One thing I like about Trent is very patient when out on the court. He gets to places by keeping is dribble alive that helps created that space for his shot. Player that use to that was Roy that did good job doing that in games. On defense he real active and he always knows where the ball is and couple of his steals he had was text book.
Your right he is our 2nd best scorer but you have to answer the question does he make other players around him better. I say that been his down fall and he even admits that this off season he needs work those skills.
I think the thing we will miss most if we lose C.J. is his 1st quarter scoring. I have not run the numbers for the 2017-18 season, but when there was talk of trading C.J. late in the 2016-17 season, I did and C.J. was both our most prolific and most efficient 1st quarter scorer. If Lillard Time is the last 5 minutes of the game, the first 12 minutes are McCollum time. Why is that important? Again this data is from the 2016-17 season so it may have changed a little, but we were a horrible 1st quarter team constantly falling behind by double digits in the first quarter, only to spend the next three quarter trying to claw our way back into the game. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't, but it always requires expending a lot of energy, which wears players down, both physically and mentally over the course of an 82 game schedule. Removing our best 1st quarter scorer would have made that bad situation even worse (which is why I have never advocated bringing C.J. off the bench). I'm all for trading him for someone like Butler, a better overall player, but don't just assume one of the young guys (or cheap 1-year contract vets) will be able to step in and immediately replace what C.J. gives us. I think Simons has the greater long term potential, but I think Trent has the aggressive attitude and self-confidence to step into the rotation sooner. BNM
I don't understand looking at shooting percentage over eFG%. By the same logic used to dismiss eFG, DeAndre Jordan shoots 67% for his career, Curry is nowhere near that.
I fully understand where your coming from CJ is scorer no doubt but I look up his P.I.E. it was 10.9. Butler had 15.1 big difference.
Maybe we could establish Butler and Nurk early instead of CJ? A little inside/outside offense to start the game. Plus keep them happy. And loosen up the perimeter defense.
Westbrook is #5 in the NBA on that list. Ruh Roh! https://stats.nba.com/help/glossary/#pie Name Player Impact Estimate Definition PIE measures a player's overall statistical contribution against the total statistics in games they play in. PIE yields results which are comparable to other advanced statistics (e.g. PER) using a simple formula. Formula (PTS + FGM + FTM - FGA - FTA + DREB + (.5 * OREB) + AST + STL + (.5 * BLK) - PF - TO) / (GmPTS + GmFGM + GmFTM - GmFGA - GmFTA + GmDREB + (.5 * GmOREB) + GmAST + GmSTL + (.5 * GmBLK) - GmPF - GmTO) Type Advanced
I prefer to look at TS% as it also includes 3-point shooting and FT shooting. I also look at the average shot distance. That tells me what I already know (confirms the eye test), that DeAndre Jordan is not a great shooter. He is a great dunker who knows his limits (career average FG distance = 1.7 feet). Steph Curry's average FG distance is 10x that much (17.7 feet). So, DeAndre == great dunker, but poor shooter. Steph == great shooter, but not much of a dunker (25 total in nine seasons). Someone who can't make a FT, is not a good shooter in my book. That's why I think eFG% is a useless, misleading stat. BNM
Here you go: http://www.espn.com/nba/recap/_/id/400974767 Biggest opening game blowout in Suns history....and the game was in PHX. Now the Suns weren't any good but look at the next time they played the Suns IN Portland WITH CJ....barely squeaked by. It is a ridiculously small sample but it was also a ridiculously HUGE blowout.
I have said several times in this thread and in many others, Butler is a better overall player. I would gladly trade C.J. for him. BNM
I'd rather try to run Nurk in the high post hitting Butler cutting to the basket - the way we did with Nurk and Harkless back during Nurk Fever. I don't like force feeding Nurk in the low post early in the game. It causes him to rush things and throw up a lot of soft, unbalanced, low percentage shots. He tends to rush things against other quality starting centers. The time to feed him on the low blocks is when the other team goes small, and/or they get caught switching and a smaller player ends up on Nurk. He absolutely dominates in those situations. He doesn't rush anything or go soft, he simply overpowers his smaller opponent. It's really not fair - which is why you exploit it every chance you get. BNM
OK! Many fans thought Telfair was an exciting prospect who was going to be something special. It turned out that dominating high school kids had nothing to do with NBA success. This is why I actually have more hope for Trent than Simons. Trent has had at least some exposure to playing for a really good coach against serious competition. (and no, SL doesn't count - it is half a step above playground ball) Personally, I think Trent will wind up at the 3; nonetheless I would be more supportive if you said *he* was the one to replace CJ. Trent may be really good, or he may be a journeyman, but I don't see him crashing and burning. I look at Simons, and I want to keep a fire extinguisher handy. His ceiling is high, but the floor is somewhere in the sub-basement.
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but Jordan has a higher career TS% than Curry. I personally think it's alright to use all of them, as long as people understand who is being compared. Comparing any of those numbers of a C with a PG or SG is rather pointless, unless that C maybe is also out shooting 3s or something. But in general. The difficulty I see in over relying on one, and throwing one out the window, if I compare Westbrook last season to CJ this season. We know CJ is a very good shooter, in general. We know Westbrook is not. CJ's FG% is better. 3point % much better.eFG% much better. FT% is pretty close. Average shot distance is pretty close. But Westbrook's TS% is almost 20 points higher than CJ's not by being a better shooter at all, but strictly by getting to the line over 3 times as often. Is getting to the line a skill? Absolutely. And it's valuable. I don't want to disregard that skill. But it seems you're quick to dismiss eFG%, which can show shooting, because of Cs skewing it, but accept TS%, which is heavily weighted to favor those who get to the line.
yeah his pace and the ability to back guys down or find a shot reminds me of Roy. And Roy had 4 years of college.
Sounds good. I'd originally meant to post about featuring Butler, but added a Nurk reference at the last minute. Nurk pick and roll: good. Nurk high post passing: good. Nurk Isos: Not so good.
Correction: TS% is weighted in favor of those who get to the line and make their FTs. Guys like Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond get to the line a lot more than C.J., but they do so because they are poor FT shooters. They aren't earning it, quite the opposite, they are being sent to the line as a penalty for being such poor FT shooters, and yes, their poor FT shooting hurts their TS%. It doesn't hurt their eFG%. eFG% masks their poor FT shooting. That's why I don't like it. And yes, getting to the line AND making your FTs is a skill, a very valuable skill. It's a skill that tends to separate the guys that score 25+ ppg from the guys who score 20 - 25 ppg. The guys who are fighting for scoring titles are also usually the same guys who are leading the league in made FTs. Last season, the top 4 players in made FTs were all among the top 5 in scoring. There's a pretty tight correlation between made FTs and scoring average. So yeah, it's a valuable skill. BNM
I'd amend that to: Nurk isos against other starting centers: not as good as it should be - yet. Nurk isos against anyone else: good. BNM
