Update: It is time to trade Scottie Barnes before it's too late!

[YogurtProducer]

No that is strictly opinion.

No, it is a fact that Scottie has poor consistency in regards to effort which significantly drops his floor on any given night.

His floor is not as low as you claim as his defense, rebounding, and passing give him a solid floor. Even when his shooting is horrible he is still a valuable player. To ignore those aspects of his game is very poor understanding of basketball or trolling.

Scottie in theory has a high floor. However, we have all seen Scottie have games where he is super passive offensively, and is inactive defensively.

2 way players are incredibly valuable and are key to winning basketball. Scottie has a very clear path to being a great two way player.

I agree. But key weird is "path". He is not there right now.

2 way players start with being a consistent player on at least 1 side of the court. Scottie currently is negative to great offensively depending on the game, and defensively ranges from average to elite depending on what player shows up.

It really isn't a hot take to say Scottie's biggest enemy right now is himself. That is not an opinion.

[YogurtProducer]

The excuses are approaching Bargnani level.

I remember Duffman saying this last year or the year prior and people lost their minds. But I agree. The excuses remind me so much of Bargnani how nothing was ever his fault and it was always something.

That being said, Barnes is already ten times the player Bargs ever was just based on natural talent.

[YogurtProducer]

BPM is literally placed under Advanced section of his stat profile. It's not a raw plus minus stat.

Good to know you are throwing out stats that you actually have no clue where they derive from. Here is the definition, right from the source:

It is based only on the information in the traditional basketball box score--no play-by-play data or non-traditional box score data (like dunks or deflections) are included.

So... it is 100% box score based. Not advanced other than someone applied a formula to a basic box score. it is for all intensive purposes a fantasy ranking.

Oh dear, I can't get past the first sentence. Such ignorance.

His OBPM per season:
Yr1 +0.5
Yr2 +0.5
Yr3 +2.9
Yr4 +1.5

Cool - he has raw box score stats!

Other metrics like EPM and RPM confirm that Scottie has been a net positive on offense. Is that elite territory? No, but it's nothing to scoff at and certainly isn't in negative territory like Ingram's defense.

Gonna have to take your word for it on EPM, as it is not available without subscribing. RPM also doesn't exist anymore as far as I know, and you must be referring to RAPM (which paints Barnes negatively)

https://www.nbarapm.com/player/Scottie_Barnes

Closest I can find is this, which paints Barnes as negative offensively in most advanced stats.

And is this really that surprising? Barnes is a guy who has put up sub 20ppg seasons, on below average to bad efficiency, and only averaged 5.8 assists (to 2.8 turnovers) despite a 27% usage rate last season.

If Barnes was truly a positive offensive piece, he would be a lock for all star and all nba nods. But he isn't.

[PushDaRock]

Would people be happier if we had Franz Wagner who is better offensively but worse defensively?

No and frankly I think the comparisons between the two are kind of silly since they play very differently and - more importantly - are in very different situations. The Magic have Franz as more the 2nd option (Potentially a 2A/2B situation with Bane in the mix) whereas Scottie's role on offense has fluctuated to a frustrating extent.

First season, he's more or less the 4th option after Siakam (When he came back from surgery), Fred and O.G.

Second season he fluctuated between 3rd and 4th with the number of injuries we had with some truly awful spacing with Fred having a down season and the late addition of a non-spacing big man in Jakob Poeltl. I love Poeltl but as good as a playmaker as he is, he doesn't stretch the floor and in general is not an ideal center fit next to Scottie.

3rd season it was...kind of a 1A/1B with Siakam before he got traded? Some nights O.G. was fed so maybe you can consider it a 1A/1B/1C scenario I think? My memory eludes me regarding the before but after the big trades it was a little more egalitarian in the few games he, RJ and IQ played. That said, Scottie was often asked to be the 1st option and his efficiency did dip; most notably his 3-point shooting dropped off a cliff. Frankly I don't think we talk enough about how awkward the players acquired in the Siakam/O.G. trades were in maximizing his strengths on offense outside of Quickley who needed time to adapt to being a lead PG instead of a 6th man combo guard but I digress.

Most recent season, he was the defacto 1st option but like the previous season injuries and general roster instability didn't put him in the best situation on offense, not helped by Scottie having to expend a ton of energy guarding the opposing team's best player while also orchestrating the offense as a point forward or- given IQ's limited games played - at point straight up.

It also wasn't ideal that Scottie was playing through injury but it was also his choice to play through it to qualify for All-NBA and the rookie extension bonus that would come from it despite the miniscule chance he'd actually get the nod when he played so poorly later on in the season.

Franz has more or less been "The Other Guy", the Brown to Paolo's Tatum aside from his rookie year and while the roster building for Orlando has been far from perfect - and it's worth mentioning that Franz/Paolo as a pairing hasn't worked out very well in terms of both succeeding statline-wise whereas the two playing separately has resulted in some solid performances irrespective of whether or not it's led to wins in that timeframe.

As an aside but Franz being "better offensively" is only true if you only zero in on "how many points do they score"; Scottie is a significantly better passer & playmaker than Franz. You can argue about touches or whatnot but he's got a better AST/TO ratio despite having the same or worse scoring options on offense/worse spacing from which to operate & pass to. Franz is a good passer but I don't think it's really a competition between the two and Franz's lack of shooting/regression is just as concerning as it is for Scottie's 3-point shot to have fluctuated for his career.

That is some unreal excuse making. I don't know how you make excuses for Scottie's lack of spacing he had to work with but don't do the same for Franz. The Magic were the worst shooting team in the league both in makes and %.

Franz was at 4.7 APG and 2.3 TO. Scottie was at 5.8 APG and 2.8 TO. That's virtually identical so not sure where you are getting "better" A/TO from? Scottie was at 27 .7 AST% vs 26.6 AST% for Franz so not sure where "significantly better" is coming from. It's not some massive gap like you're trying to suggest. With how they are trending, Franz might even pass Scottie in this category next season.

Franz was chucking up bricks from 3 and still boosted his scoring average by 4.5 points to 24.2 PPG and put up a 56 TS%. That still needs to improve for him to become truly elite but if Scottie was doing that, this board would be jumping for joy.

More importantly though, we have seen improvement by Franz every single year in virtually every category outside of a regression in his 3 point shooting. There is also tremendous upside if he manages to fix it which is still a possibility given he was decent his first 2 seasons and his FT% at 85.6% career would indicate he's probably a better shooter than he's shown the last 2 seasons. That cannot be said for Scottie who has alternated between good and bad years in his career.

That's not even getting into the advanced metrics which all give a massive edge to Franz over Scottie.

[Spates]

yup, definitely to re-adjust the expectation he's not a max player but a great role player

i think Bobby Webster kinda already hinted at that

He moved so much better as a rookie, he's got to be nursing an injury.

I think he gained too much weight.

It certainly looks that way. After a quick Google search I found he was 225 at the draft combine, and he's listed at 237 now. But according to comments from Nurse, he put on 10lbs between the draft combine and his rookie season.

My takeaway is that I need to lose some weight.

[anotherhomer]

Some people act like Giannis is the standard for a Scottie trade but I’d just trade him for a better fitting all-star, doesn’t have to be a “superstar” tbh.

Could we trade him for a first option?

which team would trade a "first option" for scottie barnes.....

[PushDaRock]

Some people act like Giannis is the standard for a Scottie trade but I’d just trade him for a better fitting all-star, doesn’t have to be a “superstar” tbh.

Could we trade him for a first option?

which team would trade a "first option" for scottie barnes.....

Maybe the Wizards or the Nets

[MoneyBall]

BPM is literally placed under Advanced section of his stat profile. It's not a raw plus minus stat.

Good to know you are throwing out stats that you actually have no clue where they derive from. Here is the definition, right from the source:

It is based only on the information in the traditional basketball box score--no play-by-play data or non-traditional box score data (like dunks or deflections) are included.

So... it is 100% box score based. Not advanced other than someone applied a formula to a basic box score. it is for all intensive purposes a fantasy ranking.

Oh dear, I can't get past the first sentence. Such ignorance.

His OBPM per season:
Yr1 +0.5
Yr2 +0.5
Yr3 +2.9
Yr4 +1.5

Cool - he has raw box score stats!

*sigh*


1. Box score based doesn't mean "non-advanced".
The word "advanced" refers to how the stat is analyzed and modeled, not where the data comes from. A metric doesn’t need tracking or play-by-play data to be advanced. BPM, PER, Win Shares, VORP, LEBRON, and EPM all take basic box-score numbers and use formulas to estimate a player’s real impact. That’s why Basketball Reference lists BPM right in the Advanced Stats section alongside those others. Thus, BPM is part of a recognized family of advanced impact metrics.

Maybe you should give them a shout and explain to them why they've been wrong this whole time.

2. BPM isn’t a raw stat, it’s a modeled estimate. Raw stats are things like points, rebounds, assists, and standard plus/minus; single numbers taken straight from the box score with no adjustments or context. BPM, on the other hand, uses those raw stats as inputs in a formula that was built by comparing how players’ box-score profiles relate to team success. The end result is an estimated impact rating, not a count of anything that actually appears in the box score.

3. BPM is not a glorified fantasy ranking. Fantasy rankings reward raw box score volume. BPM does the opposite: it estimates on-court impact relative to league average, accounting for pace, team performance, and positional adjustments. It measures real basketball impact, not fantasy output.

Maybe consult Google before declaring others clueless... it's faster than arguing.

[TakeYourHeart]

If Scottie can play like he did against the Nets every night then we're in for a great season. Also, RJ seemed to have worked on his 3pt shot all summer and BI is committed to taking more 3s so the spacing in the starting lineup looks promising.

[Tripod]

He moved so much better as a rookie, he's got to be nursing an injury.

I think he gained too much weight.

It certainly looks that way. After a quick Google search I found he was 225 at the draft combine, and he's listed at 237 now. But according to comments from Nurse, he put on 10lbs between the draft combine and his rookie season.

My takeaway is that I need to lose some weight.

But you then can't ask him to play C small ball and take on real C's with their height and weight if he drops weight. He will get injured quicker banging with those bigger bodies.

Even if he lost weight, he won't beat him man off the dribble as he isn't fluid or fast. I like to use the word "clunky".

[YogurtProducer]

BPM is literally placed under Advanced section of his stat profile. It's not a raw plus minus stat.

Good to know you are throwing out stats that you actually have no clue where they derive from. Here is the definition, right from the source:

It is based only on the information in the traditional basketball box score--no play-by-play data or non-traditional box score data (like dunks or deflections) are included.

So... it is 100% box score based. Not advanced other than someone applied a formula to a basic box score. it is for all intensive purposes a fantasy ranking.

Oh dear, I can't get past the first sentence. Such ignorance.

His OBPM per season:
Yr1 +0.5
Yr2 +0.5
Yr3 +2.9
Yr4 +1.5

Cool - he has raw box score stats!

*sigh*


1. Box score based doesn't mean "non-advanced".
The word "advanced" refers to how the stat is analyzed and modeled, not where the data comes from. A metric doesn’t need tracking or play-by-play data to be advanced. BPM, PER, Win Shares, VORP, LEBRON, and EPM all take basic box-score numbers and use formulas to estimate a player’s real impact. That’s why Basketball Reference lists BPM right in the Advanced Stats section alongside those others. Thus, BPM is part of a recognized family of advanced impact metrics.

Maybe you should give them a shout and explain to them why they've been wrong this whole time.

2. BPM isn’t a raw stat, it’s a modeled estimate. Raw stats are things like points, rebounds, assists, and standard plus/minus; single numbers taken straight from the box score with no adjustments or context. BPM, on the other hand, uses those raw stats as inputs in a formula that was built by comparing how players’ box-score profiles relate to team success. The end result is an estimated impact rating, not a count of anything that actually appears in the box score.

3. BPM is not a glorified fantasy ranking. Fantasy rankings reward raw box score volume. BPM does the opposite: it estimates on-court impact relative to league average, accounting for pace, team performance, and positional adjustments. It measures real basketball impact, not fantasy output.

Maybe consult Google before declaring others clueless... it's faster than arguing.

Your entire argument is he had positive advanced stats on the offensive side of the floor. He doesn't. End of story. Either way, anything that uses box scores is not an "advanced" stat. It is a glorified PER (which is also apparently "advanced").

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1gx3g5t/education_advanced_stats/

Box score catch alls - BPM/VORP/WS/etc

Any stat on bballref fits this category. These do not measure anything beyond the box score, taking no lineup or plus minus data into account. They are not true “advanced” stats.

RAPM and its derivatives (RAPTOR, LEBRON, Darko, EPM)

These are the true advanced stats, which take lineup and plus minus data into account.

RAPM is real adjusted plus minus, which is a plus minus stat that adjusts for teammate and opponent quality by subtracting out a teammates’ adjusted plus minus’s (unknown) from that of the player in question, and adding back in opponents’ (unknown). This process repeats for every player. In the end we get a huge matrix (anyone know linear algebra?), or a system of equations we can solve to get a RAPM number for each player.

Like man, you keep bringing up BPM (which is BOX SCORE plus/minus). Again, these are as useful as fantasy sports rankings which do the same thing (take box scores and spits out a figure). That is not "advanced", no matter what basketball-reference says. Basketball-reference is notoriously just weird with their stats, as their on-off figures have been wrong for as long as I can remember.

BUT TLDR; Scottie Barnes is negative offensively in all of them. https://www.nbarapm.com/player/Scottie_Barnes

But either way - it is not like he can't improve. But it also is not worthy to discuss BPM. It is useless.

[MoneyBall]

Good to know you are throwing out stats that you actually have no clue where they derive from. Here is the definition, right from the source:
So... it is 100% box score based. Not advanced other than someone applied a formula to a basic box score. it is for all intensive purposes a fantasy ranking.


Cool - he has raw box score stats!

*sigh*


1. Box score based doesn't mean "non-advanced".
The word "advanced" refers to how the stat is analyzed and modeled, not where the data comes from. A metric doesn’t need tracking or play-by-play data to be advanced. BPM, PER, Win Shares, VORP, LEBRON, and EPM all take basic box-score numbers and use formulas to estimate a player’s real impact. That’s why Basketball Reference lists BPM right in the Advanced Stats section alongside those others. Thus, BPM is part of a recognized family of advanced impact metrics.

Maybe you should give them a shout and explain to them why they've been wrong this whole time.

2. BPM isn’t a raw stat, it’s a modeled estimate. Raw stats are things like points, rebounds, assists, and standard plus/minus; single numbers taken straight from the box score with no adjustments or context. BPM, on the other hand, uses those raw stats as inputs in a formula that was built by comparing how players’ box-score profiles relate to team success. The end result is an estimated impact rating, not a count of anything that actually appears in the box score.

3. BPM is not a glorified fantasy ranking. Fantasy rankings reward raw box score volume. BPM does the opposite: it estimates on-court impact relative to league average, accounting for pace, team performance, and positional adjustments. It measures real basketball impact, not fantasy output.

Maybe consult Google before declaring others clueless... it's faster than arguing.

Either way, anything that uses box scores is not an "advanced" stat. It is a glorified PER (which is also apparently "advanced").

Lol, the metrics you single out as the only "true advanced stats" like EPM, LEBRON, Darko, RAPTOR etc. all rely on box score data for their inputs with varying degrees (except for RAPM). Without box score data they couldn't exist.

Like man, you keep bringing up BPM (which is BOX SCORE plus/minus). Again, these are as useful as fantasy sports rankings which do the same thing (take box scores and spits out a figure). That is not "advanced", no matter what basketball-reference says. Basketball-reference is notoriously just weird with their stats, as their on-off figures have been wrong for as long as I can remember.

Again, an advanced stat in basketball analytics is not defined by what category of data it uses, but rather what it attempts to measure and how complex it's calculation is compared to traditional box score stats.

BPM uses regression models to estimate player impact on team performance. It's also adjusted for team context and position. By definition, BPM is an advanced metric. Even the stat's creator, Daniel Myers, explicitly describes it as such.

This view I'm defending isn't merely my opinion, it’s convention. Analysts, journalists, and even NBA front offices use BPM alongside other advanced metrics (e.g. EPM, LEBRON, WS, Darko) in the same conversations about player value and impact. Calling BPM a raw stat is ignorant on so many levels.

Now, you may not like BPM, or rely on it for all sorts of reasons (which is really what that rando from reddit you quoted was getting at), but your personal opinion of it does nothing to declassify it as an advanced basketball metric.

Your entire argument is he had positive advanced stats on the offensive side of the floor. He doesn't. End of story.

Saying "end of story" after a false statement doesn't magically make it true. You said Scottie was a net negative on offense his entire career. THAT is false.

Even if I only use your preferred advanced metrics and disqualify the ones you've arbitrarily dismissed, you're still wrong. Here are Scottie's offensive metrics:

LEBRON

Yr1 -0.8
Yr2 +0.3
Yr3 +0.9
Yr4 +0.1

Darko

Yr1 0.0
Yr2 +0.1
Yr3 +0.8
Yr4 +0.1

RAPTOR

Yr1 +0.1

*metric no longer calculated after 2022. However, it's notable that Scottie's year one metric in RAPTOR is even better than the other two advanced metrics.

EPM

*I don't have a subscription so I can't look at past seasons, but I remember him being in the positive every time I looked him up.

[YogurtProducer]

[

Your entire argument is he had positive advanced stats on the offensive side of the floor. He doesn't. End of story.

Saying "end of story" after a false statement doesn't magically make it true. You said Scottie was a net negative on offense his entire career. THAT is false.

Even if I only use your preferred advanced metrics and disqualify the ones you've arbitrarily dismissed, you're still wrong. Here are Scottie's offensive metrics:

LEBRON

Yr1 -0.8
Yr2 +0.3
Yr3 +0.9
Yr4 +0.1

Darko

Yr1 0.0
Yr2 +0.1
Yr3 +0.8
Yr4 +0.1

RAPTOR

Yr1 0.1

*metric no longer calculated after 2022. However, it's notable that Scottie's year one metric in RAPTOR is even better than the other two advanced metrics.

EPM

*I don't have a subscription so I can't look at past seasons, but I remember him being in the positive every time I looked him up.

Well look at that, you posted a bunch of evidence he is not a positive offensive player. He is at best, neutral.

You also conveniently ignored:

RAMP -1.3
MAMBA - 0.5

I wonder why, hmm?

Simply put - Barnes is not a positive offensive piece. And it is not really that surprising that a inefficient sub-20ppg guy who had the ball in his hands a lot is not loved in the advanced community.

[Appostis]

The excuses are approaching Bargnani level.

His offense just never developed. Handle, shooting etc.

Scottie with a motor that shows up every game can be a good player. It's to bad his effort level is all over the place.

I'm still not sure where he fits on a good to great team.

If the right trade comes along. You move him.

....no possible way you were around for the Bargs years if you're saying that nonsense.

The haters really are reaching so hard...I'm getting concerned.

[Tha Cynic]

The interesting thing about Barnes is that even with his putrid offense last season he still had the highest positive impact didn’t he? If he just slightly sucks on offense he makes a jump. There’s a lot of room for him to grow lol. I think people are going to be surprised with how much his overall impact can still improve if he makes even a slight improvement on offense.

I think it’s a bit premature to say he’s not the best player on the team.

[Spates]

*sigh*


1. Box score based doesn't mean "non-advanced".
The word "advanced" refers to how the stat is analyzed and modeled, not where the data comes from. A metric doesn’t need tracking or play-by-play data to be advanced. BPM, PER, Win Shares, VORP, LEBRON, and EPM all take basic box-score numbers and use formulas to estimate a player’s real impact. That’s why Basketball Reference lists BPM right in the Advanced Stats section alongside those others. Thus, BPM is part of a recognized family of advanced impact metrics.

Maybe you should give them a shout and explain to them why they've been wrong this whole time.

2. BPM isn’t a raw stat, it’s a modeled estimate. Raw stats are things like points, rebounds, assists, and standard plus/minus; single numbers taken straight from the box score with no adjustments or context. BPM, on the other hand, uses those raw stats as inputs in a formula that was built by comparing how players’ box-score profiles relate to team success. The end result is an estimated impact rating, not a count of anything that actually appears in the box score.

3. BPM is not a glorified fantasy ranking. Fantasy rankings reward raw box score volume. BPM does the opposite: it estimates on-court impact relative to league average, accounting for pace, team performance, and positional adjustments. It measures real basketball impact, not fantasy output.

Maybe consult Google before declaring others clueless... it's faster than arguing.

Either way, anything that uses box scores is not an "advanced" stat. It is a glorified PER (which is also apparently "advanced").

Lol, the metrics you single out as the only "true advanced stats" like EPM, LEBRON, Darko, RAPTOR etc. all rely on box score data for their inputs with varying degrees (except for RAPM). Without box score data they couldn't exist.

Like man, you keep bringing up BPM (which is BOX SCORE plus/minus). Again, these are as useful as fantasy sports rankings which do the same thing (take box scores and spits out a figure). That is not "advanced", no matter what basketball-reference says. Basketball-reference is notoriously just weird with their stats, as their on-off figures have been wrong for as long as I can remember.

Again, an advanced stat in basketball analytics is not defined by what category of data it uses, but rather what it attempts to measure and how complex it's calculation is compared to traditional box score stats.

BPM uses regression models to estimate player impact on team performance. It's also adjusted for team context and position. By definition, BPM is an advanced metric. Even the stat's creator, Daniel Myers, explicitly describes it as such.

This view I'm defending isn't merely my opinion, it’s convention. Analysts, journalists, and even NBA front offices use BPM alongside other advanced metrics (e.g. EPM, LEBRON, WS, Darko) in the same conversations about player value and impact. Calling BPM a raw stat is ignorant on so many levels.

Now, you may not like BPM, or rely on it for all sorts of reasons (which is really what that rando from reddit you quoted was getting at), but your personal opinion of it does nothing to declassify it as an advanced basketball metric.

Your entire argument is he had positive advanced stats on the offensive side of the floor. He doesn't. End of story.

Saying "end of story" after a false statement doesn't magically make it true. You said Scottie was a net negative on offense his entire career. THAT is false.

Even if I only use your preferred advanced metrics and disqualify the ones you've arbitrarily dismissed, you're still wrong. Here are Scottie's offensive metrics:

LEBRON

Yr1 -0.8
Yr2 +0.3
Yr3 +0.9
Yr4 +0.1

Darko

Yr1 0.0
Yr2 +0.1
Yr3 +0.8
Yr4 +0.1

RAPTOR

Yr1 +0.1

*metric no longer calculated after 2022. However, it's notable that Scottie's year one metric in RAPTOR is even better than the other two advanced metrics.

EPM

*I don't have a subscription so I can't look at past seasons, but I remember him being in the positive every time I looked him up.

EPM

OFF/DEF

Yr1 -0.2/+0.3
Yr1 +0.2/+0.3
Yr3 +1.2/+0.8
Yr4 -0.4/+2.0

[MoneyBall]

OFF/DEF

Yr1 -0.2/+0.3
Yr1 +0.2/+0.3
Yr3 +1.2/+0.8
Yr4 -0.4/+2.0

Hey, thanks Spates!

[canz55]

Would a mod please close this thread? I'm begging you.

[anotherhomer]

Would a mod please close this thread? I'm begging you.

it's reasonable to want to trade barnes....he plays hard though

[MoneyBall]

[

Your entire argument is he had positive advanced stats on the offensive side of the floor. He doesn't. End of story.

Saying "end of story" after a false statement doesn't magically make it true. You said Scottie was a net negative on offense his entire career. THAT is false.

Even if I only use your preferred advanced metrics and disqualify the ones you've arbitrarily dismissed, you're still wrong. Here are Scottie's offensive metrics:

LEBRON

Yr1 -0.8
Yr2 +0.3
Yr3 +0.9
Yr4 +0.1

Darko

Yr1 0.0
Yr2 +0.1
Yr3 +0.8
Yr4 +0.1

RAPTOR

Yr1 0.1

*metric no longer calculated after 2022. However, it's notable that Scottie's year one metric in RAPTOR is even better than the other two advanced metrics.

EPM

*I don't have a subscription so I can't look at past seasons, but I remember him being in the positive every time I looked him up.

Well look at that, you posted a bunch of evidence he is not a positive offensive player. He is at best, neutral.

You also conveniently ignored:

RAMP -1.3
MAMBA - 0.5

I wonder why, hmm?

Simply put - Barnes is not a positive offensive piece. And it is not really that surprising that a inefficient sub-20ppg guy who had the ball in his hands a lot is not loved in the advanced community.

I can't use MAMBA because it relies on box score data, right? Plus, it's still a totally niche metric at this point.

So just a quick recap:

1. You asserted that Scottie's been a net negative on offense his entire career. Proven false.

2. You asserted BPM is merely a raw stat, not an advanced metric. Proven false.

3. You asserted that any metric that relies on box score data is not an advanced metric. Proven false.

4. You asserted that I valued and validated the use of preseason stats as an argument for a player’s progress (or lack thereof). Proven false.

5. Finally, you asserted that I had "no clue" where these stats derive from. Proven false.

You additionally asserted that Scottie's floor as a player is "pathetically low." I mean, barring some serious injury or a Ben Simmons like mid-career crisis, this is also obviously false. Good talk.