1. He is having a historically efficient season, and is blowing last year’s MVP Shai out of the water.

Shai’s true shooting stands at about 68.6% this season, which is absolutely incredible when you consider his league leading volume. This is about five entire percentage points higher than what he recorded last season, which is honestly just crazy to think about. Placing this historically, Shai this season has the highest true-shooting percentage of all players ever to score 30ppg, narrowly beating out Steph’s 15-16 season. He is currently seventh in true shooting leaguewide – this statistic doesn’t pop out, until you realize that all the players in the top ten (with the exception of Austin Reaves, who is ninth) are centers. SGA is generating a completely unprecedented 138.5 points per shot attempt, placing him somewhere above the 99.5th percentile, and possibly leading the league in this metric (I had some trouble with this statistic). However, what is perhaps even more stunning is that this is a whole 10 points per shot attempt better than his MVP season last year (already an incredible season). His basic shooting splits confirm this – a 4% increase in field-goal percentage, and a 7% increase in three-point percentage. Shai is still getting better.

2. He is one of the best three-point shooters in the league.

Shai is shooting 44.3% on three-pointers this season, placing him just outside the top ten for players taking more than 5 three-pointers a game. It cannot be understated how game breaking this makes Shai’s offense – previously, with his three-point efficiency at around 37%, defenders were okay with him settling for a three, because it meant that he wasn’t at the line or the rim. The issue with this strategy is that Shai is now making difficult three-pointers at an absolutely crazy rate, generating 1.32 points per shot. To make matters worse, he has developed a lethal stepback, taking the fourth-most stepback threes in the NBA this season, and making 52 percent of them. This makes him completely unguardable, especially when you consider the amount of unassisted creation that he is having to perform to get his three-pointers – besides perhaps Jamal Murray, nobody taking and making more threes than SGA is a primary creator.

3. He has improved tremendously as a playmaker.

We don’t really think of Gilgeous-Alexander as a passer on par with players like Luka Doncic or Trae Young – his scoring is the best part of his game, and it often outshines his other skills. This year, however, Shai has taken a significant leap as a facilitator – he has increased his assist percentage to 32.3%, 3% higher than what it was at last season, and is averaging 1.5 more assists per 40. Beyond that, however, Shai’s ability to protect the basketball and avoid turnovers is elite. He is in the 99th percentile in turnover ratio at 6.2%, unprecedented when you consider his top ten usage rate this season, ranks 14th in AST/TO amongst those who meet the NBA’s volume requirements, and is averaging 1.7 less turnovers per 40 compared to last season. Not only has Shai improved his playmaking, he is also doing a historically excellent job at not turning the ball over, which creates more opportunities for the Thunder offense.

4. He is doing this whilst maintaining his effort on the defensive end, and not dominating the ball.

Although his stock numbers have fallen, Shai’s defensive rating has increased from last season, and he is ranked third-best in the league. Is that, in many ways, due to the impenetrable Thunder defense? Most probably, but it doesn’t change the fact that Shai remains a good to great perimeter defender. In fact, he has a Defensive Box Plus Minus (DBPM) of 3.2, which is significantly above last season’s mark. In the unlikely event that Shai does maintain a 3.2 DBPM for the rest of the season, he’d set a record! Apart from that, Shai’s usage rate is in fact down from last season, decreasing to 33.1% from 34.6% the season prior. This places him around 10th in the league, which is incredibly surprising considering, again, that production requires usage. This means that Shai is, quite literally, using the ball less despite his historic production, which does not bode well for teams facing the Thunder in the playoffs. When Shai starts taking over, there isn’t much that you can do.

A few caveats: Is Shai going to continue at this breakneck pace for the rest of the season? Probably not, because regression to the mean is a thing. But it doesn’t change the fact that he is having a historically great season. Does this also mean that Shai is the best player in the world? Surprisingly, we don’t know yet, because Jokic is also having another historically great season, which I might cover in a future post. Fortunately, we NBA fans get to witness their collective greatness simultaneously, which is truly a privilege.

Sometimes, breakouts happen because of players taking a big leap, but more often than not, they happen when a young player is placed in a new environment – an injury to a starter or playing for a new coach – and they never look back. In this short piece, I’m going to talk about the latter kind of ‘breakout’, and attempt to rationalize my team’s dismal results while doing so.

My first intuition is that players need to be able to do things with the ball. It’s simple, right? Even if you are offensively competent and say, make threes at a high clip, because your role within an offense is fixed, it is unlikely that you will be able to “breakout” in the traditional sense of the word. Importantly, this tends to limit the development of many young players. Someone like Deni Avdija comes to mind – during his time sharing the court with other ball-dominant players like Anfernee Simons or a moody DeAndre Ayton, Deni was never able to display his full range of skills. With Damian Lillard out for the season, Avdija has been able to both display his passing vision and utilize it to open up opportunities for himself.

Perhaps counterintuitively, pushing a player to “do things with the ball” within the structure of an existing offense often results in their failure. Here’s an example. When Curry is on the court, and a Warriors player misses badly on a subpar shot, he often isn’t given the ball back in proceeding possessions, and tends to be substituted out by an angry Steve Kerr.

I am of the opinion that this is pretty harmful. It is absolutely essential that talented players have the space to make mistakes, because that is often the only way in which they are able to learn and grow as a basketball player. Kuminga displayed excellent scoring in last season’s series between Golden State and Minnesota, and while it was accompanied by many errors and oversights on his part, his ability to put the ball in the basket was genuinely impressive. This season, however, he hasn’t had the opportunity to continue building on those skills, to develop the ability to score while making good reads and avoiding turnovers – precisely due to the fact that his minutes have been inconsistent and his role has been uncertain.

Young players can’t develop, if you never give them the chance to – for instance, Reed Sheppard really only came into his own while Kevin Durant was injured this season. Upon closer inspection, many of the breakouts we see happen when a player finally gets a chance to play, which should give you a little hint of how great players are really found. Tom Brady came into the league a serviceable quarterback, but nobody ever realized until he got a chance to take the field.

My second suspicion is that the type of offense a player has to play in affects their development. An observant NBA fan would notice that egalitarian offenses have been doing disproportionately well in recent years. The Phoenix Suns have been doing better without Kevin Durant demanding the ball, the Miami Heat look great spreading the ball around in the absence of a dominant ball handler, and the Pacers were able to fight their way to the Finals precisely due to their power of friendship offense. In all of these cases, players have broken out as offensive talents – Dillon Brooks, Grayson Allen, and Collin Gillespie are thriving; Jaime Jacquez Jr. and Kel’El Ware have displayed excellent improvements; and the Pacers had players like Andrew Nembhard and TJ McConnell deliver time and time again.

Why? Fundamentally, players play better when they’re able to get into a rhythm. It is unabashedly demoralizing for a shooter to be sitting in the corner and not receive passes despite being open, and it is rather disappointing for a player who has put in hours of work polishing their dribble to not get the ball. I’d point you to the example of the Atlanta Hawks, who clearly seem better as a team despite Trae Young’s extended absence. Simply put, watching your point guard dribble the clock out, and more often than not, miss a step-back three is not an edifying experience, despite the fact that you occasionally receive a consolatory pass for your efforts standing in the corner. Being able to get the ball matters, because it allows players to develop some amount of momentum and to get into the mental state necessary for performance. Players therefore need to be in a sort of rhythm, before any breakouts can happen.

For this reason, I am of the opinion that every team can benefit from both sharing the ball around and being willing to let their young players make mistakes. Yes, for every Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, you have a Julian Hood-Schifino, but it is important to make an effort to actively develop talent. If your team doesn’t have decent role players, this might be why – with a little time and patience, it is fully possible to discover a diamond in the rough.

For our purposes, let’s define the “volume scorer” archetype as a non-star solely renowned for their ability to score, and who is mediocre in other departments such as shooting off the catch, off-ball movement, defense, or passing. Think Heat Terry Rozier, Jamal Crawford, and a young Malik Monk. Yes, many superstars can also be classified as volume scorers, but they are simultaneously capable of doing so much more besides simply scoring. In this analysis, I’m going to explain why volume scorers are going out of fashion in the NBA, because of their inability to be a primary option and their lack of other skills.

The first constraint facing a volume scorer is the fact that he needs the ball to impact an offense. 3 and D players play an important role without the ball because they space the floor, opening up driving lanes for their teammates. When a team’s primary scorer drives into the lane, opportunities for kick-outs are created without the corner shooter needing to possess the ball. A center provides vertical spacing by acting as a lob threat, and can set good screens and grab offensive rebounds to provide opportunities for teammates. With the exception of true first options, most good role players are able to impact the game without necessarily needing to handle the ball, which allows for synergy in an offense.

Where do volume scorers come in? Unfortunately, there are five players on a team, and only one basketball. Therefore, on teams with better scoring options, they are completely redundant. When Paolo Banchero is generating efficient looks by attacking the rim as the primary scorer, the Magic simply do not need Cole Anthony to isolate and take bad shots, because that is an outright worse form of offense (which is part of the reason why his minutes have decreased so dramatically). Non-star volume scorers are unable to carry the primary offensive load with sufficient efficiency, and with other players to turn to, their value immediately decreases significantly.

Even worse, not only are volume scorers redundant, they also hurt a team’s offense due to their inability to play off the ball. A player’s performance cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, and instead must be compared to the player that replaces them. The most probable replacement for the average volume-scoring two guard would be a typical role player – perhaps someone able to play off the ball, defend, and space the floor. This provides opportunities for the team that otherwise become unavailable.

In comparison, the typical “volume scorer” is unable to effectively impact the game as much. He might lack prowess shooting from the corner, or he might not have the basketball IQ to perform timely cuts, which decreases the opportunities that are generated for his teammates. Importantly, these skills are also scalable. Having more shooters on the court is great for spacing, having more passers makes it more likely that good looks are created, but having more ball-handling scorers doesn’t make a team better.

This extends to other areas of basketball, too. The gripe with many star scorers like Carmelo and Iverson was never that they were unable to carry a team on offense, but that they might have been targeted on defense. It is quite apparent that it is very difficult for even all-time great offensive players to survive on scoring alone, and this is amplified for volume scorers who are neither All-NBA calibre players nor exceptional defenders. Jordan Clarkson is a good scorer, but he fails to put in sufficient effort into rebounding and making defensive rotations. A good player does the little things; a volume scorer’s emphasis on scoring and creating offense for himself can often end up detracting from other parts of their game.

So, volume scorers are good at putting the ball through the hoop, but not good enough to justify being the first option on a contender. Because of their ball dominance, their effectiveness also quickly diminishes when playing away from the ball, and a team would be better served by slotting a capable role player in their place. When are they actually important?

The best use of volume scorers, in my opinion, is off the bench. Malik Monk is a great example of this, and was absolutely amazing in his role with the Kings a couple seasons back. While he is a mediocre defender who does not possess exceptional passing (although admittedly, that has steadily improved every single year he is in the league), he finished 2nd in 6MOY voting in the 23-24 season. This was in large part due to his ability to act as a sparkplug off the bench, being able to feast on less competent bench units and serve as the best offensive option when not playing with better players.

On the bench, volume scorers are able to take the role of a first option – because they often share the court with comparatively poor scorers, they become the most efficient creators of isolation offense. Their lack of other skills is also masked by being able to play against worse opponents, and is also outweighed by their ability to impact the game through scoring. For instance, Kuminga was able to average fourteen points per night on 60% true shooting when playing as a reserve in the 2023-2024 season, leading the Warriors bench to the #3 net rating.

The same principle also applies to bad teams. If this somewhat inefficient volume scorer is indeed the best form of offense for a team, they are essentially the perfect tank commander – flashy scoring (which is what fans pay for), which does not necessarily translate to winning.

The volume scorer is thus presented with a choice. He can pursue a diminished role on a winning team, or he can attempt to prove his worth by demonstrating his ability to score. Jordan Clarkson is an example of the former, signing with the Knicks for the minimum despite scoring 16 points per game this past season. Monk, not a bona fide second option, has accepted a fair contract of around $19 million per annum.

In stark contrast, this batch of restricted free agents has opted for the alternative route. Cam Thomas, a zero-time All-Star, wants a contract of $30 million a year. While Jonathan Kuminga has shown potential to be an efficient scorer off the ball who gets points in transition and off cuts, and has the tools to be effective on defense and rebound well, he desires a greater role as a scorer (hint: post ups and midrange fadeaways) and is currently locked in a staring contest with the Warriors. While certainly a valid decision – as a player, you always want to get paid as much as possible – it does partially solidify the image of such volume scorers as empty-stats, losing players.

In summary, good but not exceptional scorers who lack other skills fit best when they are the best player on the court, but are relatively redundant without the ball in their hands. This has led to volume scorers becoming increasingly less valuable in the NBA for the reasons outlined above, and they are faced with two choices: swallow their ego and sacrifice pay to help the team win, or chase the money and do what they do best – score. Unfortunately, the final option is becoming less and less available for the Kumingas and Thomases of the league.

In the Association, versatility refers to possessing a diverse skillset, abilities such as shooting, dribbling, finishing, and playmaking; a versatile player is able to effectively utilize these skills. I think that being offensively versatile is more important than merely having one or two of such skills at an elite level.

First, let’s establish a simple fact. Defenses are infinitely more advanced than they were, say, twenty years ago. In a single week, as a middle of the pack Western Conference team, you might be forced to contend with the switch everything philosophy of the Oklahoma City Thunder, the tough, gritty, and physical Houston Rockets, or the nothing-inside Timberwolves defense led by Rudy Gobert and long, shot blocking defenders.

Beyond these individual defensive styles and philosophies which emphasize to differing degrees things such as aggression, pace, or protecting the perimeter, each team is also guaranteed to have many different schemes available to slow down offenses. Think a box-and-one focused on shutting down an opposing superstar, a 3-2 zone which forces tough passes, or a clogged paint daring opposing players to shoot the three. The sheer diversity of defensive tactics which are available to modern teams means that offensive players must be absolutely prepared to face the different looks that may be thrown at them on any given night.

Let’s examine scoring versatility first. By this, I mean the number of ways a star player can attack a defense – off the dribble, off the catch, in transition, away from the ball, etc. Take LeBron in Game 4 of the 2011 NBA Finals as an example. (Daniel Li has a great video on this, by the way, so do check it out). Part of the reason why he had an absolute stinker of a game, which resulted in the momentum of the entire series shifting, was because he had absolutely no driving lanes at all. Miami ran a double big lineup in the Finals, and combined with the poor spacing on that Miami team, LeBron barely had any room to operate. His best skill was bullying his way through the paint after blowing past a defender, but that was unavailable to him because Dallas was able to scheme against that. When you’re running into multiple bodies, even if they’re not great rim protectors, it’s quite difficult to score at will. Had he been slightly worse at attacking the rim, and a few percentage points better at shooting, LeBron probably would have been better able to help his team secure the game.

Crucially, James at the time hadn’t fully developed all of the other skills that make him so great nearly twelve years later. His off-ball game was mediocre at best, often waiting in the corner or standing stationary whilst Wade attempted to work his magic. He shot 33% from three that season, meaning that defenders didn’t have to respect his shot as much and could focus on limiting his ability to drive. This is incredibly important, because even if you’re the best in the league at a particular skill (in this case, driving and finishing at the rim), defenses will always be able to take some part of it away. A young LeBron looking for his first chip wasn’t capable of making it happen on the biggest stage, simply because he lacked versatility. If you compare that to a more mature, poised Cavaliers LeBron, there are far fewer weaknesses in his game that defenses can zero in on to limit his impact.

The second thing I want to point out is that skills are additive, and not zero-sum. That is to say, being good at multiple skills opens up all other facets of your game, in more ways than one. Perhaps the reason why Steph Curry is unguardable in isolation is because of the absurd amount of ways he can make you pay – too much space? Stepback into the three. Play the shot too much? He blows by you and kicks it out to an open teammate. Imagine if Giannis had a three point shot. He had his most efficient season this past year, solely because of his new shiny midrange jumpshot – when defenses sell out against his prowess driving downhill, he pulls up for an open paint jumper. And guess what? His midrange J makes scoring at the rim much easier as well. Once he knocks down a few, defenses have to respect the shot a little bit more, and they step slightly further out. Too late, Giannis is around you and muscling through your big man for an and-one. This isn’t just limited to shooting – if a player is able to play really well off-the-ball, for example, it means that defenders have to respect his movements far more, and it becomes much easier to juke someone out of his shoes or blow by them on a late contest. If you’re able to pass, defenses can’t send double teams without compunction and limit your ability to score as easily.

Finally, versatility is also incredibly important in the playoffs, because a player needs to be able to impact the game even when the going gets tough. This means that when the three isn’t falling, you’re perhaps able to draw fouls and make free throws to get in rhythm, or attack the rim to open up more space for one’s shot. This is also what separates the greats from just good players. Yes, Thabo Sefolosha can shoot 42% from three point range in a single year, but being able to score at all three levels even when defenses are honing on each and every one of his weaknesses just isn’t something achievable. If defenses are taking away the paint, and chasing you off the perimeter, to continuously create opportunities at a high level, someone like Tatum or Kawhi has to be able to pivot to the midrange for an open look. In the playoffs, particularly, defense gets much tighter and more physical, and the regular season strategies of maximizing threes and layups start to fail in crunch time. The true litmus test of a well-rounded, capable scorer in the playoffs is versatility. Whether you’re able to take whatever the defense gives you and get a bucket, or whether you start to falter because the strategies that once served you well are no longer working, and you don’t have a fallback option (cough cough, James Harden).

These are my thoughts on why versatility as a scorer is really important in the modern NBA. I’ll probably write another post on versatility in the context of team offense, passing, and things like rim pressure eventually. Hope this was worth your time!