76ciology wrote:HotelVitale wrote:76ciology wrote:Im wondering if we are at a point where scoring guards are more abundant than modern bigs (switchability on defense and skilled as a guard-wing). If this is the case then time is on our side with keeping Ben while on the side trying to find the next Jalen Brunson, FVV, Gary Trent Jr., Norman Powell, Kevin Porter Jr., Immanuel Quickley, Cameron Thomas, Sharife Cooper or Maxey type players with cheap contracts and our late first round picks. These type of scorers are undervalued because they lack the all around games and defense, this is then where having Ben and Embiid comes into the picture.
Might be onto something but don't think you're quite making the argument. Most of the guys you listed are very far from being reliable scoring 2-guards teams can rock with every night--Thomas and Cooper haven't played a single minute of actual NBA ball, Maxey wasn't good last year overall, Quickley looked good but could still go either way, KPJ was given away because of serious stability concerns, etc. It's really hard to be a scoring guard in the NBA who can average 20ish pts per 36 on decent efficiency, month after month without letting up, there just aren't that many people yet. And if you're not doing that then you're not reliably valuable or able to hold down that role.
I do think that the general upwards offensive+efficiency tick makes scoring a little less rare than in the past. But it also might just make efficiency more important too, raising the threshold required for that for being a decent scorer. And it also doesn't really tell you what other things might be more valuable or what market inefficiencies are out there to focus on (i.e. might not be what Ben offers at all). Worth thinking through more carefully though IMO.
I believe its something the Spurs has consistently done. From tony parker, manu, beno udrih, patty Mills to this current group of guards with Lonnie Walker, Dejounte Murray, Derrick White Keldon Johnson and possibly Primo. Thats probably also the reason why Spurs was looking to trade for Ben. I just feel like being a scoring guard is easy nowadays. You just need to be a decent shooter then just develop a 2 man game and your stepback for ISO, both skills are heavily taught by skills coach like Chris Johnson.
A really straightforward version of this is Shake Milton, who for me has very basic skillset but is able to average 20pts per 36, with just being a good shooter, having decent 2 man game and a very very basic iso moves of stepback or turnaround jumper. There’s no need for playground moves of Kyrie and you dont need to be athletic or quick, look at Doncic. Just be a good shooter, learn how to run the 2 man game and practice diligently the stepback jumper.
Your examples maybe show the limitations of the argument--Shake did put up a sort of efficient 20pts per 36 last year, and he still kinda sucked. Or at least wasn't a solution for us of any sort. (I'd also add that Shake's biggest unique skill is making a lot of tough/weird shots, he does that better than the vast majority of scoring 2-guards and still isn't very good overall). If he's your example of a player that's not that hard to pick up, it's because he's not a very good version of the scoring guard archetype. The ones who are good are still rare and valuable, and the ones who can do some of that but overall are blah rotation players aren't. Just like other player archetypes.
The Spurs examples show that from a different angle--the Spurs drafted all those current guys precisely because they're long, athletic, and have other high-level skills (slashing, defense, etc) and then focused on making them shooters and having clear shooting roles to work within. So they learned some shooting to be serviceable cogs in the machine, but they're out there because of the other things. (Also Parker was possibly the quickest player in the league, and Manu obviously a legend at many things, and a filthy driver. And Udrih was a very minor player.)
Picking up your premise, here are some quick thoughts on how the scoring/shooting uptick has changed player value, haven't thought 'em through well though:
--we picked up a solid scoring 2-guard for not much in Seth Curry, but of course he sucks at defense and offers nothing athletically; maybe everyone being better at scoring/shooting means that those who can do that AND contribute in other ways separate themselves more than in the past (E.g. Mikal Bridges, Bogdanovic, Fournier)
--maybe also those scorer/creators who aren't very efficient have become less valuable--e.g. the Knicks got D Rose for a song last year, Dillon Brooks and Clarkson signed cheap extensions, can get a guy like Lou Will by paying his cab fare to the airport, etc
--also feels like players who can't fit in with the new shooting-heavy regime are becoming more awkward. If you're able to throw out a bunch of creating options--guys who can shoot and drive some--that's a bonus these days, but guys who can't do that are harder to fit in. Simmons unf would come near the top of that list, at least the PO version of him. If you're not helping to facilitate that higher-efficiency shooting game and make it flow, you're not taking advantage of the newest easy way to score that's been added to the game
i was thinking the same thing
