sports, i guess i don't disagree with much of that. to your question, i definitely prefer the guy taking 3s over driving, which is sort of why i value that lp not at all in B over A because i'd rather have A at +2 taking almost all 3s than player B at +2 taking almost all, but not quite as many, 3s (and feel A is a better 3pt shooter than B). so i guess we are reaching a similar conclusion there.
i guess i'll try to say it concisely - i agree ath matters a bunch for 2pt scoring in the offense, its one of the cores for sure, but not so much that i don't think hes still solid at 2s. i was also looking at him as a backup player, and i might even call him good there - but perhaps hes a backup option who will eventually start - in which case, i agree, hes really not good at 2s, but could score them decently in a pinch (as opposed to A - this is what i was getting at when i was talking about if this guy was a backup on a team with already tons of 3pt scoring, where 2pt scoring is at a premium). if your point is, this guy as a substantial 2pt scorer really isn't going to cut it as a #1 sos national champion type team - i'm definitely going to agree with you.
its also a given ath matters a bunch for defense. however, i do still take some exception to the statement 'i don't want a 40 ath driving on a 60 ath'. perhaps not so much as i came across; i wouldn't really object to 'i don't want a 40 ath driving on a strong defender'. i would still feel it was less about the 40 ath, than the opportunity cost - the guy is just a better 3 pt scorer. so i'd only object a little i guess, probably not enough to say anything - but with the direct comparison of the ath to ath, it feels like its more about the ath specifically than 'this guy is a significantly better 3pt scorer than 2pt scorer'.
couple comments on that guy you linked - its hard to say definitively, but from a brief look, it kinda looks like you were exceeding the shooting rate on brian lockridge that is safe from breaching the 40% cutoff. as such, i expect his efficiency suffered in part as a result of sometimes exceeding that 40% of shots while on the court mark, after which the penalty is quite steep (i suspect he hit it fairly rarely, but when he did, it hurts a lot). most folks would notice this penalty more acutely in 2pt scoring than in 3pt scoring for guards like that, because his 3pt scoring is so incredible, even with a decent whack, its still super efficient. meanwhile 2pt scoring is not, so the impact is probably more noticeable. however, i definitely agree with you that the primary reason he wasn't that great at 2s, is because ath is a core for 2pt scoring at all positions and his held him back a lot, and that you are playing a championship caliber schedule and facing many good defenders.
i will say though - on that defense, where your guy did better against weaker defender - i believe that is definitely more about the def than the ath. not massively more, but more. ath/def are very tightly correlated before potential, in recruit generation, and with all the ath/def seeking coaches, it ends up tightly correlated in players, too. so im guessing many of those lower ath guys were also lower def. anyway, i don't doubt that your guy was much more effective against weaker defenders - but the way you say it, again, by mentioning ath by name, that again sort of prickles that 'its about the ability not the rating' thing in my ears. not so much different than offense, except in this case there is a clear rating above it, namely defense.