Blake's 71.4 win percentage leads team.

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910POR1.HTM

Not exactly sure what this stat means(can someone explain? not sure why his record only adds up to 21 games) but it favors Blake.

I believe Blake is like Battier in that he is an no-stats All Star in this league. What I mean is that while his numbers aren't impressive, his team plays much better when he's in the game compared to when he is not.

Perhaps our coaching staff knows our team and the intricacies of the game more than most of the fans in this forum.

 

Remember when Z-Bo was leading the team wit points and rebounds, and we played like shit, yea kind of the same thing.

 

Huh?? What Blake is doing is the OPPOSITE of that. He ISN'T leading us in points or rebounds or even assists but we are WINNING when he is on the floor.

 

Blake is a glue on this team. Players (esp Roy) play better when he is on the floor and that is all that matters. Look beyond Blake's personal stats.

 

Win percentage is the number of segments of play that the player was on the court in which the team outscored their opponent. It's basically like +/-, except removing the magnitude...just keeping the sign (positive or negative) and adding up those.

So if a player had on-court +/- segments of -3, 4, 5, 10, -10000, 4...his win % would be 4/6 or 66%. The idea is to encapsulate how often the team "wins" the periods of time the player is on the floor.

 

Thanks. It certainly explains why our coaching staff likes to have Blake on the floor as much as possible.

 

Blake is normally on the floor with a top 10 player in the league as well. I think that helps his numbers.

 

It goes both ways. Roy plays his best ball when Blake is on the floor.

 

Roy is more comfortable with Blake on the floor. That is different than playing better.

 

Lol @ this thread

 

Yup. Player A has a win percentage of 0%, players B and C have a win percentage of 100%.

Win percentage has the same drawbacks as +/-, IMO, which is that it is useless in small sample sizes. I think it's actually even weaker than +/- because it drops the magnitude. A player who "loses" three segments by 1 point each and then has a segment where he's +20 ends up at 25% win percentage, for example.

 

Blake still sucks...

 

Loada minutes??
This is why:

http://www.youtube.com/v/5xssF20-8BE&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b &hl=en_US

 

Lol I love how you constantly defend (w/skewed reasoning and stats) the crappiest players on our team....

Last year and this year ('till injury) it was Outlaw

This year, Blake....

What gives man? Outlaw (while being alright) isn't what you make him out to be (your messiah, or maybe just fantasy) and Blake (this year),he sucks, hes useless out on the court. The only reason why he gets any positive ratings is because he's playing with the starters.

 

I guess my point is that if you played Miller there, or Bayless for thast matter, over time their win % would go up as well. I feel Blake benefits from the team more than the team benefits from Blake

 

Based on the Synergy analyses, it's certainly possible Blake is this lockdown point guard defender (actually he's probably more good than great) where Miller and Bayless have been merely average, but the trouble with all of this Blake love over some of his advanced statistics is that it's very difficult to weed out the noise in the data. Just like +/- isn't particularly relevant in small sample sizes, so too is win % not a particularly useful tool for making declarations about a player's impact on the court for only 22 games, and this is a deviation from his norm which makes it tougher to imagine that he's all of sudden having a breakout year at age 30.

Overall, I think Blake has always been a pretty good team defender and a pretty average defender in man to man situations, and nothing I've seen on the court has moved me much from that position. The real trouble I see with Steve is that he's one of those guys that no matter how many minutes he seems to play over 25, his offensive production seems to flat-line (ie. his scoring and other contributions on offense do not scale linearly with increased PT) and he's been so mediocre at that end of the court that it seems hard to justify playing him for so many minutes ... especially for a team that seems starved for scoring.

If this team was whole and intact and had its full compliment of scorers I think it would be much easier to justify his "glue guy" role, but this 40 minutes a night stuff (in the past two games) is kind of head scratching.