all honesty, hasn’t had that great of teams around him.

He’s just better than RJ by a lot.

[tsherkin]

WILD.

Fox is a much better player. Would be a bad fit here salary wise and the fact that he is another mid range guy who doesnt fit next to IQ, but he gets to the rate at a better rate than RJ, shoots the 3 better than RJ, better playmaker than RJ, etc.

Fox is a career .324 FTr guy. His shooting splits are 47.0 / 33.0 / 74.6, with a career TS% of 55.7%.

In 25-26, he posted 56.0% TS (53.7% in the abbreviated sample with SAS after the trade), on 46.3 / 31.0 / 82.7.

He's not that dissimilar to RJ as a playmaker. He's not consistently better from 3 outside of the one season everyone likes to remember from him in 2023.

And RJ? Career .321 FTr, .312 with us in the 25-26 season. So no, Fox isn't meaningfully better at getting to the line. Also, RJ gets 33.5% of his shots in the RA on his career, 35.4% last season. Fox? 20.5% on his career, 20.7% last year.

Who cares about career though? Fox is much better player today than he was year 1-4 for example.

I posted his 2025 numbers. Like a dumbass, I wrote 25-26, but I meant 24-25.

Let me do it again:

DF: 56.0% TS (53.7% in the abbreviated sample with SAS after the trade), on 46.3 / 31.0 / 82.7, .273 FTr
RJ: 54.7% TS on 46.8 / 35.0 / 63.0 (54.7% TS), .317 FTr

You see how he was a worse 3pt shooter AND worse at drawing fouls, with slightly worse FG%? The only thing was the FT shooting.

Meantime, RJ was taking over 35% of his shots in the RA and Fox was taking about 16% of his (almost 21% with the Spurs, though).

So no, other than FT shooting, he really wasn't doing those other things better than RJ this season.

Fox has led teams to the 45-50 win mark as the best player. Averaged 27/5/6 on 60TS% in a season before. And in all honesty, hasn’t had that great of teams around him.

Yes, he had a season where he shot very well from three, at odds with the rest of his career to date. That was, however, the ONLY season where he exceeded 98 TS+ in his career, aka it was a large outlier. And it heavily depended upon it being only the second time he shot over 32.4% from 3.

He isn't a better 3pt shooter than RJ. He generally isn't a better scorer than RJ. He's a more reliable FT shooter, and he's not proven any more reliable or consistent than RJ has been over the past two seasons (and certainly with us).

He’s just better than RJ by a lot.

I think this is exaggeration based on a down season from RJ at the foul line, to be honest.

[DreamTeam09]

I mean if we can't even agree that Scottie Barnes is a better offensive player AG then who has never cracked 18ppg or 4ast a game

Raw volume means only so much. Barnes' highest-scoring seasons come on comparable efficiency, but higher shooting volume. And his season this past year was one of the worst seasons at volume this century. Not sure you want to stand on volume to author a pro-Scottie's offense type of argument.

I for one value facilitators, offensive initiators, offensive hubs over efficient play finishers because it is drastically more important & difficult to do one than the other. My goodness, AG is better than Scottie barnes now, absolute madness, S/o to AG too, one of my fav players

I value facilitators and offensive initiators, but their value is heavily mitigated if they are dreadful scoring threats like Scottie. Especially when the nature of what he does to create for others is highly replaceable by more contemporary playmakers.

AG is better than Scottie because he's a better fit in his current role. He's a very good complementary player. He's got tools and a mindset which help him exceed Scottie in that regard.

I believe Scottie has the potential to look better in a more complementary role, we just need to see it happen. Because it didn't over his first two seasons, when he was 5th on the team in FGA/g (both years). He has basically a hot December 2023 going for him as the primary argument as to why he has future potential, shooting at a rate no one being realistic thinks is any sort of sustainable (especially at that volume) for him given his performance outside of that month. He's a career 30% shooter who has shot 29% from 3 outside of December 2023, but people keep talking about the 23-24 season as if it was some meaningful indicator of shooting improvement for some reason.

So yeah. AG isn't any BETTER-positioned than Scottie to be a #1 option, but that's because it's a dumb idea to feature EITHER of them in that role. Right at the moment, AG is a better offensive player because he has tools, an approach and a context which allow him to play to a complementary role. Scottie, who most likely WOULD shoot better from 3 than he does now if he was shooting a lot more from the corner, still isn't a particularly impressive off-ball guy, isn't a good screener (it's a major criticism of his game at the moment) and isn't the athlete Gordon is, would clearly not be as effective in a similar role.

Meantime, volume stats are only so meaningful in this context, particularly in a season like 24-25 when Scottie was 61st out of 61 guys scoring 19+ ppg in scoring efficiency. He shot a lot, so he scored a lot, and he did a horrendous job of it, which isn't a selling point. We've seen seasons like that all across NBA history, and they aren't worthy of mention.

Any argument about the players in a broader context has to be authored around Scottie's defensive potential. He has All-D potential. AG is a good defender, but he isn't that kind of guy. Scottie has that potential, but not while he's shooting way too much for his tools. He definitely isn't the guy you want as a first or second option.

As a third option, if he can show value in the corners (he's actually about 3% worse than league average from the corners, though obviously AG was worse for his first 4 or 5 seasons as well), there's some discussion that at 10-12 FGA/g, there's utility to throwing him more than just transition possessions to leverage his playmaking... but at that stage, who do you have ahead of him?

In Toronto, he isn't a meaningfully superior playmaker to BI, and he isn't a lot better than 2025 RJ, either (though RJ wasn't a hugely superior scoring force). And then with Quick coming back, that's three different guys to whom we can distribute playmaking, rendering the need for Scottie's playmaking somewhat moot.

I don't wanna make this another back n forth, plenty of stuff we disagree on which is fair, but doesn't that bolded line you wrote insinuate that you don't actually think AG is better than Barnes, Just that AG is in a 3rd / 4th role capable of maximizing his strengths, wouldn't Scottie look better in a 2nd / 3rd/ 4th/ option role which maximize his strengths, minimize his flaws similar to AG right now

[tsherkin]

I don't wanna make this another back n forth, plenty of stuff we disagree on which is fair, but doesn't that bolded line you wrote insinuate that you don't actually think AG is better than Barnes, Just that AG is in a 3rd / 4th role capable of maximizing his strengths, wouldn't Scottie look better in a 2nd / 3rd/ 4th/ option role which maximize his strengths, minimize his flaws similar to AG right now

I have been saying for literal YEARS that I think Scottie is best-suited to a more complementary role and would likely look a little better in such a role. It would be really nice, though, if you read what I actually wrote, because I have been banging that gong a while ITT.

What you're missing is that I think AG is better-suited for offensive success in such a role because of what he has which Scottie does not. Athleticism and aggression, and a good sense of how and motivation to move without the ball to attack with cuts. He's a great screener, too, and Scottie is not. This is stuff I've covered in my last couple of posts, which you're either not reading or intentionally overlooking to try and make some kind of point.

No, I 100% do not think Scottie would look as good as AG in the same role on Denver. He's much worse at the things which make AG good in that role. I think that on Toronto's roster, we could benefit by reducing his volume and trying to force him into a better-curated selection of shots to up his efficiency while minimizing his many weaknesses, and that might help... but I also don't think that opens the door for him to leverage the playmaking you like to talk about so much, because he's not worth a lot of on-ball time when our guys are all healthy. So he becomes a defensive roleplayer who can provide us below-average 3pt shooting from the corners... which might be enough to help him be league-average-ish in efficiency overall, because he's not really a stunner at anything else and isn't as athletic as Gordon.