CJ for Beal

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BoomChakaLaka said:
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Beal may be a minor upgrade, but thats all it would be, and you risk losing the chemistry that Dame / CJ have.
Click to expand...

They don’t have chemistry together! Sorry to say but they never have. I truly like both Dame and CJ...but they simply do not compliment one another on offense nor on defense. They each play better when the other is on the bench. All I’m suggesting is Beal / Dame could potentially be leaps and bounds better “together” -
Click to expand...

You do realize that the majority of the minutes they both play are together and both have put up some excellent individual numbers as well as helping the team get to the WCF and the 3rd seed in the extremely tough west 2 years in a row. There is nothing to indicate that a Beal/ Lillard backcourt would be leaps and bounds better and in reality, best case scenario probably about the same.
 
BoomChakaLaka said:
Love CJ!

But Dame / CJ is not a match made in basketball heaven. Both CJ and Dame are best when creating their own shot; they do not play off of one another. There is no “chemistry” between the two.

Chemistry exists between Dame and Nurk and even between Nurk and CJ to a lesser extent. This in part is due to our pick & roll offense and lack of motion away from the ball. For Dame & CJ to find chemistry between them, they’d have to study film of the Warriors. Curry moves (relentlessly) without the ball around multiple back screens and is rewarded for his efforts by getting the ball.

Our offense (design) is so repetitive and so dependent on one play (High pick & roll) that chemistry between Dame & CJ will never be found.

Beal is a knock down shooter and doesn’t need to start with the ball in his hands to be effective. Both CJ and Dame require the ball to be most effective. If Steve Kerr were the new Blazer coach I think he’d create an offense that might better exploit CJ’s talents while on the court with Dame!
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is somewhat flawed because...

A) Beal has been MUCH better without John Wall...

B) If Beal can’t play successfully alongside John Wall, who is a much superior PASSER than Damian Lillard, why would he be able to play successfully alongside Damian?

C) What I underlined would be the same for Dame/Beal given what I wrote above. Beal is a better player with the ball in his hands — and if he can’t mesh with Wall who is a willing passer — not sure why he’d mesh with Damian, who is a) more likely to take bad shots and b) not exactly a willing passer like Wall is.
 
oldfisherman said:
I believe many here underrate CJ's ability to create his own shot. And underrate the value that brings to the team to win more games.
Click to expand...

Exactly. How many times have we asked for the Blazers to get more players who can create their own shot? The answer is a lot!. Now all of sudden fans seem to think that good ones are easy to come by. He is arguably the best one on the Blazer team at doing it. Dame has unlimited range and can attack the basket better, but CJ's change of speed/stop on a dime pull up mid range jumper is pretty damn good too. They actually compliment each other quite well.
 
Beal is not an upgrade. He has really only gotten recognition because he's in the East. If he had been in the West he wouldn't have a single All-Star appearance.

He has a 28% USG rating last season. That's basically Dame level. CJ only had a 25% USG and put up very similar numbers.
 
cj had a magical game 7 against denver. no way would I trade for Beal after that. he made tough shot after thought shot when it was all in the line. has Beal done that? I know Beal is great but cj has proven himself in the clutch situations. dont forget about his defense on the inbounds play in the marathon game against denver. it sent it into ot.

if cj played in the east more.than a few pundits say he would be an all star. I think he can be an all star in the west.
 
Cugel said:
cj had a magical game 7 against denver. no way would I trade for Beal after that. he made tough shot after thought shot when it was all in the line. has Beal done that? I know Beal is great but cj has proven himself in the clutch situations. dont forget about his defense on the inbounds play in the marathon game against denver. it sent it into ot.

if cj played in the east more.than a few pundits say he would be an all star. I think he can be an all star in the west.
Click to expand...

Et helped us win game 7 too. ;)
 
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.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Exactly. How many times have we asked for the Blazers to get more players who can create their own shot? The answer is a lot!. Now all of sudden fans seem to think that good ones are easy to come by. He is arguably the best one on the Blazer team at doing it. Dame has unlimited range and can attack the basket better, but CJ's change of speed/stop on a dime pull up mid range jumper is pretty damn good too. They actually compliment each other quite well.
Click to expand...

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
 
Natebishop3 said:
They're both 6'5 so it's not like you're upgrading the size of our backcourt.
Click to expand...

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
 
wizenheimer said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
wizenheimer said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
oldfisherman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

oldfisherman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Natebishop3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
wizenheimer said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
wizenheimer said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
wizenheimer said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Natebishop3 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
calvin natt said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wizenheimer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Natebishop3 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
wizenheimer said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
Natebishop3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top