tsherkin wrote:DreamTeam09 wrote: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.