Hey in all honesty, I'm not too thrilled with either Miller or Blake. Miller, doesn't seem to flow well with Roy and Blake flows well, but you can't count on every game. It seems Nate just doesn't want any running whatsoever, so who cares about a true PG? Nate will not allow them to run the team anyways. It's better to grab a solid SF, move Fernandez to SG or PG and move Roy to his natural SG position and control the ball the entire time he's on the floor. We may not like it, but as long as Nate is the coach, this will be the only thing that works.
I am not a huge fan of PER, but the fact that Blake is 48th out of 57 point guards is pretty damn glaring. I mean the difference between a PER of 13 and 15 isn't all that glaring. A PER of 9 is just fucking pitiful. Let's put it this way; Kevin Ollie is 47th. Another half baked stat used to show Blake shouldn't be playing much. In fairness though, Miller is a blistering 28th out of 57.
Blake is playing SG. It won't help his PER ranking, but he is being asked to play even more off of the ball than he did last year, when he was passable with a PER of 14.4.
When Blake has a season where he's killing three pointers, he's got an acceptable PER (14-15). When he doesn't, his PER is horrible. And by "killing," I mean he has to be hitting 40-44% of his threes. Problem is that most three point shooter have down seasons, for whatever reason. Steve Kerr, the most accurate three point shooter in NBA history, had two seasons where he hit them for .313 or worse. In 4 of his 14 seasons he was under 40%. Blake is shooting right now at .365. That's perfectly acceptable for a lot of guards--in fact it's probably better than the average starting NBA PG. But given how little else he brings to the game, you simply can't afford to continue playing him at that rate.
He's playing at least half of his time at PG. Miller is only playing 30 minutes a game, so even ASSUMING that Miller is always playing PG when Blake and Miller are on the floor together (which strikes me as incorrect, but I will grant it for the sake of argument) that means there are 18 minutes left for SOMEONE to play PG, and Bayless is playing 4 minutes a game (52 minutes into 13 contests). Even ASSUMING that Bayless is playing all PG (which strikes me as incorrect, but I will grant it for the sake of argument) that means there are 14 minutes of PG left, and Blake is responsible for those. Ed O.
Yeah, and I really don't think him playing any minutes out of position has really impacted his PER. As I pointed out, his PER is directly related to his three point shot. If he's making them, it's passable. If he isn't, it isn't. Whether he launches threes while playing PG or SG isn't the point. The point is his inability to excel at making threes this year.
So, did either Ed or you check out the Miller comparisions? He's basically playing as bad as Blake, in his own special way.
Miller is playing worse than his career norms, but still about 5 PER above Blake, which is enormous. 5 PER is the difference between an average player (15 PER) and an All-Star-caliber player (20 PER). In this case, it's the difference between a mediocre bench player (Blake's 9.5 PER or so) and an approximately average starter (Miller's 14.5 PER or so). Both players are playing worse than I expect them to in the near future, but Miller is still playing much better than Blake.
If the best thing you can say about Blake is that Miller is also shitty then it isn't really high praise. Both are not getting it done for sure. Point guard remains a big concern for the team as a whole.
I'm not talking about PER. I'm talking about the statistical comparisons that lead to comparisons to Courtney Lee. Also, if we want to focus on PER, Miller's PER so far this season is lower than Blake's from last season. The Blazers could have basically had the same production thus far from the PG spot w/out completing wrecking the offense.
I never game him high praise. I said that he and Miller both playing like crap, yet there seems to be some sort of insanity here causing people to only focus on "BLANKY".
How? By magically teleporting last year's version of Blake into our current starting lineup? Sure. Or are you saying Blake's PER has plummeted because it's Miller's fault? Miller isn't standing behind Blake and shaking his arms every time Blake takes a three. Blake is missing all those wide open three pointers on his own. If Miller weren't here, he'd likely be shooting just as badly. And as a result his PER would be just as bad.
So, exactly how has Miller upgraded the offense this season? The stats say he hasn't, but that doesn't seem to matter.
Maybe, maybe not. Blake is getting his shots later in the possession this year than last year, based on shot-clock stats from 82games. The same is true for Roy. This can lead to a big difference in shooting percentage. This is not a lab-test - so there is no certain way of testing it - but I do not think that Blake's shots are exactly as they were last year. The stats show it to be different. Is this the difference in his percentage? I do not know - but I am also not sure that he would have had the same slump if Miller was not here.
Heres my two cents... Blake DOES NOT have to go as this thread claims. There have been PG's of far less caliber that were part of a championship team. Take last years Derek Fisher...he had one of the worst playoffs in the history of the NBA, but of course non Lakers fans (and even some clueless Lakers fans) only remember those 2 3's he hit in game 5 of the finals. Steve Blake IS better than Fisher and Fisher is our starter! Yes Blake is down from last year and even his career averages but its way too early in the season to base him off of this years sample size. His minutes are also in flux so you know that cant help. PG is not your teams strong point. If your team is gonna win something big its gonna be with the C, PF, and SG positions. Thats 3 high quality positions you have...Teams have won championships with less.
It's real simple. Ask yourself this question: Do you see the Blazers winning a championship with Steve Blake as a member of the starting lineup. If the answer is no, then what the fuck are we doing? If the answer is yes, then yous see no problem, and the status quo is good for you. I know what the answer to that question is in my head. How about you folks?
What if I don't see the Blazers winning a championship with 33 year-old Andre Miller in the starting line-up, or with 28 year-old Steve Blake in the starting line-up?
