Originally Posted by
Pelicanidae
I agree with a lot of the spirit of this but I have a few concerns.
1) Self-creating midrange shots at 45% or more is extremely uncommon. You say a guard who can ''simply'' win their 1v1 battles and shoot that percentage is all we need, but that's actually a lot less common than someone who can shoot just league average from 3, and so is much harder to acquire.
2) Even if you do all the work of acquiring someone with that skillset, it's worth less to the offense than a 3pt shooter who is simply league average (45% from midrange is 0.9 points per shot, 36% from 3 is 1.09 points per shot), and most defenses are much happier giving up contested pull-up 18 footers than they are catch and shoot 3s.
3) Even if that was acceptable, why would you make it your aim? Surely even if you think someone who can break guys down and hit 18 footers is sufficient, someone who could do the same thing but hitting 23 footers would clearly be better, since the shots are worth more points and they create more space. So why would you aim for the former when there are potentially guys who could do the latter?
That's my confusion, really. I just don't get why you'd settle when you're high enough in the draft to be aiming for more upside than that.
And I'm also much lower on Davion Mitchell but that's a conversation we've had a little before so I just don't think we'll agree on that one