After tonight's "contributions" Steve Blake now has a PER of 8.9. He has the 2nd lowest PER of any player playing more than 30 MPG and is one of only four players in the entire league to play > 30.0 MPG with a PER < 10.0. The only player who plays more than 30 MPG with a lower PER is Charlie Bell. And now that Michael Redd is back, look for Bell's minutes to drop below 30 MPG. When that happens, Steve Blake will officially be the worst player in the entire league to be averaging > 30.0 MPG. Meanwhile, Andre Miller with a PER of 15.1 gets fewer minutes (27.4 MPG) and Jerryd Bayless with a PER of 17.9 continues to rot on the bench (10.6 MPG). And don't give me that crap about how Blake makes Roy better. That's total bullshit. Blake makes Roy more comfortable, not better. Roy is struggling right now, and a big reason is Blake. Blake cannot create offense for himself. He can't create it for anyone else, and since he can't shoot worth crap, teams can sag off him and double Roy and/or clog the paint. I've been a supporter of Blake in the past, but enough is enough. When a player's main role is to knock down open jump shots, and he's shooting 0.364 from the field and 0.343 from 3-point range, it's time to give the bulk of his minutes to a more productive player. BNM
Anyone here remember Derek Anderson's last season in Portland. DA had by far the worst of his four seasons in Portland. He had a PER of 11.7, shot 0.389 from the field and 0.384 from 3-point range. Compared to Blake's current stats, that makes DA look like a borderline all-star by comparison. Yet, he only got 26.4 MPG on a 27 win team. Based on his production this season, Blake has no business playing > 30 MPG on a team with aspirations of making the play-offs. Oh, and the following summer, even though he had two years left on his contract, DA was cut by the Blazers, in a one-time luxury tax amnesty exception that allowed teams to cut one player to reduce their luxury tax obligations. They still had to pay the remaining two years of his salary, and it still counted against the salary cap for those two years, but at least they didn't have to pay luxury tax on his salary. So, the Blazers basically paid a guy who was outproducing Blake by a significant margin NOT to play for them. Yet, Blake continues to play big minutes. Makes no sense at all. BNM
Good point about the more comfortable bit rather than better. I don't know if teams are scouting to sag off Blake now, but they'd be wise to with his big-time slump. You can't help but wonder what a Roy-Bayless backcourt could do for a stretch without Blake or even Andre in there. Bayless is good enough to handle quick PGs on D, so that wouldn't be a problem on that end.. and Roy can handle the ball on offense. Jerryd doesn't necessarily need to bring up the ball to create his own offense. I don't know.. I'm hoping Nate was enlightened as he got away from the team for awhile and I'm anxiously awaiting to see if there will be any changes next game.
I'm not a Blake supporter but don't compare him to DA. DA was a headcase who quit putting out any effort on the floor. He wanted out of Portland and got his wish. We can see Steve is working hard, just not knocking down shots. Blake definitely needs to be on the 2nd unit but I don't wish him out of Portland.
Plus, Derek Anderson still thought he was a star. The guy had a whole persona that he would put on. The Jordan Brand polish. The guy rarely showed his true self. Steve Blake isn't anything like that. He's a regular guy.
Steve is a role player, who played admirably last year in his starters role. He's not being asked to play, he's being told to play. I doubt Steve is asking to play more minutes, he probably does exactly what the coaches tell him to do. I would bet even he knows it's bologna. His best asset was his 3 point shooting, and this year it's so-so. I don't think his shooting makes up for the lack of FT's, or better flow on offense with Miller. I think we've given it enough time to see how Blake and Roy handle this year starting, we need to go with Miller and Roy. Blake, as he's playing now, is a good backup. Maybe going to the bench will light a spark under him, and he'll play better. The PG spot needs points, both created and scored by the PG. he's doing neither on a regular basis (esp considering he is averaging fewer points, fewer assists, and shooting much worse than Miller).
You know Steve Blake is fine if you play him as a backup and for backup minutes. The facts are we have another guard waiting in the wings who averages 0.5 points per minute, when we need offense. If Bayless was playing 36 minutes a game he would be averaging 18 points a game and all of this would be moot. It wouldn't even be a contest. By the way, he would also be averaging 4 assist, which is the same amount Blake does. So you get your cake and get to eat it too.
Maybe I'm dense, but I still can't make any sense out of that. Of all the "advanced" stats out there, this one seems the most counter-intuitive.
Jerryd Bayless PER=17.94 Only 11 point guards in the league have a better PER http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...istics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pg&seasonType=2
Sergio Rodriguez has a 19.67 PER and only 7 point guards have a better PER than him and he plays 4 more minutes a game than Bayless does. Play Sergio!!
Folks PERS is only really a good estimator of talent if the players have got about 3 years of good playing time in the book. I ask you this. Don't think about the stats, and think, who would you start, if you were doing it based upon what you watched in the game, by going off your gut. Would it be Blake, Miller, or Bayless?
First of all: it's "PER", not "PERS". Secondly: no. PER is not ineffective with relatively small sample sizes. It's based on individual production, rather than reliant on primarily matchup/external factors. A game's worth of PER? Not worth much of anything. A week or a month? You can definitely get an idea of how the player is going. Miller. He's been the best player for years now... and Blake has been the worst Blazer I've seen all year. Bayless is not quite ready to start I don't think. If the Blazers keep struggling, I think we should start Bayless to see if he can be the long-term solution there. Ed O.
Interesting question. My gut reaction: start Bayless, since the team seems to need another scoing option early. Then bring in Miller.
Bullshit Ed O. Statistics rely on a sample size to get accurate. The more you get, the more accurate they are. The 3 years wasn't plulled out of my ass. It was stated by Hollinger in an article a long time ago. PER can easily be thrown off by a single really good game in a small sample size. Oh and yea so I threw an S in there on the end. My bad. Happy your nitpick of the day went well?
