After a promising ‘21-22 season for G League Ignite and an impressive preseason performance vs Victor Wembanyama, Scoot Henderson seemed like a lock for a top 2 pick. But since then he has had an underwhelming G League season where he has been in and out of the lineup with injuries. It’s been good enough given that he recently turned 19, as he is averaging 29.5 mins 18.1 pts 4.9 rebs 6.4 asts 3.4 tovs 1.3 steals 56.6% TS. But he has not quite looked like a can’t miss star.
Hey good writeup here, lots of interesting thoughts.
Directionally agree with "[w]hen in doubt they should focus on adding role players to have an ideal cast in place when the right go to scoring option comes available" particularly as a zag given an NBA environment where the opposite is conventional wisdom. Here are just some thoughts, more as devil's advocate than actively disagreeing.
It's fairly clear 2-way star that can play off ball is more valuable than a 1-way ball dominant star. So limiting discussion here to decision of drafting high probability of 1-way ball dominant star vs. high probability of good role player with small probability of becoming 2-way star.
A reasonable counter-argument is that you're more likely to get that "right go to scoring option" via trade or FA if you have a glamorous scoring option already. Sure Wade is very ball dominant and might not be the *perfect* fit with Lebron, but there's a 0% chance you're getting Lebron if you have role players instead of Wade. Same with Booker for CP3 and KD. Even Garland and Mitchell. As you point out there are cases where this hasn't worked out such as Murray and Young, but the point is having one (even if they're overrated) puts you in the conversation for another star. Maybe you're right that a basket of good role players would be a better fit for a blue chip ball dominant star but that's empirically not how they see things when deciding their next destination.
Also, in an NBA landscape where virtually no stars are hitting NBA free agency anymore, the "right go to scoring option comes *available*" scenarios are essentially limited to trade, short of tanking. In that scenario you're probably giving up all your best role players to get / salary match that scoring option anyways, so the environmental context variable is less relevant. The role players then are easier to get via free agency.
Ideally you draft a role player with lower (conventional) star probability that hits that outcome (e.g. your Kawhi example), but there may be certain markets and ownership constraints that would make getting a high probability B tier 'star' creator and be in the market for a blue chip a more probable path to a title.
Hey good writeup here, lots of interesting thoughts.
Directionally agree with "[w]hen in doubt they should focus on adding role players to have an ideal cast in place when the right go to scoring option comes available" particularly as a zag given an NBA environment where the opposite is conventional wisdom. Here are just some thoughts, more as devil's advocate than actively disagreeing.
It's fairly clear 2-way star that can play off ball is more valuable than a 1-way ball dominant star. So limiting discussion here to decision of drafting high probability of 1-way ball dominant star vs. high probability of good role player with small probability of becoming 2-way star.
A reasonable counter-argument is that you're more likely to get that "right go to scoring option" via trade or FA if you have a glamorous scoring option already. Sure Wade is very ball dominant and might not be the *perfect* fit with Lebron, but there's a 0% chance you're getting Lebron if you have role players instead of Wade. Same with Booker for CP3 and KD. Even Garland and Mitchell. As you point out there are cases where this hasn't worked out such as Murray and Young, but the point is having one (even if they're overrated) puts you in the conversation for another star. Maybe you're right that a basket of good role players would be a better fit for a blue chip ball dominant star but that's empirically not how they see things when deciding their next destination.
Also, in an NBA landscape where virtually no stars are hitting NBA free agency anymore, the "right go to scoring option comes *available*" scenarios are essentially limited to trade, short of tanking. In that scenario you're probably giving up all your best role players to get / salary match that scoring option anyways, so the environmental context variable is less relevant. The role players then are easier to get via free agency.
Ideally you draft a role player with lower (conventional) star probability that hits that outcome (e.g. your Kawhi example), but there may be certain markets and ownership constraints that would make getting a high probability B tier 'star' creator and be in the market for a blue chip a more probable path to a title.