http://bkref.com/tiny/X4PEe This is a silly comparison, given Clyde was a tall SG/SF, while Dame is a short PG/SG. However, they're both our main guys, and Dame is gunning to be the best Blazer ever, so I thought I'd do a simple comparison of Clyde through 4 seasons versus Dame now. I expected, since Dame still has 31 games to go, that he'd be a bit lower on the totals than Clyde, but that's obviously not the case; in fact, Dame is only 1300 total points less than Clyde after FIVE seasons. Also, with the exception of offensive rebounding, the two players are really, REALLY similar. I think an in-depth compare of these two would be a nice Podcast Episode for @Dan Marang to do, even knowing their differences.
i can't wait till we do this with cj when he has a larger sample size He's going to be the real guy to compare it with
You still have yet to acknowledge that Lowry is just as feast or famine as Lillard, that's all I've been trying to do. lol. You cant like one for having the same weakness as the other.
Interesting one for sure- I'll take a look at the archives and see how much data is available that I can use for relevant comparison. While true they are different players, it could be a fun exercise to see how each controls/dictates the game and what kind of ecosystem they each lived in during their early years. EDIT: I've been quiet recently b/c I'm actually doing some work on Lillard over the past month or so. There's some big changes in his game recently and I'm still trying to parse it all out. I'll have the podcast/write up probably available the same day this week. This could be a decent launch point to some historical comparisons though for sure.
You'd have to rely on possession-normalized data, since the game in 1984 was about 1.5x as fast as today, but had much more physical defense. Almost two different sports, but they both were their team's big option. To me what would be interesting is thinking about extrapolation; Clyde tops a lot of those leaderboards, but Dame's already ahead of his pace, and accelerating.
adjusting for pace is always tricky- then factoring scoring rate based on 3PA for an adjusted pace and points per possession- a lot of math. Thankfully a lot of the heavier lifting has already been done by the folks at APBRMetrics and the Sloan Conference presenters. The key will be data other than typical box score stuff that I can use for indicators. Worst case scenario it's a fun trip down a rabbit hole
It's what I do for a living now man, although I'm certainly the least socially awkward analyst I've ever come across in experience. Weird? Sure. Typical awkward IT guy? Not so much. lol
