Official Scottie All Star Barnes Thread 9

[Indeed]

If he is any kind of playmaker, we wouldnt need Quickley or another guard with Barrett out.

The veracity of that statement depends very heavily on the semantic definition of "playmaker," and also comes with some hyperbole. Not everything can be boiled down to "we wouldn't need X if Scottie could Y" type statements. Scottie's doing enough. We have a roster which is RIDDLED with deficiencies, and trying to land everything on him isn't an appropriate move.

Back to playmaking, I think we all know that Scottie isn't the guy to break down a set defense, and that his value comes more in transition and (as you note later in your post) as a connector. That is still relevant utility, even if he doesn't fill the primary on-ball playmaking role.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

1) Scottie is producing around 20 ppg at reasonable efficiency (quality 2nd-option scoring)
2) Scottie is a very good rebounder and defender
3) Scottie has a lot of value as a playmaker, even if he isn't the guy to break down a set defense

That's all very valuable production coming from one guy. Right at the moment, what he's doing is more than enough to justify his contract. Asking more from him is asking for a player who we all know is the one we want but don't have, and is worth a lot more than what we pay Scottie, or what he can provide.

Again, your third point would be connector, not playmaker. You can compare his assisted and non assisted (non offensive rebound put back), which determines the role of playmaking.

Definitely, connector at his level is impressive, but that is the reason he is NOT more than enough to justify his contract. Much like needing LeBorn and Wade for Bosh to be a near-max, and I don't even think Barnes is at Bosh level.

[mdenny]

If he is any kind of playmaker, we wouldnt need Quickley or another guard with Barrett out.

The veracity of that statement depends very heavily on the semantic definition of "playmaker," and also comes with some hyperbole. Not everything can be boiled down to "we wouldn't need X if Scottie could Y" type statements. Scottie's doing enough. We have a roster which is RIDDLED with deficiencies, and trying to land everything on him isn't an appropriate move.

Back to playmaking, I think we all know that Scottie isn't the guy to break down a set defense, and that his value comes more in transition and (as you note later in your post) as a connector. That is still relevant utility, even if he doesn't fill the primary on-ball playmaking role.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

1) Scottie is producing around 20 ppg at reasonable efficiency (quality 2nd-option scoring)
2) Scottie is a very good rebounder and defender
3) Scottie has a lot of value as a playmaker, even if he isn't the guy to break down a set defense

That's all very valuable production coming from one guy. Right at the moment, what he's doing is more than enough to justify his contract. Asking more from him is asking for a player who we all know is the one we want but don't have, and is worth a lot more than what we pay Scottie, or what he can provide.

I mostly agree with what you say here but there's one notpick. He is not really a good rebounder. He's average imo. So yes....he grabs the rebounds he's supposed to by virtue of his position and role. But it's not often one says "how did he grab that rebound?". And he DOES sometimes falter in boxing out. And it occasionally happens in big moments/crunchtime

If this is gonna be his role....the intangibles-glue-guy (or highly skilled version of draymond)...it would really help if he addressed two facets: rebounding and screens. Both of which Draymond is elite at. His team defense is elite in alot of ways. Particularly his help. He makes FGs tough. And he's awesome at the perimeter for his size.

It seems like he COULD become an elite rebounder. Perhaps a combination of a bit more toughness and a bit more experience. His deficiency in screens is more glaring. His timing for them seems a bit off. Abandoning the screen too early or setting it too late. So hopefully that is also just a matter of more experience with perhaps becoming a bit tougher.

I say this just because an intangibles guy making the max (which i DO think is a valid player profile) should be REALLY good at the intangibles. So if there is any room for improvements in his intangibles, the winning plays that a glue guy brings....i think it's those two things.

[whitehops]

Again, your third point would be connector, not playmaker. You can compare his assisted and non assisted (non offensive rebound put back), which determines the role of playmaking.

Definitely, connector at his level is impressive, but that is the reason he is NOT more than enough to justify his contract. Much like needing LeBorn and Wade for Bosh to be a near-max, and I don't even think Barnes is at Bosh level.

i'm going to be very clear and start by saying the two are COMPLETELY different calibre of players but i had so many debates on the pistons board when killian hayes was there and i feel like a lot of the scottie barnes discourse here follows the same patterns.

in hayes' case, pre-draft he was touted as a great passer and defensive player. coincidentally, those were barnes' two strengths as well. for hayes, some detroit fans fixated on those strengths and ignored the fact that he struggled to bring the ball up the court against ball pressure even though that's something like undrafted PGs can do, he couldn't break anyone down off the dribble or get paint touches at all which is a pretty fundamental guard skill and his shot was all over the place. hard to create advantages to utilize that passing "mastery" in a functional way with none of the other requisite skills. defensively he was solid but again, league-wide he was average more than good, great or elite. hayes was the first pick of troy weaver's regime and it was maddening how long a leash he had and how many minutes he got.

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

[HumbleRen]

Again, your third point would be connector, not playmaker. You can compare his assisted and non assisted (non offensive rebound put back), which determines the role of playmaking.

Definitely, connector at his level is impressive, but that is the reason he is NOT more than enough to justify his contract. Much like needing LeBorn and Wade for Bosh to be a near-max, and I don't even think Barnes is at Bosh level.

i'm going to be very clear and start by saying the two are COMPLETELY different calibre of players but i had so many debates on the pistons board when killian hayes was there and i feel like a lot of the scottie barnes discourse here follows the same patterns.

in hayes' case, pre-draft he was touted as a great passer and defensive player. coincidentally, those were barnes' two strengths as well. for hayes, some detroit fans fixated on those strengths and ignored the fact that he struggled to bring the ball up the court against ball pressure even though that's something like undrafted PGs can do, he couldn't break anyone down off the dribble or get paint touches at all which is a pretty fundamental guard skill and his shot was all over the place. hard to create advantages to utilize that passing "mastery" in a functional way with none of the other requisite skills. defensively he was solid but again, league-wide he was average more than good, great or elite. hayes was the first pick of troy weaver's regime and it was maddening how long a leash he had and how many minutes he got.

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

Think you're being a bit harsh lol. 20/8/6 with top 20 defence is still very much worth a rookie max. It only becomes an issue if he gets a supermax like Mobley did.

Like if Cade gets a supermax, he immediately becomes overpaid. Money has never dictated skill, it's all about the leverage the player has in a situation.

[Indeed]

Again, your third point would be connector, not playmaker. You can compare his assisted and non assisted (non offensive rebound put back), which determines the role of playmaking.

Definitely, connector at his level is impressive, but that is the reason he is NOT more than enough to justify his contract. Much like needing LeBorn and Wade for Bosh to be a near-max, and I don't even think Barnes is at Bosh level.

i'm going to be very clear and start by saying the two are COMPLETELY different calibre of players but i had so many debates on the pistons board when killian hayes was there and i feel like a lot of the scottie barnes discourse here follows the same patterns.

in hayes' case, pre-draft he was touted as a great passer and defensive player. coincidentally, those were barnes' two strengths as well. for hayes, some detroit fans fixated on those strengths and ignored the fact that he struggled to bring the ball up the court against ball pressure even though that's something like undrafted PGs can do, he couldn't break anyone down off the dribble or get paint touches at all which is a pretty fundamental guard skill and his shot was all over the place. hard to create advantages to utilize that passing "mastery" in a functional way with none of the other requisite skills. defensively he was solid but again, league-wide he was average more than good, great or elite. hayes was the first pick of troy weaver's regime and it was maddening how long a leash he had and how many minutes he got.

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

Think you're being a bit harsh lol. 20/8/6 with top 20 defence is still very much worth a rookie max. It only becomes an issue if he gets a supermax like Mobley did.

Like if Cade gets a supermax, he immediately becomes overpaid. Money has never dictated skill, it's all about the leverage the player has in a situation.

Top 20 defense is overrated. If he is a top 20 defense, people do not need to ask for a C.
Here was an old scouting report, but I feel they are largely the same, and I agree that he is more an offense-first player.
https://theswishtheory.com/scouting-reports/scottie-barnes/

Barnes is often referred to as a defense-first player, but I think it’s quite the opposite.

[ATLTimekeeper]

i think HiJiNX said summed it up perfectly:


if your team is down your starting back court and all the play making they bring you'd *hope* your best and highest paid player would be able to take on more of a role offensively. the knicks didn't even send extra bodies at barnes, he was just content watching BI and shead make all the plays. i don't mean be a super star, just be able to handle a little more responsibility.

I think ATL covered this, but we're well aware of what Scottie can and cannot do on offense. Wanting really hard for that not to be his set of skills and limitations won't change that. He did pretty well overall, but the rest of the team needs to come the rest of the way. Not a superstar. Not a superstar. It's an important mantra. We can't be putting expectations on him as if he's a generational offensive engine, because he isn't, no matter how much we wish he was.

You're kind straw-manning tho when you say we shouldnt expect a generational superstar. There's 20 to 30 guys who take responsibility for the outcome of the game in the 4th quarter. Most of them are allstars or "star player". Siakam did that here before he was traded. He tried to be the team's best player down the stretch EVERY night. Or "he took on the role of the guy who is responsible for the outcome". Win or lose.

That's not a role exclusive to the top 5 players or generational talents. That's the role of any team's best player.

Siakam laid plenty of eggs. Lowry scored "0" in a playoff game against the 76ers and Kawhi took him out for a cookie to cheer him up. These guys are not always on. Scottie took 18 shots, half in the paint. He got no calls, couldn't make jumpers. Your only as good as your legs in this game.

[HumbleRen]

i'm going to be very clear and start by saying the two are COMPLETELY different calibre of players but i had so many debates on the pistons board when killian hayes was there and i feel like a lot of the scottie barnes discourse here follows the same patterns.

in hayes' case, pre-draft he was touted as a great passer and defensive player. coincidentally, those were barnes' two strengths as well. for hayes, some detroit fans fixated on those strengths and ignored the fact that he struggled to bring the ball up the court against ball pressure even though that's something like undrafted PGs can do, he couldn't break anyone down off the dribble or get paint touches at all which is a pretty fundamental guard skill and his shot was all over the place. hard to create advantages to utilize that passing "mastery" in a functional way with none of the other requisite skills. defensively he was solid but again, league-wide he was average more than good, great or elite. hayes was the first pick of troy weaver's regime and it was maddening how long a leash he had and how many minutes he got.

with barnes i feel like it's somewhat similar in regards to the expectations/hype and his actual ability. he was their highest pick in a while, he joined an already good roster with vets like siakam, FVV, OG, etc. and was like immediately treated as the face of the franchise. in darko's first year here in his famous "shame" rant he called barnes the future face of the league. i really don't want to go digging for receipts but i definitely read on here his rookie year that he was one of the best passers in the league. the team tried him as a lead play maker, shipped out all their quality vets and gave barnes a max extension (presumably) with the expectation that barnes would be the primary initiator. they did this with barnes a) not being the best player on his high school team, b) coming off the bench and not running the offense in college, and c) being the 4th/5th option when playing with the raps in his early years.

it takes a huge leap of faith to give him a max contract in that situation for the team but then for fans to feel like the 25% max contract is justified because he scores around 20 a game with others creating most of his offense for him, rebounding solidly and playing good defense aren't looking at his peers. jalen johnson, drafted 20th in the same draft, is averaging 23/11/8 and running the hawks' offense without trae (and looks comfortable doing so). he's not a guard that had a leg up on barnes, he's a 6'8 wing/forward like him but has improved a ton. in four seasons barnes will be making $51 million, that year johnson will be making $30 million and he's shown very capable of running an offense, scoring efficiently, rebounding at an elite level and able to make plays for himself and others. heck even kyshawn george, a second year forward who is 6'8 is running the wizards offense and looks impressive doing it. he was drafted 24th last season.

when fans really only focus (and WATCH) only one team it's easy to lose perspective on the guys on their roster in regards to the league overall.

Think you're being a bit harsh lol. 20/8/6 with top 20 defence is still very much worth a rookie max. It only becomes an issue if he gets a supermax like Mobley did.

Like if Cade gets a supermax, he immediately becomes overpaid. Money has never dictated skill, it's all about the leverage the player has in a situation.

Top 20 defense is overrated. If he is a top 20 defense, people do not need to ask for a C.
Here was an old scouting report, but I feel they are largely the same, and I agree that he is more an offense-first player.
https://theswishtheory.com/scouting-reports/scottie-barnes/

Barnes is often referred to as a defense-first player, but I think it’s quite the opposite.

That doesn't make sense lol. Being a top 20 defender doesn't mean you can single handily prop up a teams defense. We have a top 10 defence right now with a roster that shouldn't be near a top 10 defence.

He's the 38th highest paid player in the league right now. He's meeting the value of his contract because he's easily a top 40 player.

[Tripod]

Man you can't compare JJ contract to Barnes.

JJ played 22 games as a rookie, 2.4 pts per game. Barnes won ROTY

Year 2 JJ had 5.6ppg. Barnes "stagnated" at 15.3

Year 3 JJ jumped to almost 16-9-4 but missed almost 30 games. Barnes was an all star at 20-8-6.

THEN JJ signed his contract. At that point had only 1 good season and still missed a chunk of games. Ironically missed 46 games last year too. Point is, he didn't have much leverage or track record especially compared to Barnes.

So it's dumb to compare them due to what they were and had accomplished when they signed their deals. JJ has taken another big jump which is great for Atl and the contract he is on. But Barnes was never going to sign that type of contract, he was too good at that point with a ROTY and an All Star selection in his pocket.

[Indeed]

Think you're being a bit harsh lol. 20/8/6 with top 20 defence is still very much worth a rookie max. It only becomes an issue if he gets a supermax like Mobley did.

Like if Cade gets a supermax, he immediately becomes overpaid. Money has never dictated skill, it's all about the leverage the player has in a situation.

Top 20 defense is overrated. If he is a top 20 defense, people do not need to ask for a C.
Here was an old scouting report, but I feel they are largely the same, and I agree that he is more an offense-first player.
https://theswishtheory.com/scouting-reports/scottie-barnes/

Barnes is often referred to as a defense-first player, but I think it’s quite the opposite.

That doesn't make sense lol. Being a top 20 defender doesn't mean you can single handily prop up a teams defense. We have a top 10 defence right now with a roster that shouldn't be near a top 10 defence.

He's the 38th highest paid player in the league right now. He's meeting the value of his contract because he's easily a top 40 player.

Who are the top 20 defender?
I think this is what we disagreed on.

[tsherkin]

Again, your third point would be connector, not playmaker. You can compare his assisted and non assisted (non offensive rebound put back), which determines the role of playmaking.

So no. That's YOUR semantic particular, but a guy who is making plays and creating assists is some flavor of playmaker.

I see what you're saying, and that's why I've discussed the separation between set-D creation and those other spaces, but that is still a form of playmaking.

And yes, his overall production very easily justifies his current contract. Assuming he maintains it, of course. You have a wild level of requirement for his current salary that is disproportionate to what he's actually paid.

I mostly agree with what you say here but there's one notpick. He is not really a good rebounder. He's average imo. So yes....he grabs the rebounds he's supposed to by virtue of his position and role. But it's not often one says "how did he grab that rebound?". And he DOES sometimes falter in boxing out. And it occasionally happens in big moments/crunchtime

He's still a good rebounder. He's not Dennis Rodman, sure, but he doesn't consistently get 8 rpg by accident. Given his athleticism and size, he does quite well. He's a 19-20% DRB guy, which is, in fact, pretty good. Especially for not being a hyperathletic seven footer. He's not a stunning offensive rebounder, but he's actually still pretty good for a wing. He's a little better on the O boards than a young Pippen, better than Grant Hill in that regard, better than both on the defensive boards (except Pippen's peak year in 94), etc. He's a notably better offensive rebounder than Draymond Green, but not quite as good on the defensive boards.

If this is gonna be his role....the intangibles-glue-guy (or highly skilled version of draymond)...it would really help if he addressed two facets: rebounding and screens. Both of which Draymond is elite at. His team defense is elite in alot of ways. Particularly his help. He makes FGs tough. And he's awesome at the perimeter for his size.

Screens, I won't even argue. Rebounding, though, Draymond's a 21% DRB guy. The difference isn't that large, and Scottie makes it up on the O-boards. Green's a career 13% TRB player. Barnes is a career 12.0% TRB player. That is not a huge difference, and certainly not enough to prop up Draymond as a model of how much better Scottie should be in that regard.

Screening though, as I said, I've got nothing. You are entirely correct.

He definitely has room for growth, particularly growing into the role we are now shaping for him. But he's doing very well for us so far this year, so it is somewhat mysterious to me why people are trying to make him out to be the problem when he is the exact last guy we should be harping on.

[manjusaka]

Glad that I’m not the only one who thinks SB needs to improve his ability to set screen. Especially given his size and strength. And that is the real difference when we Yak isn’t playing. He is our only legitimate screener.

I had been consistently calling him plays small because he doesn’t do those little things that traditional bigs do. He can make some quick decisions in motion but I am still skeptical on his ability to run the half court offence sets.

He does a lot of things well, but still a tweener. His current skill sets personally I think he should play SF.

[PushDaRock]

If he is any kind of playmaker, we wouldnt need Quickley or another guard with Barrett out.

The veracity of that statement depends very heavily on the semantic definition of "playmaker," and also comes with some hyperbole. Not everything can be boiled down to "we wouldn't need X if Scottie could Y" type statements. Scottie's doing enough. We have a roster which is RIDDLED with deficiencies, and trying to land everything on him isn't an appropriate move.

Back to playmaking, I think we all know that Scottie isn't the guy to break down a set defense, and that his value comes more in transition and (as you note later in your post) as a connector. That is still relevant utility, even if he doesn't fill the primary on-ball playmaking role.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

1) Scottie is producing around 20 ppg at reasonable efficiency (quality 2nd-option scoring)
2) Scottie is a very good rebounder and defender
3) Scottie has a lot of value as a playmaker, even if he isn't the guy to break down a set defense

That's all very valuable production coming from one guy. Right at the moment, what he's doing is more than enough to justify his contract. Asking more from him is asking for a player who we all know is the one we want but don't have, and is worth a lot more than what we pay Scottie, or what he can provide.

1) He's likely a 3rd option on most good teams. 2nd options on good teams can scale up to #1 options at times when necessary, he can't do really do that.
2) Yes, we know this.
3) Not sure how much of a playmaker he really is, because he's not really bending defenses. He makes good reads when the D is already tilted or scrambling. Our offensive system probably also inflates assist numbers in general a bit too.

[mdenny]

If he is any kind of playmaker, we wouldnt need Quickley or another guard with Barrett out.

The veracity of that statement depends very heavily on the semantic definition of "playmaker," and also comes with some hyperbole. Not everything can be boiled down to "we wouldn't need X if Scottie could Y" type statements. Scottie's doing enough. We have a roster which is RIDDLED with deficiencies, and trying to land everything on him isn't an appropriate move.

Back to playmaking, I think we all know that Scottie isn't the guy to break down a set defense, and that his value comes more in transition and (as you note later in your post) as a connector. That is still relevant utility, even if he doesn't fill the primary on-ball playmaking role.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

1) Scottie is producing around 20 ppg at reasonable efficiency (quality 2nd-option scoring)
2) Scottie is a very good rebounder and defender
3) Scottie has a lot of value as a playmaker, even if he isn't the guy to break down a set defense

That's all very valuable production coming from one guy. Right at the moment, what he's doing is more than enough to justify his contract. Asking more from him is asking for a player who we all know is the one we want but don't have, and is worth a lot more than what we pay Scottie, or what he can provide.

1) He's likely a 3rd option on most good teams. 2nd options on good teams can scale up to #1 options at times when necessary, he can't do really do that.
2) Yes, we know this.
3) Not sure how much of a playmaker he really is, because he's not really bending defenses. He makes good reads when the D is already tilted or scrambling. Our offensive system probably also inflates assist numbers in general a bit too.

Your third point is really good. That's also why he's so good in transition. I hadn't really thought of this distinction but it's dead on. And he doesn't even need the defense to be completely out of sorts. He's great even if there is a SLIGHT scramble. But when the defense is set and nothing has happened yet....he's pretty average.

I guess this is why ppl call him a connector rather than an initiator.

And none of this stuff means he should be written off. However, the limitations start to add up and it DOES bring into question why you would build a team around him. How many teams are built around players who aren't very good at scoring AND initiating?

I guess maybe Bam would be an example? But i don't think he has THAT kind of defensive anchor presence game in and game out like Bam either.

[tsherkin]

1) He's likely a 3rd option on most good teams. 2nd options on good teams can scale up to #1 options at times when necessary, he can't do really do that.

That's not a given, no. They can sometimes elevate themselves for a given game, but a lot of them are second options precisely because they cannot be counted upon consistently to produce in that primary role.

2) Yes, we know this.

It wasn't some revelation, it's just a reminder of production and value.

3) Not sure how much of a playmaker he really is, because he's not really bending defenses. He makes good reads when the D is already tilted or scrambling. Our offensive system probably also inflates assist numbers in general a bit too.

Again, that's still relevant stuff. He's a 5 apg player who pushes well in transition and generally passes well out of certain types of sets. That's relevant. It is still playmaking, which is a broad umbrella. What you and Indeed are talking about and why you're fighting me is that you want to set "attacking from standstill to move a set defense" as the only definition of playmaking, which isn't accurate.

[PushDaRock]

1) He's likely a 3rd option on most good teams. 2nd options on good teams can scale up to #1 options at times when necessary, he can't do really do that.

That's not a given, no. They can sometimes elevate themselves for a given game, but a lot of them are second options precisely because they cannot be counted upon consistently to produce in that primary role.

2) Yes, we know this.

It wasn't some revelation, it's just a reminder of production and value.

3) Not sure how much of a playmaker he really is, because he's not really bending defenses. He makes good reads when the D is already tilted or scrambling. Our offensive system probably also inflates assist numbers in general a bit too.

Again, that's still relevant stuff. He's a 5 apg player who pushes well in transition and generally passes well out of certain types of sets. That's relevant. It is still playmaking, which is a broad umbrella. What you and Indeed are talking about and why you're fighting me is that you want to set "attacking from standstill to move a set defense" as the only definition of playmaking, which isn't accurate.

I added the caveat "at times when necessary" already. Really good #2 options are typically able to be bad #1 options elsewhere (eg. Siakam), Scottie isn't a #1 option anywhere.

I am not saying he's not a playmaker at all, I'm just questioning how much of one he actually is.

[PushDaRock]

The veracity of that statement depends very heavily on the semantic definition of "playmaker," and also comes with some hyperbole. Not everything can be boiled down to "we wouldn't need X if Scottie could Y" type statements. Scottie's doing enough. We have a roster which is RIDDLED with deficiencies, and trying to land everything on him isn't an appropriate move.

Back to playmaking, I think we all know that Scottie isn't the guy to break down a set defense, and that his value comes more in transition and (as you note later in your post) as a connector. That is still relevant utility, even if he doesn't fill the primary on-ball playmaking role.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:

1) Scottie is producing around 20 ppg at reasonable efficiency (quality 2nd-option scoring)
2) Scottie is a very good rebounder and defender
3) Scottie has a lot of value as a playmaker, even if he isn't the guy to break down a set defense

That's all very valuable production coming from one guy. Right at the moment, what he's doing is more than enough to justify his contract. Asking more from him is asking for a player who we all know is the one we want but don't have, and is worth a lot more than what we pay Scottie, or what he can provide.

1) He's likely a 3rd option on most good teams. 2nd options on good teams can scale up to #1 options at times when necessary, he can't do really do that.
2) Yes, we know this.
3) Not sure how much of a playmaker he really is, because he's not really bending defenses. He makes good reads when the D is already tilted or scrambling. Our offensive system probably also inflates assist numbers in general a bit too.

Your third point is really good. That's also why he's so good in transition. I hadn't really thought of this distinction but it's dead on. And he doesn't even need the defense to be completely out of sorts. He's great even if there is a SLIGHT scramble. But when the defense is set and nothing has happened yet....he's pretty average.

I guess this is why ppl call him a connector rather than an initiator.

And none of this stuff means he should be written off. However, the limitations start to add up and it DOES bring into question why you would build a team around him. How many teams are built around players who aren't very good at scoring AND initiating?

I guess maybe Bam would be an example? But i don't think he has THAT kind of defensive anchor presence game in and game out like Bam either.

You wouldn't and shouldn't build a team around him. You CAN build one with him, but he probably needs to be your 3rd best player if you're going to do any sort of contending.

[tsherkin]

I added the caveat "at times when necessary" already. Really good #2 options are typically able to be bad #1 options elsewhere (eg. Siakam), Scottie isn't a #1 option anywhere.

Siakam is a pretty weak first option. That's a very large part of why they're the 4th-worst offense in the league right now. He's not good at it. Neither is Scottie. Siakam is handling his individual scoring at below-average efficiency, like 2024 Scottie efficiency. So he isn't a particularly good example to use right now. He is another guy who is best used with someone else setting him up. He doesn't drive the team offense very well and he isn't an especially good takeover scorer. Not really sure why he's the go-to here, because Scottie's performing at a level fairly similar to Siakam on that front.

Again, lots of the asks of Scottie right now are fairly unreasonable. If he were that kind of player, then he'd be worth considerably more than he is being paid, and we would be in a very different position as a franchise.

I am not saying he's not a playmaker at all, I'm just questioning how much of one he actually is.

Right, and my counterpoint is that you're limiting your appreciation of his playmaking by overfocusing on one TYPE of playmaking, that's all. It's inherent in your comment separating connectors and playmakers. They're both playmakers, there's just different implications to what they do.

[PushDaRock]

I added the caveat "at times when necessary" already. Really good #2 options are typically able to be bad #1 options elsewhere (eg. Siakam), Scottie isn't a #1 option anywhere.

Siakam is a pretty weak first option. That's a very large part of why they're the 4th-worst offense in the league right now. He's not good at it. Neither is Scottie. Siakam is handling his individual scoring at below-average efficiency, like 2024 Scottie efficiency. So he isn't a particularly good example to use right now. He is another guy who is best used with someone else setting him up. He doesn't drive the team offense very well and he isn't an especially good takeover scorer. Not really sure why he's the go-to here, because Scottie's performing at a level fairly similar to Siakam on that front.

Again, lots of the asks of Scottie right now are fairly unreasonable. If he were that kind of player, then he'd be worth considerably more than he is being paid, and we would be in a very different position as a franchise.

I am not saying he's not a playmaker at all, I'm just questioning how much of one he actually is.

Right, and my counterpoint is that you're limiting your appreciation of his playmaking by overfocusing on one TYPE of playmaking, that's all. It's inherent in your comment separating connectors and playmakers. They're both playmakers, there's just different implications to what they do.

I know Siakam is not a good #1 option, I literally wrote that. My point is Scottie couldn't even come close to taking on Siakam's role in Indy right now.

Which type of playmaking do you think is more valuable?

[tsherkin]

I know Siakam is not a good #1 option, I literally wrote that. My point is Scottie couldn't even come close to taking on Siakam's role in Indy right now.

Couldn't he?

Siakam is producing something like -2% rTS, which isn't far different from what Scottie was doing for us on a worse team in 2024. I don't really see a huge difference in their play in that respect.

Which type of playmaking do you think is more valuable?

Specifically depends on team composition, and what kind of role you're discussing from the player involved. Since we're talking about a guy who isn't best-suited to being a first option, I care a LOT less about set-D creation out of Scottie than I do about the fact that he works very well as a connector and in transition.

[PushDaRock]

I know Siakam is not a good #1 option, I literally wrote that. My point is Scottie couldn't even come close to taking on Siakam's role in Indy right now.

Couldn't he?

Siakam is producing something like -2% rTS, which isn't far different from what Scottie was doing for us on a worse team in 2024. I don't really see a huge difference in their play in that respect.

Which type of playmaking do you think is more valuable?

Specifically depends on team composition, and what kind of role you're discussing from the player involved. Since we're talking about a guy who isn't best-suited to being a first option, I care a LOT less about set-D creation out of Scottie than I do about the fact that he works very well as a connector and in transition.

Scottie averaged 19.3 ppg on 52 TS% last season. Siakam is at 24.5 ppg on 56 TS% this season. That's a pretty significant difference no? I think you're forgetting how bad he was last season without Ingram taking the load off him.

Let's say you are starting the team from scratch, then what is MOST important?