To borrow from Mark Twain, there're three levels of liars: liars, damned liars and messageboard statisticians.
I'm not convinced that win% means much of anything. PER seems to be consistent with what I see on the floor, while win% (perhaps because of the large sample size required) seems to be disconnected with what I see. What I see doesn't define reality, but when a statistic just seems like noise to me (i.e., it has no relation to what I see) then I tend to discount it. Blake has been terrible this year. I don't think that any meaningful stats state anything else. Ed O.
All fun and games aside, Nate plays Blake in the starting spot because he thinks he gives the team the best chance at winning with him in that role and Miller off the bench. Obviously, most here think he's wrong in that assessment. Personally, I'd love to see him start Miller for a stretch just to shut down some of the constant bitching around here. It would be very interesting to see what would happen.
I've never claimed a single player is losing a game on a single possession. I AM claiming that Blake has done very little that benefits the Blazers this year. He puts almost no pressure on the opposition at either end of the floor and he has not shot the ball well. Blake gets called out more because he WORSE than other players; he deserves to get called out. There is simply no excuse for a guy who has a PER in single digits to play as much as he does unless he's fantastic defensively... and he's definitely not fantastic defensively. Ed O.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me on the apparent contradiction between win% and PER is that Blake does things that let Roy and Aldridge be more effective than do either Bayless or Miller. Knowing where and when to deliver the ball to those guys so that they're in their comfort zone and knowing when to get out of their way so that they can do what they do best on offense may not show up in stats, but it has a way of making a difference in offensive production. Maybe Miller could learn those things, but he hasn't shown himself to be a very adept student from what I've seen so far.
Who said it was? It's a piece of the BLANKY is "TERRIBLE" puzzle. He seems to be a very complex player, at least in terms of why the team plays better with him than without him.
Which is all well and good if he was at least holding up his end offensively or we didn't have another non-factor in Martell and Joel on the offensive end of the court. A starting unit with only two viable offensive weapons is leading to all sorts of double and triple teams for those guys which blunts their effectiveness. It's no accident that Brandon and LaMarcus are both much less productive than they were last year, teams overplay them and dare the other guys to beat them -- which they never seem to do. This is turning into Hornets syndrome -- two guys and a bunch of underperformers -- Peja was/is horrible and they weren't getting anything out of anybody but CP3 and West to an extent and they started losing frequently, despite the fact that Paul was putting some of the best offensive numbers of his career. Scott gets fired, and all of sudden Bower puts in guys like Thornton and Collison and they become legitimate offensive weapons and now teams can't double down on Paul and West so much, which leads to more wins. If this is the kind of offense you'd like to watch, where LMA and Brandon get mobbed by defenders and have to play at heroic levels just to get by then more power to you, but personally I'd rather see them single covered some of the time because they can't afford to leave other guys alone. Maybe Miller isn't the answer nor Bayless either, but I'd sure like to see it given a legitimate try before writing it off completely.
That's what I assume McMillan believes. I don't think he's throwing games. I just disagree with him about Blake giving Portland the better chance to win.
Nobody is pleased with the wreckage that currently makes up the Blazers' lineup and of course it isn't the offense I'd like to see. I don't have a problem with starting either Bayless or Miller, I just don't expect it to be the panacea that some here seem to think it's going to be. I don't think that there is a good alternative available absent some trade magic from KP. Maybe flicking in the season and giving the reins to Bayless is the smartest move for the future...I just expect it to result in more losses this year.
Could be, but in terms of sample size, Blake was equal with LMA last year as well, when everybody was crying for an "upgrade". Sometimes, intangibles matter. That's what appears to be the case to me. We're talking about a 100+ game sample at this stage.
And if Blake was still hitting 42% of his threes and 43% of his shots overall I don't think you'd hear many complaints about him playing this much.
You may be, but I'll guarantee that the Vulcans, Paul Allen, and the advertisers who pay for TV/radio spots aren't willing to do so.
So 6% on 3s and 5% on FGs warrant all of this? I keep hearing "small sample size" for win% stats over 2 seasons, yet after a 1/4 of a season, people are killing the guy. That argument works both ways, I guess.
I think there is a pretty significant difference between a .427 3pt shooter and a .356 3pt shooter. .357 Damon Stoudamire career 3pt pct. Career 3pt shooters in the .427 range, BJ Armstrong, Tim Legler, Wesley Person That to me indicates a pretty significant difference.
We should never have traded Wes Person. 7% difference is a big one, to be sure. It's one extra hit every 14 shots. On a volume shooter like Damon, that's like an extra hit every game. For Martell, that's an extra hit every other game. For Blake, that's one extra every 3 games.
According to his per game stats it's half a made 3 ever game, or 1.5 points. More than anything teams will feel more comfortable sagging and helping on Roy.
Since 43% from the floor on overall field goal percentage is right in that "average for a guard" range and below 40% is generally considered below average, or at least pretty inefficient (especially with a low free throw rate) then yeah, I'd consider the 5% drop pretty significant. Likewise, going from 42% on threes to 34% is a huge deal because of the way defenses will play somebody, particularly when that player is on the floor primarily to space the floor. The real killer is the way he's played in the past five games or so, 32% from the floor and 33% from distance and this with increased minutes and 4 free throw attempts. Maybe this is just a slump, but all I've seen is a player trending downward.
