Well maybe you should take a look at them yourself and actually make a note before making statements like that. Lets go into turnovers. Last 5 games without Blake: VS Wizards: 10 Cleveland: 7 Bucks: 14 Bobcats: 9 Nets: 8 Average: 9.2 Lets compare it to a few numbers out there to let folks make up their own minds: Turnovers per game season to date: 12.77 And althoug I don't like this comparison because it is against some tougher teams, the previous 5 games with Blake. Philly:16 Chicago: 15 Golden State: 12 Deteroit 9 LA: 10 Average: 12.2 (amazingly close to the average above for the season). I'll take a look at some other stats when I have some time. Discuss.
I've come around on Bayless. I think that he is our starter of the future, if he keeps working his game. He isn't there yet, and if you said Blake's starting for the rest of the year, I won't scream too much, though I think it's delaying the inevitable for not much more return. I think many are too quick to give up on this guy. He's showing what he can do with minutes, and how he brings a lot more to the table than he takes away. The part I like is that I see the effort to make it work in Nate's system, without tossing the ball away. As I said before, he's 39:7 A/TO since starting.
No reason at all to play Blake tonight. Sergio has actually been playing very well recently, and Bayless can provide enough off the bench. The Clippers are basically no better than a D league team tonight. if Portland can't beat them without Blake they are pathetic
I don't hate Blake. He's a solid role player. But for someone who put up so many assists in college, he never strikes me as a particularly intuitive PG. He certainly doesn't even have Sergio's court vision (although both of them appear to have a Greg Oden-shaped blind spot in that vision) but he's certainly better than Bayless in that regard. He's a decent-ish defender, a very nice spot up three-point shooter... and that's about it. Perhaps the worst thing about him is that he facilitates the kind of play that I don't like: plod up the floor and hand it to Brandon Roy. If we had a Chris Paul-type then Brandon would have to be more of a regular SG and I think it would be better (as we saw in the all-star game). Plus we might actually RUN more. I'm not saying I'd want to go into the playoffs without Blake (and without a trade for a better PG), but I really wouldn't mind if he sat out another month so Sergio could get his confidence up, so we can get a real picture of what he can do. (Bayless really cannot play PG. I'm not saying I don't love his crazy drives into the paint when we're not getting anything else, but I want a PG that makes the rest of the team better, not better spectators.)
Talking of the Clippers: is Baron really injured, or is he "I really can't get up to play for this team" injured? I know we've had this debate a bazillion times, but anyone want to rehash the Baron-to-Portland idea? What makes it different this time: 1. The Clippers might be anxious to unload contracts for nothing but cap relief, because Sterling's made his fortune in real estate and he's got to be hurting. Thus the Clippers might find Raef's insurance-covered contract incredibly tempting. 2. In the past I have not wanted Baron because he's been a bit ball-hoggy, and we need a distributor. But I think time in Clipper Purgatory might have chastened him and taught him the value of ubuntu (call it the Paul Pierce Syndrome). 3. Baron has cajones. Remember the upset of Dallas that essentially destroyed that franchise? Remember the dunk on Kirilenko? Baron does not play nice. We need us some of that. 4. Ball hog or not, Baron knows HOW to pass. You can be non-ball-hoggy and still not know that. He's got skillz. 5. He's [video=youtube;vzbXIGJoISs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzbXIGJoISs[/video]. Maybe he could help bring out the funny Greg that's hiding in there.
I'd at least think about it. I don't think many others in here would. I'd probably end up at the conclusion of "a little too old, creaky and me-first for the long-term risk". Basically, it comes to: Is Baron Davis the person we spend the only FA$ we have in the next decade or so on? For me? No.
Look at Baron in non-contract years compared to contract years ... I like his game a little bit, but I hate the way he pulls disappearing acts after getting paid, or disappears to force a trade. Fuck Baron ever becoming a Blazer.
Evidence? Besides, isn't Kobe Bryant a quitter? Remember when he got told he was shooting too much so he refused to shoot at all in a blowout loss? Remember when Scottie Pippen sat out because Kukoc got the call? (Not that I'd ever want Bryant on my team, for other reasons, but I understand the Lakers fans are reasonably pleased with him.) What FA are we going to get that's better?
I'd take Mike Bibby or Ramon Sessions over Baron Davis everyday, all day and twice on Sunday over Baron Davis. But in the mean time I'd rather just go ahead and let Bayless show what he can do.
1. Really? I guess I don't mind Bibby, although he certainly wasn't looking great in Sacto and his defense and athleticism would certainly make us miss Blake, but if Sessions can't get minutes behind Luke Ridnour I have to wonder about his value. 2. How do you know we'd get them? 3. Bayless is not now, and never will be, a PG. Essentially keeping Bayless means Roy is the PG, and I don't think that's really the best way to use him.
Evidence? Every year Baron Davis has been that is losing and has fleeting at best playoff hopes he has come up with an prolonged injury to keep him from playing. Evidence? Byron Scott jumped at the chance to draft Chris Paul and get rid of Baron Davis. The reason? He was a quitter. He wanted to take breaks in the middle of the season.(Much like the break he took last year in Golden State, which cost them the chance to make the playoffs.)
As for Sessions playing behind Ridnour, I don't follow the Bucks, so I don't know why Skiles isn't playing him more, but I do know that he was averaging 16/6 in November and then suddenly had his PT cut. His PER is still 17, so he's still producing in half the minutes he had before. I don't, but what makes you think Davis is available for trade? The same criticism could have been leveled at Terry Porter and that seemed to have worked out OK But I have to ask, do you make all of your judgments about rookies after 270ish minutes of playing time? I concede Bayless will never be a pure passing point guard in the mold of Nash or Kidd, but does Blake really play the role of a pure passing point guard paired up with Brandon and how has that worked out? Regardless of his role on the offensive end, he's already shown a clear ability to guard 1s, and if he can at least develop into a decent setup man I'll take his aggressiveness on defense, ability to finish in the lane and run the break any day as this team's "point" guard.
Agreed. If Blake still feels pain when shooting from long distances, why bother playing him. Don't rush him back and have him get hurt again like Martell did. I guess he could suit up for emergency purposes.
How do you figure we beat Cleveland with Blake? We would go the line fewer times and take more bad outside shots. Perhaps if he was hitting more 3's he would make up for his complete lack at the charity stripe, but that is pretty iffy proposition.
Only by someone blind. No, much sooner than that. Wise concession. No to your first question, and badly in my opinion, as I made clear in the earlier post in this thread. This does seem to be the received opinion, but it's not mine. He's a good defender like Sasha Vujacic is a good defender - i.e. scrambles around a lot without much effect.
Ok so I went and did some 3 point analysis from the the team. It is hard to compare the teams with Steve Blake on the floor to without Steve Blake on the floor, primarily, because unfortunately, Rudy has been stinking it up from the 3 point line recently(like really stinking it up. Like Peeee-U stinking it up). But here is what I found: During the games Blake has played so far (approximately 39 at my count, since I believe he missed 5 games so far in this stretch) he has averaged taking 4.84 3 pointers per game, and made, 2.1 3 pointers per game. During the 5 games he has been out: Rodriguez has averaged 2.5 3 point attempts per game and made 0.8 per game. Bayless has averaged 0.4 3-point attempts per game and averaged 0.2 made per game. The facts are, in most games Bayless does not even attempt a 3 pointer. So have we lost production at the 3 point line? Yes we have. It is fairly clear that Blake is a superior producer from the 3 point line, but I think we all knew that, it was one of the strengths of his game. The question I have, does that make it necessarily better? Bayless knows he can get to the cup pretty much at will, and Sergio prefers to drive and dish, which leads to points in the paint. IMO points in the paint determine your chances of winning much more than points from (or lack there of) from the perimeter. Mileage from others opinions may differ!
The one thing I can't forget about was a stat posted in another thread about Blake's free throw attempts. IIRC Blake had 47 on the year, while averaging some 34 minutes a game. That is very, very bad. So bad, in fact, it should overshadow every other thing that can be said about him. It means that Blake puts almost no pressure on the opponents defense and is an extremely passive point guard. Why would this be desirable? Agressive play gets rewarded, passive play does not. An excellent example came in the Cleveland game. At one point in the game, Bayless was able to draw 3 fouls against Mo Williams within a few minutes, bringing his total to 5 with 4 minutes left in the game. Bayless got pulled from the game and Mo never got his 6th foul. I firmly believe that if the team had made an effort to get Mo out of the game, they would have won. But with Sergio not being aggressive, they got beat. I don't think this would have gone any differently if Blake had been in instead of Sergio. Blakes free throw stats prove this to be true.
