Why CJ McCollum Will Not Be the Trail Blazers' Answer for 6th Man

Yesterday afternoon the Oregonian's Joe Freeman penned a piece suggesting second-year guard C.J. McCollum might be tailor-made for a 6th Man.

I'm thinking long-term, and McCollum's mix of scoring ability, playmaking and ball-handling seem tailor made for a sixth-man role...

Manu Ginobili, Jason Terry and Jamal Crawford - among a host of many others - were respected NBA players who had made pretty nice careers.

Head Coach Terry Stotts seemed a little lukewarm on the idea:

"I wouldn't want to limit him to that," Stotts said. "I think he has the chance to be a very good player in this league. At this stage of his career, yeah, he could be a sixth man. But he could be a starter. If you asked him, his goals are certainly beyond being a sixth man.

It's an interesting debate. Let's take it up where Freeman and Stotts left off. As we do so, we need to ask one big question:

Does the traditional 6th Man even exist anymore?

The phrase "6th Man" evokes images of a high-minute, scoring-heavy wing. He's a cut apart from the rest of the bench, more or less another starter. That kind of player is becoming harder to find as the years roll by.

Below a table of players who could be considered the 6th Man for their team. Hard and fast definitions are impossible. I opted for simple criteria: the highest minutes per game played on the team in a season of 50+ games, starting no more than 30 games out of 82 (prorated for actual number of games played). In other words, I eliminated guys who didn't play a reasonably full year and guys who started 40% or more of their games. Among the players remaining, I looked for the player with the highest minutes per game on each team.

The results:

*Actual MPG Bench Leader for Bulls: D.J. Augustin, PG, 31 mpg, 15 ppg

**5th in 6th Man of the Year Voting from Thunder: Reggie Jackson, PG, 29 mpg, 13 ppg

Notice on this table that only 13 of 30 "6th Men" played 25 mpg or more and only 2 topped 30 mpg. 4 out of 30 scored 15 points or more. 6th Man of the Year Jamal Crawford of the Clippers and Dion Waiters of the Cavaliers were the only players to clear the 30-minute/15-point hurdle. By contrast Taj Gibson--runner up to Crawford for last season's 6th Man Award--is a power forward, averaged 13 ppg, and didn't even lead his own bench in minutes per game.

What happened to all our 6th Men?

It's possible that, outside of a few exemplary oddities, they never really existed as we envision them. Only 6 of the last 20 6th Man of the Year award winners averaged 18 points or more per game during their award season. On the other hand, most of those winners played 30+ minutes per game and the majority came from the shooting guard/small forward ranks. Even if scoring wasn't as key of a component as we remember, something has changed.

That change can be explained, in part, by a generational shift. The three players Freeman referenced--Crawford, Ginobili, and Terry--are ancient. They came up in an era where shooting guards dominated scoring far more than they do in today's point-guard-centered league. Nowadays hot scorers play the 1-spot and they start. (Terry was ahead of his time, as it turned out.) We may be seeing a new crop of shooting guards and small forwards rise from the last few draft classes but they have yet to prove themselves. Other than Waiters, they certainly aren't hanging around on this table. The position isn't the same anymore.

Changes in coaching style, specifically rotations, provides another obstacle to the emerging 6th Man. We're past the era of "Put your best 5 players on the court and let them run". We're way past the era of, "Throw it to one guy and let him work in isolation for 4 sets in a row". Coaches substitute for situation, system, and skill as much as raw talent.

Look down the list of minute-leading bench players and you're going to see a ton of guys in the 20-25 minute range. Look at their team rosters and you're going to see 3-4 guys with similar minutes and another bunch between 15-20. Relatively few teams have a clear 6th Man anymore by minute allocation. They have 6th-10th players who shuffle around each other depending on matchups and injuries.

Categorizing McCollum as a 6th Man assumes a framework that's becoming archaic except when applied to near-legendary bench contributors. If the designation means "first guy off the bench", McCollum could certainly qualify soon but that designation would make him no more special than a handful of players on his team, nor more special than 30 handfuls of players around the league. You can see where CJ would want the target aimed higher. If, on the other hand, we're suggesting that McCollum will have that unique Ginobili-Crawford-Terry (or dare we say Ricky Pierce/Eddie Johnson) effect, 38 games and fewer than 500 minutes might be a little soon to pull the trigger.

Even if the assessment of CJ's talent and skill holds true, we forget that great bench players usually spend their early and prime years starting. Jason Terry didn't become a 6th Man until his 9th season in the league. Injuries limited Crawford in his middle years but he didn't become an intentional bench player until his 10th year. Ginobili began playing off the bench in his 7th and 8th seasons before returning to the starting lineup (and an All-Star berth) in 2011, then heading back to the bench for good.

If CJ McCollum does have the kind of Classic 6th Man potential Freeman suggests, he'll show it by putting up undeniable scoring numbers and running straight at Wesley Matthews' starting shooting guard spot, which Coach Stotts would then have a hard time keeping him out of. That'd be the next step in his evolution. But it won't be subtle and it won't involve staying on the pines.

It'll be interesting to see if that happens (and what it would mean for the Blazers' lineup). Either way, odds are higher McCollum will end up brilliant and start or passable and play off the bench rather than becoming a brilliant bench player, at least at this stage of his career. He may be a 6th man but he won't end up that kind of 6th Man...yet.

--Dave blazersub@gmail.com / @DaveDeckard / @Blazersedge