McCollum compared to Ray Allen, Curry, Dame and Klay Thompson at age 24 and age 25. It'll be really interesting to see if his growth in scoring will continue this year with a full season of Nurkic. Interestingly, his scoring was fairly consistent across all months, even during the last 20 games after Nurk was added. Last year CJ shot better than Dame from 3, from 2, from the line--he's just a flat-out more accurate shooter statistically. You could argue that Dame gets a little more defensive pressure, but I don't think the difference is all that much. Dame took 7.7 threes/game last year. I think he was trying to establish himself as a superstar and cement a spot on the All Star team. He actually took 8.8 after we got Nurk (and didn't improve on accuracy)! At this point I think Stotts needs to have a long talk with Dame about being more of a facilitator and focusing on the pick and roll, and leaving the ridiculous long bombs in reserve. Challenge him to make CJ the team's scoring leader.
Interesting viewpoint. However, I think Stotts wants dependent scorers per game and his reliance on the point/scoring guard roles would be dictated by an opposing teams' D. If any change is coming, it's a larger scoring share with Nurk and a higher percentage of big guy in the paint scoring.
I've thought about it before. Maybe we would be better with CJ as the leading scorer and Dame upping his assist numbers (at the expense of going back to something like 20ppg)
Cj is so nice and definitely needs to shoot the most on the team. I love how he's not a chucker and his efficiency is always off the charts
While I agree I like CJ more as a scorer for all the reasons mentioned here, Dame is not a facilitator. He has a high usage rate and because the ball is constantly in his hands he gets some decent assist numbers but overall dame is not that great of a passer. I dont have stats to back this up only my eye (I'm sure BNM will cook something up if he agrees with me) but I've always seen cj as the more creative passer. Dame just doesnt set defenders up for assists quite like CJ and while I like the idea of Cj being the leading scorer, those two are natural born killers who want to score every time down the floor, and telling one of them to be something else would be a mistake IMO. They seem to really like playing together as they are, why mess with a good thing?
Some interesting things from that comparison: Curry's DRtg is surprisingly good. Maybe because they always put him on the other team's worst scorer? CJ's defense is NOT good. I always circle back to the conviction that we have a ceiling on how good this team can be with such a poor defensive backcourt.
By what measure? His efficiency was basically identical year 1 to year 2. You think Booker is going to suddenly become a significantly better shooter?
That probably helps, but Curry has turned himself into a decent defender. His problem is, and will always be, size. But, IMO, he plays with good technique and effort and he has great instincts for getting deflections and steals. His size and lack of pure athleticism limits his ability as a one-on-one defender, but he's a pretty good team defender, so he's either an overall asset to their defensive scheme or, at least, not a liability. One stark difference that I see between Curry and our two starting guards is that Curry, whether he's on the ball or off it, he's always keeping his head on a swivel, watching for screeners and reacting. He has good awareness for that. Lillard and McCollum, meanwhile, generally lock in to the ball and die on every screen set against them. That tends to force unfavorable switches, whereas Curry is better able to work around the screen because he sees it coming and not force an unfavorable switch.
I don't think it's so much that Lillard faces more defensive pressure as Lillard takes significantly harder shots. Some of that is a self-inflicted wound and he should be working for better shots, but some of it his Curry-like ability to stretch defenses to a breaking point. McCollum is more like Klay--he's very efficient at taking conventional shots. Lillard is more like Curry, though not as good--he takes the shots that defenses struggle to be able to account for and it warps them. I think if Lillard only took the kinds of shots McCollum takes, his percentages would rise. It's hard to say whether the defense-warping ability is worth the lower efficiency, since he isn't Curry.
I think he's going to be a better all-round player, if he's not already. He's clearly the Sun's star (that sounds funny) already.
Whoa a chucker? I understand your loyalty to all things Blazers but come on now Booker is a pure efficient scorer
He's actually not a very efficient scorer--his TS% (which accounts for free throws and three-pointers) was only .531 (after .535 last year) which isn't great. McCollum's TS% was .585--much better. Booker's turnover rate is also higher. Another point of reference is that his Offensive Rating only checked in at 103 while McCollum's was 114. I think McCollum is type of player Booker will eventually be, but it's definitely fair to call him a "chucker" at this point.
