Steve Blake: PER = 8.9

The judges will accept that answer.

 

Ah, that explains why Roy can't play with Miller. Miller gets too many assists.

 

The role of the PG is different in the triangle offense. During the Bulls first three-peat, John Paxson averaged between 3.1 and 4.1 APG. During their second three-peat they didn't have a PG that averaged more than 2.9 APG. They won 72 games with their starting PG averaging 2.6 APG. Unfortunately, the Blazers don't run the triangle, and they NEED to get better production out of their starting PG spot.

Fisher has never averaged more than 4.4 APG in his entire 14 year NBA career. Over the last several years, he's averaged around 3 - 4 APG.

But, 3.1 APG is on the low end for him. His PER is also down (but at least it's double digits). And unlike Blake, as Fisher's production has gone down so have his minutes. He's averaging 26.5 MPG, his lowest in seven seasons.

Blake, on the other hand continues to average > 30 MPG in spite of an abysmal PER and his lowest APG in five years.

And, it's not like we don't have alternatives. PG is the ONE spot on our roster that hasn't been devastated by injuries. We've lost our starting SF, starting C, back-up PF and back-up SG. But we still have a perfectly healthy PG who has been a starter his whole career, and is outproducing Blake in fewer minutes - plus a young combo guard who has been extremely productive in his limited minutes. We have choices. Too bad our coaching staff keeps making the wrong one.

And I don't buy that a player can't average more APG playing next to Roy. In Roy's first three seasons, Jarret Jack averaged 5.3 APG and Steve Blake averaged 5.1 and 5.0 APG. So, even a mediocre, below average starting PG is capable of averaging 5.0 APG playing next to Roy. I'd be curious to see what a good (or even average) one could do.

Roy isn't Kobe. He isn't Michael. He isn't even D-Wade. We're not going to win many more games this season if he continues to be paired with a PG who gets >30 MPG with a single digit PER. Roy's good, but he's not that good.

BNM

 

Triangle offense is way different. Phil Jackson has never had a distributing point on any of his teams. High-low (atleast while he's been with the Lakers) and sharpshooting wings have always been key to his offense when his best player (usually best in the NBA at the time) SG isn't running the show. Watch the Lakers high-low game, its about as good as it gets.

 

But Denny, don't you know that by every advanced stat that counts Blake is worthless?

 

I wouldn't say that. I just think that you can't compare the samples at this point in time, for these types of stats, because of playing time, and playing time with the starters vs 2nd unit.

Of course Blake appears better on the stat sheet, b/c others around him, hold him up.

At any rate, I know what I see, and I see our team losing and our PG position being completely unproductive, other than a few assists here and there.

 

Why don't we try an experiment? When Blake is in the game, let's track how many "Quality" possessions the team gets vs bad ones. Then, let's compare it to what the other team is doing. This is somewhat subjective of course (is Brandon Roy shooting a fade away with a guy in his face and 2 seconds on the shoot clock "Quality"?) This is just an experiment. There's not much Blake can do if Martell puts his head down and plows over 2 defenders for an offensive foul . . . but then again if the offense was flowing better guys wouldn't feel like they have to force things so much.


Quality = Good look at the basket, or a foul

Not Quality = Turnover, Rushed/Forced shot against the clock

 

It wasn't for a full season, not even half a season, and it was when Doug Collins was coaching the Bulls - before Phil Jackson brought the triangle offense to Chicago.

Those aren't PER numbers at 82games.com. They are PER/48 - which inflates everyone's stats since nobody plays 48 MPG. Blake's PER at PG is still comfortably in the single digits and far, far below average for a starter averaging > 30 MPG. Using the 82games.com numbers, Blake has a net PER/48 of -2.5.

And Andre Miller, the guy who plays fewer minutes than Blake, and the guy I'm arguing should be starting at PG has a PER/48 of 14.7 while allowing his opponents a PER/48 of 13.6 - a net PER/48 of +1.2 at PG (and a net PER/48 at SG of +4.9).

So, Blake gets out produced by his opponent and Miller out produces his opponent. Yet, Blake continues to get more minutes than Miller.

You conveniently left out Miller's stats - the player I say should be starting in place of Blake. We already saw above that Miller's individual production (net POSITIVE) is better than Blake's (net NEGATIVE). So, how about the popular assertion among Blake apologists that Miller "hurts the team" in spite of his positive individual contributions.

Let's compare the on court team scoring and points allowed per 100 possessions for Miller and Blake:

Offense: Pts per 100 Poss.
Miller: 112.0
Blake: 111.6

Miller wins, but the margin is small (+0.4 PTS/100 possessions in Miller's favor).

Defense: Pts per 100 Poss.
Miller: 102.7
Blake: 103.7

Again, Miller wins. This time by +1 points allowed per 100 possessions.

The team scores more and gives up less when Miller plays. So much for the assertion that Miller ruins the team's chemistry and offensive flow. The team is better both offensively and defensively with Miller on the court. Yet, Blake continues to start and get more minutes. The stats at 82games.com, both individual and team production show what is obvious to anyone who has watched the team play this year - Miller is a better player than Blake and should be starting and getting more minutes.

And concerning on court vs. off court production Miller wins that one, too.

Net Points Per 100 Possessions:

Miller: +9.2
Blake: +7.0

Perhaps even more telling are both players Clutch Time Stats:

Miller:
Net Pts = +1
OFF = 115.3
DEF = 112.8
Net48 = +2.8

Blake:
Net Pts = -7
OFF = 99.5
DEF = 115.3
Net48 = -15.8

Blake flat out kills this team in close games with the game on the line. In the clutch, he turns the ball over more than Miller and hasn't drawn a single shooting foul (DrawF = 0.0%). Blake's PTS/48 in the clutch is 6.8. Miller's DrawF = 33.3% and his PTS/48 in the clutch is 22.5. In terms of clutch production, both individual and team, it's not even close, Miller wins by a mile.

And STILL, Blake gets more minutes than Miller.

Oh, and those stats at 82games.com were last updated on 12/9 when Blake had a stellar PER of 10.0 - before his recent total suckage that has caused his PER to drop to 8.9. So, his current numbers will be even worse than those quoted above.

BNM

 

He conveniently left out Andre Miller in his comparison. See my post directly above, using the same stats he used, clearly showing that Miller out produces Blake individually and the team performs better both offensively and defensively with Miller in the game.

It's Blake's play that shows him to be worthless. The stats (both advanced and simple) just confirm what is obvious.

BNM

 

I'd like to see an experiment.

How about a lineup of Miller, Roy, Cunningham, Aldridge, and Pryzbilla. I'd like to see an offense where everyone is not standing around and watching Roy play. I bet they could learn to play together within 15 games.

Bayless, Blake, Webster, Howard, and Aldridge/Pryzbilla on the second unit. I think that 2nd unit could provide better scoring/defense and allow the starters some rest.

Once we start getting players healthy, we can work them back into the lineup. I'd really like to see what Cunningham, Pendergraph(should be playing this month) and Bayless can do with consistent playing time in the meantime.

 

Yikes, that's pretty damning. BUT: in crunch time:
1. the ball WILL be in Roy's hands (particularly now Outlaw is out)
2. the defenses WILL collapse on him
3. therefore, you need to have players who can hit the open three.

That would have been a great reason to play Blake last year, when he was actually hitting them. Should the team give up on him, assuming that he's not going to break out of this slump? What does Miller do when Roy has the ball and is going to drive/shoot/dish? Will other teams sag off him? Would that strategy hurt them? You've got to think in terms of what their scouting will tell them to do, and I bet teams will be told to sag off Miller, clogging the lane for Roy, but stay on Blake, making Roy's shot easier.

What is in little doubt: Blake is sucking on offense. His shot has deserted him. Does that mean he really is as bad as his current stats? Or that he's in a slump and has earned the right to work through it? I dunno, but that's what the coaching staff has to decide. In the meantime, he's certainly working hard and fairly effectively on defense. And Bayless, despite what our eyes appear to be telling us, hasn't earned minutes over Blake.

(I agree that Miller has earned minutes. So I like the three guard lineup, and will continue to do so unless somebody shows me that Martell is better for the team than Blake.)

 

There is no defense for Steve Blake's play this season...none at all...Anyone watching him play can see that. I think some of you are being contrarian just b\c it gets you off or something.

And throwing out win% as a defense for Steve Blake, when I can see with my own eyes his piss poor play, tells me what an absolutely worthless statistic it is as a stand alone defense of his play....

I use statistics in my own job enough to know that they can be manipulated in a myriad of ways to put whatever it is you are trying to sell\say in a good light...

I know enough about basketball & the value of statistic analysis to put things in perspective...and the fact is Steve Blake has been very sub par this season and that is being kind IMO given his nose dive of late. Statistics may help you see some value where you didn't see it, but what you witness with your own eyes SHOULD always hold far greater weight....

Steve Blake is a one trick pony, who can't even do that of late....He is a spot up OPEN shooter...Close out on him and force him to put the ball on the floor and he becomes GROSSLY ineffective...It is not all his fault, it doesn't help that Roy can't see that teams are defending him differently this year. If you can double on Roy when he has the ball with 8-10 seconds left standing at the top of the key (which seems to occur far too often), or better yet double late as he begins to make his move...then you can force him to either A) take a difficult shot or B) have to pass\bail out to a teamate with 2-3 seconds left on the shot clock.

That is not a good offense people...it is a PATHETIC one....What worked last year, isn't working this year. Very few teams are going to let Brandon Roy beat them, by letting him go 1v1. I sure wouldn't.....I'd be smiling every time I saw Steve Blake or Andre Miller or even Martell Webster have to take or better yet CREATE a shot with 2-3 seconds left on the shot clock....

Until this team solves that dilemna they will continue to struggle...at least with Miller in the lineup they can START to revamp\revise the offense...Run Roy of picks, let him post up on occassion etc....Basically, get him moving without the ball in his hands....I don't think that Roy's dip in FG% is a coincidence here....They are all interconnected.

 

Oh BNM, you were going so well and then you spoiled it with your second para. Manifestly the stats do not show him to be worthless. At best you've shown that Miller is better. But remember, with the three guard lineup, we had both Miller and Blake (and probably a lot of Miller's stats refer to those 8 games - so Miller might actually do better with Blake), so you haven't shown that Blake shouldn't be playing, let alone that he's "worthless".

 

Or, if not that, how about someone who can score (22.5 PTS/48 in the clutch), draw fouls, get to the line and score with the clock stopped? Someone like that would surely take some of the pressure off Roy and keep him from trying to do EVERYTHING himself.

BNM

 

Look at their clutch time stats again:

Net48:
Miller = +2.8
Blake = -15.8

Blake KILLS this team when the game is on the line. That may not make him worthless in YOUR eyes, but it confirms what I see watching the games: I don't want Steve Blake (this year's version) starting and I sure as hell don't want him in when the game is on the line.

And, no, the three guard line-up that forces our best player to play out of position is NOT the answer.

We never got the chance to see Miller, Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Oden. Can we at least TRY Miller, Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Przybilla? God knows the current starting line-up isn't getting the job done. Why not at least TRY starting your best players at their best positions?

BNM

 

No, Miller's play has shown him to be better. I just confirmed it.

BNM

 

Hmm...the opinions of a poster, or the actual statistics according to 82games.com?

BLANKY - 18 'close'/16 'dunk' - 86 assists total. 39.6% of BLANKY'S assists to 'inside'.

Miller - 14 'close'/18 'dunk' - 101 assists total. 32% of Miller's assists to 'inside'.

Bayless - 1 'close'/1 'dunk' - 15 assists total. 13% of Bayless' assists to 'inside'.

Roy - 29 'close'/18 'dunk' - 109 assists total. 43% of Roy's assists to 'inside'.

Outside of Bayless, these stats are pretty much the opposite of what I've gathered from conventional wisdom, and they do surprise me a bit. Blake gives more "easy assists" than Miller, yet Miller has more assists.

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

To quote another poster, the bolded above is "bullshit". Your eyes seem to be deceiving you, at least according to the actual statistics.

 

Public Employee Retirement System? Sometimes, to find a good fund manager, it takes longer than three years.

 

You know what would make figuring out lineups easier?

If the NBA were exactly like a fantasy team. Then would could just add up all the stats and say team A is better then team B because they have a set of better players.

But it simply doesn't work that way. Building a quality team is a whole lot more like magical alchemy then it is science.

For whatever reason Blake seems to help the team when he is on the floor. The reasons are ones that stats don't capture.

The question really is "Does the help Blake gives the team enough to make up for his complete lack of offensive production?"

The coaching staff say yes.
I disagree, at least with this current incarnation of the Blazers. Roy and LMA are the only two consistent offensive threats on the starting unit right now. That simply isn't enough.

Further, Roy is the only guy on the starting unit capable of getting to the line. Since Portland refuses to get easy points via fast breaks they have to get them via the line. One guy who is capable of that isn't enough.

I don't think Portland has the guy they need at point guard right now. Bayless makes an excellent 3rd guard in a three guard rotation, but would not be a great starter next to Roy due to his poor grasp of team defense. Miller is good for a fast paced team but nearly all of his talents are wasted by the Blazers. He also isn't a great team defender.

But really compared to the rest of the league all three guys have sucked complete ass.
At the end of the day, the team has failed for the last 4 years to acquire a good point guard suited to playing with Roy. That's not anyone but KP's fault.
For the coaching staff, Blake is the lesser of three evils because he is relatively mistake free and is the better defender of the three.
I would say Miller would be the least horrible option since he has a track record and can get to the line when the offense breaks down (which happens pretty often when you don't plan on taking a shot until there are only 8 seconds left on the shot clock).