CJ - 21 ppg off 46% from the floor and 37.5% from three, 4 rebounds, 3 assists in 34 minutes per game. Beal - 25.6 ppg off 47.5% from the floor and 35% from three, 5 rebounds, 5.5 assists in 37 minutes per game. Beal played more minutes per game. He has a higher USG%. Wall was out most of the year (or the whole year?) so Beal was the number one option on offense. They're both 6'5 so it's not like you're upgrading the size of our backcourt.
a player being able to create his own shot is only part of the equation. It's also important that the player can do so with good efficiency, otherwise they are more of a shot-chucker than shot-creator out of the 197 players that played in 40 games or more, CJ ranked 189th in TS%. That's 189th out of 197. Dame ranked 84th, but Dame was only assisted on 28.6% of his FG's while CJ was assisted on 46.6% of his FG's. CJ was only average in TS% and since he's good in spot-up and catch-and-shoot opportunities and that will float his TS% higher, when CJ is creating for himself he's operating at lower than average efficiency; that's especially true considering how weak he is in court vision and passing to teammates. He gets hooplock too often CJ's assisted FG rate should be well north of 60%. His game should be more like Klay Thompson and less like Dame. He's overrated at creating his own shots and a big reason for that is he doesn't get to the FT line. Dame had 1.4 more FGA/game than CJ but scored 4.8 more points. The difference was Dame averaged 3.6 more points on FT's. That's CJ's biggest flaw
how did CJ, who was measured as 6' 2.25'' at 22 years old become 6'5? Beal measured 6'3.25, but he was 19 years old so it's possible he grew a little. it all reminds me of that 58 inch steelhead I pulled out of the upper Deschutes River a few years ago. Ten years from now it will have been 68 inches
Something about your numbers do not add up. Where did you get them? If there were only 197 players that played in 40 or more games? That works out to about 6.6 players per team. I don't believe that is correct, or, even close to the real number. Also, why did you not include Beal's stats to make a valid point? I believe Beal's numbers are worse than Dames, but better than CJ's.
I sat about three rows up to a Wizards game a year or so ago and watched Beal go OFF. So maybe I’m biased but I would take Beal over CJ. CJ does some great things, no doubt. He’s fun to watch. I also know about ten times a game where you might as well send four Blazers back on defense because he is going to shoot it no matter what. It drives me crazy. Edit: Dec 2017, he had 51 vs Portland. Was unreal.
Beal is tweeting to Meyers Leonard so he's going to end up in Miami. https://www.hothothoops.com/2019/7/27/8932862/bradley-beal-meyers-leonard-tweet-extension-miami-heat
Who talks about barefoot when they talk about height in sports? If you go look at their profiles it always just gives their listed playing height. They're both smaller shooting guards.
you're right...I used the season finder at BBREF and set the criteria restrictions as players who played in 40 games or more AND who posted a TS% of at least .550....CJ was 189th among those 197 players. Sorry for the omission I was specifically responding to the assumption that CJ's ability to create his own shot had high value. As I said, that's only part of the equation because when CJ creates his own shots he does so with weak efficiency it was more about that but if you want some comparison to Beal, then OK, and you are correct...Beal has better numbers than CJ. Significantly better in some ways: Assisted FG rate: CJ 46.6%....Beal 50.5% TS%: CJ .553....Beal .581 eFG%: CJ .527....Beal .540 2ptFG%: CJ .506....Beal .548 3ptFG%: CJ .375....Beal .351 (career: CJ .401....Beal .384) FT%: CJ .828....Beal .808 PER: CJ 17.0....Beal 20.8 FT Rate: CJ .154....Beal .278 Assist Rate: CJ 13.8%....Beal 24.1% Turnover Rate: CJ 7.4%....Beal 11.0% assist/turnover: CJ 1.95....Beal 2.00 winshares/48: CJ .114....Beal .120 box plus/minus: CJ +0.3....Beal +2.8 real plus/minus: CJ +1.14....Beal +1.51 value over replacement: CJ 1.3....Beal 3.7 http://bkref.com/tiny/c1RHS http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/position/2 early in this thread I said that Beal was better than CJ but he wasn't enough better to justify a seemingly lateral move; that the potential downside of disruption could be as significant as the potential upside of a little better talent I hadn't really looked at the numbers till now and I'm a bit surprised by Beal's clear advantages in most areas. He'd be an upgrade in talent, but the risk of loss of chemistry is a factor that might mitigate the upgrade they basically have about the same contract with the same expiration; but Beal is 2 years younger Beal is a little bigger and is likely better on defense. I won't advocate for the trade but I'd be ok with it. Looking at the bigger picture, I'm one of those that believes the supposed fit of the Dame/CJ pairing isn't nearly as good as advertised. They are too redundant. I see CJ and Beal as being pretty similar players, with Beal's ability to draw fouls being the biggest difference, other than defense. bottom line for me is if Portland does risk the disruption and loss of chemistry of trading CJ, I'd want the return to be either/and/or: a clear upgrade in talent; a clear improvement in fit; a significant upgrade in upside. I don't see CJ for Beal knocking it out of the park in any of those areas. Furthermore, they will both be due for an extension at the same time and my biggest concern right now is Portland giving CJ a max extension. I wouldn't feel any better with Beal at 40M/year then I would with CJ at 40M/year but saying CJ is 6'5 is stretching things a bit too far. We have the database of player's actual height's without/shoes so when comparing players' heights, I'm always going to use those numbers rather than the frequent propaganda numbers listed in team profiles. CJ is definitely a short SG, and he has a bit of the T-Rex arm thing going. I'd agree Beal is probably on the short side himself, and his wingspan isn't impressive either
Based on your comment that CJ's TS% was average, and showing stats that he was at the bottom of the list, I assumed it was an honest omission. Thanks for the clarification. Lots of room for debate on trading CJ for Beal, as well as todays value of creating ones own shot vs 20 years ago. The game has changed alot. Making those decisions is why GMs make the big bucks.
Yeah CJ is short for a SG but if your wing span is 4" longer than your height.....is T-Rex the right description? (6'2.25 without shoes, 6'6.25 wingspan) That seems about average to me.
A lot of this can be attributed to the fact that Beal was their number one option last year. Wall was out. CJ is our number 2. Beal has a higher USG rating. He plays more minutes. I don't have his page up but I'm guessing he probably averages more shots as well?
well, almost all of those numbers I posted had little to nothing to do with volume or usage; Beal is just a better across-the-board shooter. CJ's only advantages are in 3 point shooting and FT percentage. Beal had a significantly better TS% which accounts for the full range of shooting efficiency. And their assisted FG rates were really quite similar and if Beal was the #1 option for his team while CJ was the #2 option for Portland, then Beal was the #1 focus of opposing defenses while CJ was the 2nd or 3rd focus for opposing defenses. So then, Beal being more efficient is as a #1 option lends him an even bigger statistical advantage over CJ, because he likely posted the higher numbers against more resistance.
Hasnt CJ had a couple games that he was pretty unreal too? Im not trying to discredit your perspective on it. Just pointing out that many scorers have had nights like that.
But he's not enough of an upgrade to warrant anything other than a 1 for 1. That's really my point. We need a clear upgrade. Not a minor upgrade.
allow me to quote myself from a post above: "I won't advocate for the trade but I'd be ok with it. Looking at the bigger picture, I'm one of those that believes the supposed fit of the Dame/CJ pairing isn't nearly as good as advertised. They are too redundant. I see CJ and Beal as being pretty similar players, with Beal's ability to draw fouls being the biggest difference, other than defense. bottom line for me is if Portland does risk the disruption and loss of chemistry of trading CJ, I'd want the return to be either/and/or: a clear upgrade in talent; a clear improvement in fit; a significant upgrade in upside. I don't see CJ for Beal knocking it out of the park in any of those areas. Furthermore, they will both be due for an extension at the same time and my biggest concern right now is Portland giving CJ a max extension. I wouldn't feel any better with Beal at 40M/year then I would with CJ at 40M/year" seems like we're thinking alike
I have a major bias when it comes to Eastern Conference players and teams. Like I think that conference outside of like maybe 2-3 teams a year is big step down in talent compared to the west. So, maybe part of my personal bias against beal is caused by that.
What happens when we only see the best in other players and compare it to the worst in our players? INSANITY? If Beal was so great, why have the Wizards stunk most of his tenure there?
With CJ in a trade and if you don't include Zach, Simons or 1st rounders there cannot be a real upgrade. Beal would be amazing, but also Wizards would never do that. Beal is better and younger so they can certainly find something better than CJ that suits their rebuild as well. Beal showed last season that he was not a finished product, he has taken a big step forward as a player while on the other hand CJ has peaked and has been like this for 3 full years now. I believe he has moved one tier above CJ right now. They are not the same.
