LMAO! Then we have Papa; using a thread about Blake to put down Miller. This is freaken hilarious man! You truly do hate Miller!
In 2x the playoff games for the Blazers, Miller has fewer cumulative WS than BLANKY. What an upgrade!
You mentioned BLANKY didn't show up for the Blazers in the playoffs. If he didn't show up, then has Miller, who has been worse statistically in advanced team stats? If the answer is yes, Miller has shown up, please let me know how that is the case. kthx
I'm not sure you understand what a small sample means, in this case. It means that the statistics you are quoting aren't reliable, because the sample is too small for the noise to filter out. So, essentially what you are saying is: "Playoffs are noisy. Amongst that unreliable noise, these stats don't show Miller to be any better." That's obviously silly. If the stats are unreliable, due to how small the sample is, then conclusions can't be drawn from them. Team-based stats (like +/- and win shares) are indirect measures of individual play. They generally take a much larger sample size to yield meaningful results. Individual-based stats (like PER) are direct measures of individual play. They generally yield more meaningful results over smaller sample size, because they are directly, rather than indirectly, measuring what we want to know. A single series is still small sample size for PER, but it's going to be much more reliable, descriptively (but not predictively, since volatility will be very high), than team stats in measuring one player.
This is what I find funny. A couple days ago, being confronted about a player; you made a comment that the last time you checked it wasn't a one man show; then you use the same thing you just put down as an argument here. Don't you think that's pretty ironic? I think it's hilarious. So when I say "Blake didn't show up for the playoffs",it has nothing to do with the "Team Record" in the playoffs. Understand? LOL
Again, a playoff series is a small sample, and team stats do matter. The disparity between the Ortg and Drtg for BLANKY and Miller does matter, as does the fact that BLANKY put up his 15 PER against Houston with literally 1/2 the Usage rate of Miller versus PHX (12.6 BLANKY, 25.2 Miller). So ... where was the upgrade? Throw in that Miller had a WS of 0.0 against PHX, and a WS of 0.4 against Dallas (with negative DWS in both series), and that does matter when assessing players. You gave me a lot of excuses for stats to explain why they don't support your opinion; I gave you hard stats the don't need excuses to support my opinion.
What does it mean, then? BLANKY had a better individual series against Houston than Miller had against PHX, yet he concerned you because he "didn't show up" for the playoffs? Embracing the playoff play of Andre Miller seems a bit hypocritical to me. If you're going to bash the guy with better team stats, when assessing a team game, shouldn't you also bash the guy with the lesser team-related stats?
Is SlyPokerDog an idiot?!?!?! Andre Miller Stats: 14.8 points, 5.5 assists, .493 FG, .400 three point shooting, 3.2 rebounds in 32 minutes. Steve Blake 9.8 points, .489 FG, 6 assists, .417 3 point, 4 rebounds in 38.5 minutes! LMAO!!!!! Your logic is seriously flawed. Sorry man, but how can anyone take you seriously, when you openly express that you will die before you ever support Miller. The proof is in all your threads.
Which means the team stats are completely unreliable, and therefore meaningless, in assessing an individual player. It's a shame you're struggling to wrap your mind around that, but the people who design these stats are pretty clear that it can take a season's worth, or multiple season's worth, of data for team-based measures to be at all accurate about an individual. Applying stats that take season(s) worth of data to be useful to a single series is obviously silly. It means that all you're seeing is noise, not signal. PER, a stat that is not team-based (to any significant degree), generates signal much quicker and shows Miller has been far, far better than Blake. It's still a small sample, so maybe not completely accurate, but the difference between the two is so massive that it's unlikely that they've actually been equal or that Blake has been better.
Dude anyone that thinks Blake is better than Miller needs to check his fucking head. 99.9% of the fans, analysts and coachs would laugh at the mention of Blake being a better player than Miller. It's ludicris!
I'm not saying he is better than Miller. I am saying that he has been better for the team than Miller, at least in terms of the playoffs. If you can't argue the stats, then attack the poster. That seems to be where you're at right now.
LMAO! This coming from the poster that does nothing but attack posters in this forum. Tell ya what sparky. How about you take some of your own advice. Or not, cause I like to have a laugh every now and then. I love it when someone whines about the one thing they do the most. It's like watching the Laker fans whine about the officiating. IRONY!
Correct. BLANKY and Miller had the exact same PER when comparing first playoff series with the Blazers as starting PG, yet BLANKY put up that PER on half the usage. So, at best, that's a wash for Miller in a head-to-head. When you throw in the huge disparity in team stats from the series while the starting PG was on the court, BLANKY wins the comparison. Ergo, BLANKY was Miller's equal, at the very worst, in 2008-09 playoffs versus the 2009-10 playoffs, and at best, the advanced stats prove that the team performed much, much better offensively (124 vs. 102 Ortg), and defensively (114 vs. 120 Drtg). If someone is going to bash BLANKY for his playoff performance in 2008-09, then logic dictates that Miller in 2009-10 deserves the same treatment, if not worse. Plus, while Miller had a shiny PER, it didn't translate into better team perfomance stats in the Dallas series. My conclusion? Upgrade the PG position, because neither BLANKY nor Miller have proven they can get it done.
Since we've established that team stats, which require season(s) worth of data to be accurate in assessing an individual, are useless in such small samples, we can safely throw them out based on logic. So we have Miller and Blake similar in PER in their "first" playoff series (with a big edge to Miller because he accomplished his PER with Phoenix focusing their defense on him, while Houston was barely paying attention to Blake) and then a LOL-worthy gap between Miller and Blake in their "second" playoff series (19 to...6). That "6" is not a misprint. It's actually 5.9, but let's be nice. Sounds like Miller has been crushingly better overall. Which backs up observation and what every basketball fan on Earth except you believes.
You've established it for yourself. I certainly don't subscribe to your hypothesis, and I've seen advanced playoff team stats used plenty of times over the years on this board and others to either support or denigrate whichever player is being discussed. Also, PHX didn't focus on Miller for Game One. After they did focus on him, his PER and play suffered greatly, as did the team's. After a GmScr of 29.8 in the first game, he only reached double-digits twice (an 11.9 and a 12.4), and he only shot better than 37% once (50% on 6-12 shooting) during the last five games, and he had a negative GmScr in Game 6 at home, which closed out the series. So, Miller wasn't an upgrade over BLANKY, and probably deserved just as much shame and derision as was heaped on BLANKY.
It's not my hypothesis. It's what the people who design these stats, trained statisticians by and large, say about them. If they were used for individual series, or a few series, it was a poor use of stats then, too. You've never seen me do that, because I know that they take massive samples to say anything of use. And that was the game in which he was absolutely fantastic. Not a shock at all. Miller isn't a franchise superstar who can excel against a team defense focused on him, and no one has claimed he is. However, he's good enough to force an opposing defense to focus on stopping him, which Blake is not. The playoffs proved that. Unfortunately, Roy was injured and unable to make Phoenix pay for it and no one else stepped up. I'm afraid all the facts you've quoted show Miller was a big upgrade on BLANKY. Miller, unlike Blake, was able to force opposing teams to focus their defense on him. Miller, unlike Blake, was able to be a major factor in two series, either by making the defense change how they play or by putting up excellent numbers. Blake has never been able to do either. What Miller wasn't able to do was be a franchise superstar. But since he wasn't signed to be that, paid like that or expected to be that, that's fine.
Blanky was signed by the Lakers to be a solid bench player, play good defense and hit the catch and shoot 3. This series he hasn't brought a damn thing to their bench, Barea absolutely raped him and he's clanked all of his wide open 3 attempts. I bet you they look to get his ass out of town this offseason ASAP.
