You said "they". Nate McMillan does not represent Paul Allen, Kevin Pritchard, or Tom Penn. You think the front office signed Miller to be the backup? He was brought in because Blake was abused in the playoffs against Houston. Period. You guys keep pointing to this 54 win mark.... seriously.... get over it. That team is gone. Miller didn't get to play with that team, either because of injuries or because of trades. It's not his fault that he has never played with a healthy Blazers team.
The team brought Miller in because he was supposed to be a veteran and a professional, like Juwan Howard. Guys who can come in and play a role on a team that won 54 games. Miller did not do that. His 'pride' was more important than what the team wanted out of him.
Actually, on that 54-win team, Blake contributed (earned?) 5.8 win-shares, at a rate of 0.128 WS/48. Last year, Miller had 7.0 win-shares, 0.134 WS/48. So comparing Blake in 08-09 to Miller in 09-10, Miller did, in fact, contribute more to his team winning games than Blake did. Going further, that 08-09 WS/48 figure for Blake was BY FAR the best of his career; the highest he's ever been otherwise was the 0.082 he had in 51 games with us last year. Yet, even in a career year, he is just slightly better than Miller's career average of 0.125 WS/48.
As opposed to what; Roy's comfort is more important to him than starting a superior player over is buddy? Go Blazers
Thanks! I'm also happy to have the statistical evidence on my side, and McMillan's change of mind on my side. But it is, still, an opinion for sure. And I am totally entitled to hold it.
Stats don't really factor into the discussion. All along it was about who was more responsible for the lack of team chemistry, Roy or Miller. I don't see how stats factor into that. Appreciate the discussion, though. That's what RipCityTwo is all about!
Based on what? Your misinformed opinion? You keep posting crap like this hoping it will go unchallenged and accepted as fact - just like your insanely incorrect and repeatedly disproved "Miller is a ball hog" claim. Post some fucking stats to back up such claims, or shut the fuck up. ALL of Blake's advanced stats at 82games.com are NEGATIVE. His production vs. his opponents is 8.2 - 19.8 = -11.6 NET - that's fucking HORRIBLE. His on court/off court is -2.2 and his simple rating is - 8.5, also HORRIBLE. Notice a trend? Hint: all NEGATIVE. If you look a little deeper, you'll see opposing PGs light him up for a PER of 18.9. Compared to his own PER of 7.9, that gives Blake a net PER, compared to the guys he's "guarding" of -11.0. Again, NEGATIVE and extremely HORRIBLE. You've already argued (unsuccessfully) that Phil Jackson's offense makes Blake's stats look worse than they really are. What now, Phil's defensive schemes prevent Steve Blake from guarding his man? Now, go back and compare Blake's numbers to Andre Miller's: Miller's NET production = +5.0, on court/off court = +10.1. simple rating = +6.7, NET PER = +4.5. So, if Blake is the better defender, please explain why opposing PGs post much higher numbers against him than they do against Andre Miller. And, before you try to play the "but Blake's team wins more games than Miller's" you may want to consider this. Blake is playing on a team loaded with talent that are the two-time defending champs. Given that ALL of his NET contributions are negative, they are winning games in spite of Blake, not because of him. Andre Miller is playing on a team decimated by injuries. Given that ALL of his NET contributions are positive, he is actually HELPING his team win games. BNM
Hatred? Nah. I think it's a pretty reasonable position to take. It can't be disputed Andre wasn't happy with his role on a team that won 54 games without him.
Miller should have changed his game to make his 2nd-team All-NBA SG an even better player. Instead, he pouted, whined, and ultimately failed, as per usual, in the playoffs. He's an odd one, that Miller. Playing the exact same way over his entire NBA career, finally getting a chance to play with a legitimate All-NBA star, and then pinning the blame on Roy. The OP is right. The more I think about it, the more I may just waive the guy or not pick up his option if no good trades are available. He's a proven loser who can't defend.
54>50 I'd also check out the difference in Roy's PER from Blake to Miller if I was assessing a PG, but that's just me. The rest of it is meaningless to me.
I think it's relevant in that Miller had a solid reason to be upset (stats back that up) and playing Blake over Miller made the team worse than it could be (Nate McMillan changing his mind backs that up).
I get what you're saying but imo Miller didn't buy-in from day 1, before the stats were accumulated. The tone was set at that point and the lack of chemistry followed. The team had amazing chemistry just the season before and in the blink of an eye it was gone. IMO, in hindsight, Miller was more responsible, not Roy. That's all I'm saying and that's all this has been about for me.
Yet, Roy had a significantly worse season with the switch at PG. To me, that's a big part of how to assess a "distributing" PG, isn't it? Comparing raw data on BLANKY and Miller seems rather silly, since as I've been told repeatedly, they are both just a part of a team. The fact is that the best player saw his play diminish with the so-called upgrade at PG. This must be considered when assessing both players, and how they impacted the Blazers.
