for how often people say Nate wouldn't like Nash...

I call bullshit on Brandon not wanting to run. He has good sense on when to pull it up and slow it down, but if you think Brandon doesn't like to run, then you need to think about a few years ago when the team literally didn't get even 1/3 of the fast breaks it does now, which is still bad. This is probably why the PG position causes me more lamentation than any other. Because one good PG, would make all the other guys, that much better on both ends of the court.

 

Blake does not resemble a PG. He is an undersized SG. PG's penetrate, and draw people to them for easy baskets. Blake is a spot up shooter, and a good one. I view Sergio and, Bayless especially, as pinch hitters. It is SO much easier to play well when you know you are going to play. I think all three of their stats would be different if rolls were reversed.

 

Mediocre Man and I agree? What's the world coming to?

For all the people who say Brandon's not a PG (majority) it's amazing to me that they don't notice he's been playing one the last two years. And he's not, he doesn't have the court vision or ballhandling in the open court to be one. That's why bringing in a PG who could spread the floor (as blake does now) would help so much. I'd even take one who can't spread the floor much but is still a smart PG (Miller) it would make Brandon and our bigs' lives so much easier.

 

The numbers just do not agree with you. Blake's AST% of 25% is very acceptable for a PG. Is he a great one? No. Can we upgrade over him? Sure. But given that he has a 25% AST% when playing next to a ball-dominating SG like Roy - he most certainly plays like a PG (that's the same kind of AST% you got from Mike Bibby playing next to Johnson, is Bibby not a PG not as well?). He played PG in College, he played PG in Washington, he played PG in Denver and he plays PG in Portland.

Again - I get it that you do not like Blake, I get it that you think that Sergio and JB were just as good as him this year - but the large sample sizes just disagree with you.

Picking and choosing what makes a PG based on small sample sizes and chosen opponents just does not make sense. Over a large sample size - it is clear that Sergio is a PG, it is clear that he is a gifted passer and it is also clear that he is a sub-par shooter, scorer and very bad at protecting the ball. A one dimensional PG is not a good NBA caliber PG.

Over a large sample size - it is clear that Blake is a PG but not an outstanding one, it is clear that he protects the ball very well in slow-pace and about as bad as Jarret Jack did when he played here in fast pace, he is a good shooter but he is not a good scorer nor is he good at attacking the rim. His assist% is acceptable for a PG, he protects the ball well, he can shoot the ball well and he does not make too many mistakes. Great NBA PG? No. NBA caliber PG - no doubt.

There is not a large enough sample size to really evaluate JB - and I am pretty sure that I went on record thinking we wasted the backup time on Sergio last year and JB should have got more burn - so I agree with you that JB could have been more effective last year if given consistent time - so there is a question mark there.

But, the only consistent PG we had last year that actually had acceptable statistics for an NBA PG over the entire year was Blake.

 

Instead of you finding certain stats to back you up, and me countering with different stats to back me up, why don't we just agree to disagree.

 

Everybody that has an issue with Blake is that he's not a risk taking PG. He knows his limits and he plays within himself. That's what makes him so efficient and his numbers look very respectable. But his limitations is what hinders the offense and it mainly comes down to his inability to take his man off the dribble. If he had the handles and the quickness, he could do many things for the offense such as:

1-Penetrate and collapse the defense to create for others
2-Finish at the rim
3-Draw fouls

Since Blake doesn't do any of that, we have to rely on Brandon EVERY time down the floor to create something. Most of Blake's assists come off of a pick n pop or swinging the ball around the arc. He does occasionally make a great pass, but he rarely takes chances. That is one of the main reasons why Nate loves him because he limits the turnovers, but it comes at the expense of putting pressure on the defense.

 

I absolutely agree with each and every word of this. This does not change what I said. Blake is a PG. He is just not a great one.

 

Gotcha.

I would love Blake as a backup, but just not as a starter.

It's funny that we were all clamoring for more shooters years ago when our team was filled with a bunch of athletes, now we want more slashers. Hopefully KP finds the right balance for us....soon.

 

We already disagree and know it buddy... What I am trying to point to you is that mathematically, your sample size is way too small and the opposition way too limited to make the interpretations you make with confidence... - while the data I gave you does not have these limitations.

For the record - I have no problems what so ever with anyone taking a knock at my basketball interpretations or knowledge - we disagree on something - no problems. But statistics and understanding their implications I actually do know very well... I have been in the industry for more than 20 years now...

Your basketball intuition might be right based on what you see - and time will tell us if you are right or wrong - but I have very little confidence, mathematically, in the interpretation of the limited opponent 13 games sample you present...

 

Exactly.

54 wins playing that style of offense. Who the fuck are we to argue that Roy is wrong about his choices?

Name 10 guards/wings in the NBA that strike more terror in opposing defenses and coaches in the half-court set?

Shit, name 5. You can't do it.

Roy had the 4th best offensive rating in the entire NBA. (and Rudy was 11th and Blake was 13th)

When you have a bazooka in your arsenal, why the heck are you unholstering your sidearm?

Let's not fix what isn't broken.

Let's not redo our offense to a different style that has virtually NO CHANCE of being more effective than just about the best offense in the NBA. If a successful transformation was made, we would be different, but how could we be better than the top?

What is broken and what do we need?

A legit 3rd scoring option to lighten the load a bit on Roy and help spacing. Could be growth of young player already on roster. But, if we want to be more proactive in making sure, we need to try bringing in a stud in trade.

Perimeter defense. We need to slow and funnel dribble penetration so our team defense can function properly. That means getting a different point guard, assuming we don't want to put all our eggs in the "Bayless will turn into the PG of our dreams real soon" basket.

Backup big. We could use some toughness, energy and short-stint effectiveness coming off the bench - ideally in a package that can make a couple of offensive plays while they are out there. The Frye/Outlaw soft playing gunner at 4 experiment is OVER.

 

So is Brandon a PG then based on his assists being more per game than Blake's?

 

Wrong question.

The correct question is - can Brandon play an acceptable PG in the NBA on offense based on his stats? The stats tell us he can. What it does not tell us is if this is the optimal position for him. It is pretty clear that he is not a good defender against quick point-guards and it is pretty clear that he is very effective at the SG and even SF positions.

Just like the stats tells us that Blake can play an acceptable PG in NBA. It also tells us that Blake is not a great one.

 

And with Blake on the team we kicked ass on the road in the western conference...Oh wait, we only won once against playoff teams when he was a starter.

With Blake as a starter for 69 games, Portland was unable to defeat decent western conference teams on the road. Is that a large enough sample size?

 

If we had Lebron instead of Roy we would have won all those games too. I'd prefer an All-Star PG as much as the next guy, but to blame Portland's road record on Blake is not a good argument. We won 54 games, and of the 69 games in the season, Blake was a starter. No one's arguing he's great but he definitely doesn't quite deserve the amount of suck-titude we give him credit for.

 

No sir, Juan Dixon did that

He DID NOT PLAY in Washington much at all.

You also forgot another place he DID NOT PLAY (Milwaukee)

No sir, Allen Iverson did that

No sir, Brandon Roy does that

 

Really. Dixon who played 4 years in College and accumulated 371 assists was the PG and Steve Blake that accumulated 972 was not?

Well, AI is a combo guard - and he is a much better scoring option than Blake - so when they were both on the court - Blake played PG. You can see it when you look at their A/36 - Blake had 7.1, AI had 6.1 - AI of course played a lot more than Blake - so the assumption is that when Blake was not on - AI ran the offense - but when they were both on at the same time - Blake was the one playing PG, especially when you remember that after Denver failed to extend Blake (trying to run AI as their full-time PG) - they realized they had to trade him and traded him for a... PG... (because AI is not a PG that can run the offense full time).

Again, Roy plays a combo-guard for Portland. He most certainly facilitate the offense a lot - but as we have seen - Blake's AST% this year was pretty much identical to Roy's.

The numbers, again, just do not support the claims you guys make. Blake played our PG. The team referred to him as such, the coaches did and the numbers support these claims.

All the arguments you want to make that we need an upgrade at PG are acceptable. When you resort to questionable statements and repeat the claims he is not a PG ignoring the cold, hard facts... it becomes annoying... but honestly, who am I to stop you - you want to keep clicking your heels and hope that pigs will fly - go for it...

 

So if I understand your position correctly, you think Blake does not resemble a PG, rather he is an undersized SG . . . but Bayless does resemble a PG?

 

Bayless can penetrate extremely well.

 

So I guess Roy is a PG

 

Not a pure point guard. But he can handle the position to some extent, on offense.