Is Dame better than LA now?

[illmatic99]

Feel like stirring the pot a bit...I think our #1 this year has changed hands.

Stats:
LA: 23.0 ppg, 10.6 ppg, 1.9 apg, 45.6% FG, 51.6% TS%, 21.9 PER
Dame: 22.2 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 6.4 apg, 46% FG, 59.8% TS%, 23.0 PER

Ya I know. It's nitpicking and probably unnecessary to define who our best player is, but Dame has made a tangible leap this year by improving his biggest weaknesses (defense (DRTG 102 from 110 last year), and finishing at the rim (67% from 51% last year). And the sample size is large enough now to think this is more than just noise.

And then there's the whole clutch thing... I think every single one of us would take the ball in Dame's hands with the game on the line over LA (has a lot to do with him being a guard, but even if this were not a factor, I'd take Dame at the top of the key creating over LA on the block).

What do you guys say.. is Dame our #1?

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

Damian is more important to team success, without him we are basically a rich mans version of the Kevin Love Timberwolves.

 

[PDXFonz]

I honestly thought he was the #1 last year.

If it came down to Dame or LA I am taking Dame 100/100 times.

 

[e_blazer]

Can't have one without the other and be successful.

LeBron James is pretty universally seen as the best player in the league, but without having a true stud PF (and obviously, that ain't Love), the Cavs are mediocre. No matter how good Dame is, the Blazers aren't going to win without LA, or somebody just as good as he is.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm trying to figure out Excel 2013 and how to mess with charts, but I did a study on them last night. I don't want to spoil it now, but it's interesting.

 

[PDXFonz]

Can't have one without the other and be successful.

LeBron James is pretty universally seen as the best player in the league, but without having a true stud PF (and obviously, that ain't Love), the Cavs are mediocre. No matter how good Dame is, the Blazers aren't going to win without LA, or somebody just as good as he is.

This is both a fair point, and a cheap attempt to dodge the question! I agree with your statement 100%, but if you had to keep one and turn to free agency to fill the void of the other, then who do you keep?

 

[Sinobas]

Is Damian Lillard better than JR Smith? Is Damian Lillard better than Kobe Bryant? Is Damian Lillard better than Channing Frye?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

LA asked Dame to take over in the 4th. I think that shows you how awesome he thinks Dame is.

It's not a Batman/Robin situation, but it might be a Superman/Batman situation; they compliment each other, but one is stronger.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know if you can build a team around Lillard like you can around LMA. Without Aldridge and Matthews and Batum stretching the floor for him or otherwise demanding double teams, he might not have it as easy. I think he'd still be very good, don't get me wrong. Just players can be a product of the system, and LMA has proven to excel in multiple coach's systems.

FWIW

 

[HomerLovesKoolAid]

I think Lillard was tougher than LMA mentally the first day he stepped on an NBA court and that is a huge thing.
But, I've also noticed LMA getting mentally tougher every year and when you combine that with his talent and experience it makes him a helluva player. Tough call, good problem to have.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't know if you can build a team around Lillard like you can around LMA. Without Aldridge and Matthews and Batum stretching the floor for him or otherwise demanding double teams, he might not have it as easy. I think he'd still be very good, don't get me wrong. Just players can be a product of the system, and LMA has proven to excel in multiple coach's systems.

FWIW

While I think you're right about Aldridge as a foundation, I don't think you can win championships without someone like lillard. If you put dame on the 1991 team or the 1999 team, I think the blazers win a championship. Both lillard and Brandon Roy have that clutch gene that compels them to rise to the occasion when the team needs them most. Not a lot of players have it. They can put up big numbers and they can be stars, but the ability to put your team on your back and will them to win is special. Jordan had it. Reggie miller had it. Brandon Roy had it and now Damian lillard has it. Aldridge is great, and he's crucial to the long term success of the team, but it will be lillard who gets us a ring.

 

[blue9]

Duh. This question shouldn't even need to be asked.

 

[Denny Crane]

While I think you're right about Aldridge as a foundation, I don't think you can win championships without someone like lillard. If you put dame on the 1991 team or the 1999 team, I think the blazers win a championship. Both lillard and Brandon Roy have that clutch gene that compels them to rise to the occasion when the team needs them most. Not a lot of players have it. They can put up big numbers and they can be stars, but the ability to put your team on your back and will them to win is special. Jordan had it. Reggie miller had it. Brandon Roy had it and now Damian lillard has it. Aldridge is great, and he's crucial to the long term success of the team, but it will be lillard who gets us a ring.

What did LMA do in the playoffs last year? Especially the first few games...

 

[blue9]

What did LMA do in the playoffs last year? Especially the first few games...

Play better than he's ever played in his life?

 

[Denny Crane]

Play better than he's ever played in his life?

Exactly. He stepped it up like the alpha dog must.

Speaks to carrying the team. You put a saddle on him and ride to victory. Pardon the metaphor

 

[Blazersfan161]

He was better last year too, right?

 

[Natebishop3]

What did LMA do in the playoffs last year? Especially the first few games...

That's not what I'm talking about. Aldridge dominated those games from start to finish. He was in a zone and he played like a star, but who on the blazers would you want with the ball if they're down 2 points and there's three seconds left? Who do you expect to take over if they're down 15 going into the 4th quarter? It isn't Aldridge.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No. I think Aldridge is more valuable to the team's overall success. Don't get me wrong, Lillard is awesome, but I think Aldridge is currently more valuable. 2 years from now, it'll probably be a different answer.

Its like asking, who's better, Tim Duncan or Tony Parker?

Just ask yourself, given an even playing field, who is more likely to be selected to a Team USA, Lillard or Aldridge? I think Aldridge's skillset is much more unique than Dame's, although Dame's clutchness makes him as valuable. However, skillwise and "who is better", my money is with the L-train.

 

[Further]

Crunch time you go Lillard, and that's over just about anyone in the NBA. The rest of the time, I think Aldridge by a hair.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

No. Lillard is great, but Aldridge is still the franchise player. It's a Tony Parker-Tim Duncan situation.

 

[donkiez]

They are different and they need each other, which is great for us. LA is a bread and butter player. Lillard is a burst scorer who excels in crunch time. Its apples and oranges, but if I could only keep one it would have to be Lillard. He just has that intensity, poise and character that is so rare. Even more rare then the incredibly rare talents LA brings to the table. We are amazingly lucky to have both on our team.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Why decide? Just be glad we have both playing together.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not what I'm talking about. Aldridge dominated those games from start to finish. He was in a zone and he played like a star, but who on the blazers would you want with the ball if they're down 2 points and there's three seconds left? Who do you expect to take over if they're down 15 going into the 4th quarter? It isn't Aldridge.

That doesn't define "better."

That is the question, no?

 

[Natebishop3]

That doesn't define "better."

That is the question, no?

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I should have limited my response to one word answers.

Yes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I should have limited my response to one word answers.

Yes.

You basically asked me which guy I'd want hoisting up 3pt shots in quantity.

Sure, Lillard, tho LMA is shooting .485 from 3pt.

 

[Natebishop3]

You basically asked me which guy I'd want hoisting up 3pt shots in quantity.

Sure, Lillard, tho LMA is shooting .485 from 3pt.

What? How is that at all related to someone being clutch in big situations?

 

[Denny Crane]

What? How is that at all related to someone being clutch in big situations?

I don't see shooting 3s when down 15 as a clutch situation. It's more of a best strategy thing, 3pt shots being worth more to the score than 2pt ones, per possession.

Having monstrously huge games in the playoffs is clutch. A lot of guys disappear. Like the guy with the beard who flops all the time.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I don't see shooting 3s when down 15 as a clutch situation.

Do you turn off Blazer games with 3 minutes to go or something?

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you turn off Blazer games with 3 minutes to go or something?

Nope. Lillard is definitely a clutch player.

But that's not an either/or kind of thing. Wes is clutch, too.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Nope. Lillard is definitely a clutch player.

But that's not an either/or kind of thing. Wes is clutch, too.

Clutch has a particular meaning now though: +/-5 points, 5 minutes or less to go in 4th or OT . So shooting 3's down 15 is not clutch. It's a strategy.

Both Dame and LA have 18 made FG's in clutch time this year. LA has a better FG% (48.6% versus 46.2%) but Dame's effective FG% is higher (53.8% vs 48.6%) because he's drilling threes at 40%.

Wes is not so clutch: 34.8 FG%, eFG% of 45.7%... only 8 FGs made.