JMAC3 wrote:I think Matas could be the better guy longterm, not ruling that out.... but I guess my main thing is that in Basketball there is a natural selection that takes place from highschool to college to NBA where the vast vast vast majority of the time the BEST PLAYER is going to be the leading guy in usage, shot attempts and scoring.
You are implying the best players are the ones who score the most. That isn't always the case.
Draymond Green is significantly better than Klay Thompson, especially during their title stretch.
Shawn Marion is significantly better than Amar'e Stoudemire.
Shane Battier is significantly better than Luther Head and Rafer Alston.
Probably fits the bill for like 29/30 NBA teams, Just a guess probably 330/362 college teams and probably 99.9% of high school teams.
I strongly disagree. I think the best shot creator typically takes the most shots and scores the most points, but even that isn't accurate 99.9% of the time.
Think about this:
Player A: 8/10 On-Ball, 7/10 Off-Ball
Player B: 6/10 On-Ball, 2/10 Off-Ball
How would you want to distribute touches? Clearly you don't want Player A to monopolize possessions because Player B offers little value without the ball. In contrast, Player A is going to be extremely useful as a secondary creator and connector so putting him in that role makes sense.
An example of this is Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. Nobody in their right mind would argue Tony Parker was better than Manu Ginobili. Manu was one of the craftiest on-ball players we have ever seen, he was a tough shot maker but was best served as a connector/secondary playmaker even though on-ball was much more dynamic and lethal than Tony Parker.
I understand the idea is to simplify things when talking about assessing players, and it makes sense. Occam's Razor is a real thing, but context is also important.