The Bleacher Report piece was predictably very
...crappily written, using very weak arguments, will little supported data that it seems like they don't really grasp how to use effectively anyways.
A little context:
Aside from the personnel issues, Tatum is also unlikely to shoot a scorching 52 percent on corner threes again. If that seems unreasonable, consider that Klay Thompson has shot better than 47 percent from the corners only once in his career. He's never matched Tatum's 52 percent.
If you believe Tatum is going to be a better shooter than Thompson, you've crossed the rubicon between optimism and pure fantasy.
Tatum shooting better on corner threes does not make him a better shooter than Thompson. Nobody should be arguing that. A person who is writing things for public consumption should absolutely not be arguing that. In fact, more than just Tatum shot better than Thompson on corner 3's. But you have to correct for things like attempts, games played, etc.
Darren Collison shot 48% from 3 last year. Thompson shot 44%. Was Collison 'a better shooter than Klay' last year? No. He took 4 less attempts per game for one. He would need to more than double his attempts to match Klay's number.
That is one of two reasons Tatum is 'overhyped'. If the argument is that his shooting is not sustainable, make the argument, show other rookies who suffered 2nd year regression they never recovered from. Do something, author guy. The other 'reason' is because of team personnel. Which again, Bleacher Report guy DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXPLAIN. That Bleacher Report snippet was clickbait garbage!