In January over 5 games he's averaging: 39 mpg 8.2 assists 18 ppg 5 rebs .471 fg The team over that span is 2-3, not a great winning percentage. But we played: GS - W @LAC - L MEM - L LAL - W CLE - L The first two of those games we basically played without Aldridge. Another two of those Aldridge really wasn't playing at full speed. You'd like to win that Memphis game, but they have won 8 of their last 11, and with Aldridge hobbled and Randolph in peak form, it was pretty understandable. And completely redeemed by beating the Lakers next game. Meanwhile, Brandon Roy over that same stretch is averaging 27 ppg, 5.8 assists, and shooting .588. Those are all the highest averages of any month this year. I'd say the question of whether Andre Miller can play with Brandon Roy has been answered.
Andre Miller does not play the way Nate wants. Keep that quote in mind when you see a PG averaging 18/8/5 and shooting close to 50% from the floor.
Since the start of the year, Andre Miller had 6 games with a game-score of 15 and higher (Game-score is the single-game formula Hollinger uses for the base of his PER calculation). 10 is an average game for a starter, 15 is a good game for a starter. During these 6 games we went .500 Since the start of the year, Bayless has gone 15 or higher 3 times, we won each time he did it. Blake went twice, we won them both. Surprisingly, when Miller goes for a game-score of 10-15, we win more than we lose. So, the conclusion, as have been my opinion since the start of the year, is that Miller is valuable for this team as an average starter. Any time you feature him more than that - and his effectiveness is at his 3 years and running win% of .500. The solution to this team, going forward, is to give as much time as possible to Bayless, to develop - because when he plays well, we win. It's as simple as that. One of Miller or Blake has to be traded, and Bayless needs all the minutes we can give him to help him become more consistent. Here is the bad news - Rudy had a game score of 15 or higher 3 times this year. We lost all of them. The situation was a lot better last year for him (Rudy) - so, who knows at this point. I guess with him playing injured - you have to wonder how valid these results are... It will be interesting to see it going forward.
Meanwhile, as the team implodes from injuries of historic proportions, Roy is counted on to do more and more scoring. If Oden and Outlaw and Rudy were all back and Blake was playing like last year and LMA was 100%, do you honestly believe Roy would be scoring as much simply because he plays alongside Miller?
Roy and Miller are both very smart players. It was obvious that they will find a way to co-exist sooner or later. The real issue is, however, that Miller is just a role-player. People get the hot for playing Blake (a role player) over Miller, or not featuring Miller, which is just puzzling, because in the grand scheme of things - Miller is just a role player on this team as well. Featuring him does not make this team better, and quite frankly, as we have seen from his long time statistical evidence - never really made his previous team (the sixers) a real elite team. He is just not that good, nor that important. One of Blake and Miller needs to be moved to open up playing time to Bayless. Who it is, does not matter, I suspect that the one that brings you the better return is the one that needs to be moved. But, at the end of the day, Miller is just one of the guys we have on this team to support Roy and hopefully LMA for the rest of the year.
Miller is a role player with a PER of 15.9 and Blake is a role player with a PER of 9.8. Nice strawman. I don't recall a single poster in this forum saying the Blazers should "feature" Andre Miller. I know I never made any such statement. My contention is, and was, that Miller should start and play more minutes than Steve Blake, because he's a more productive player. Quite frankly, this argument is ridiculous. You continue to ignore the FACT that the 76ers were a 0.240 immediately before Miller arrived and a 0.294 team immediately after he left - with NO other changes to their top 8 rotation players. So, the 0.500 record and back-to-back play-off appearances while Miller was there many not have made the 76ers an "elite" team, but it sure made them a hell of a lot better than they were before he arrived and after he left. BNM
Naturally, when the sampling size becomes relevant, I'll be waiting on the pre-fight vs, post-fight comparisons.
It is not. It is a slight on the people that are upset he does not start, he does not play more, he does not get featured more.
He wasn't able to get the 0.240 76ers to the finals. He only managed to get them to 0.500 and into the play-offs two years in a row. So, he's obviously not a very good player and his contributions not important. He really let down the fans in Philadelphia. I'm sure they were all counting on Andre Miller to take them to the promised land when, at 5-19, they traded their best player and league's second leading scorer for him. That he failed to win a ring in Philadelphia is a permanent stain on the career of Andre Miller. He should be ashamed. That team was stacked - way more talented than the Celtics and Lakers teams that won the titles those years. That 76ers roster had "elite" written all over it - if only Miller would have done his part they could have won back-to-back rings. What a bum. BNM
Who exactly are these "people"? You seem to be the only one that uses "Andre Miller" and "featured" in the same paragraph. BNM
And yet the team wins more with Blake or Bayless. Again, what is the goal of the exercise - to play the guys with the highest PER or to win more games? Really? You do not recall anyone saying that Nate needs to change his system to fit Miller, you do not recall anyone that called Roy a primadona because he wants to play the way he is comfortable? Did I ever accuse you? This seems like a straw-man argument to me... Define productive. Individually, or from a team perspective? I do not ignore it. I just do not think it is relevant to the situation, since Miller's arrival here did not bring the same change, nor did it do so elsewhere. His only winning years were in Denver (and they have been winning after he left), and here (and we have been winning before he came). Good for the 76ers. When you have a garbage team, another good player is clearly important. Of course, the Blazers were not a garbage team before Miller, and his arrival has not taken them higher, so far, given the data we have. It amazes me that you continue to call me out for noticing a long-term pattern with Miller's results, from a team perspective, while berating me for ignoring his long-term pattern of being a good player, individually. Andre Miller does not provide a skill that is that important to this team. He is a bad perimeter defender, he is an effective scorer with the ball in his hand (something we already have with Roy and one that seems like a more explosive version in the making in Bayless) and he does not play well spacing the floor with shooting. I have not ignored his higher PER, nor have I ever said he is not as good a player than Blake. What I have said, repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, is that the data does not prove he is a big upgrade (or any, at all), from a team fit perspective. What I have also said, which again, you seem to ignore - is that I think that the real key for long-term success to this team is Jerryd Bayless's progress at the "other" guard spot, and I think we need to trade one of Miller or Blake to further this development.
No. But it's not just the scoring. Roy's shooting percentage has actually risen over this stretch as his scoring increased. So have his assist numbers. Now that's something you don't expect to see on a team with fewer scoring options and a PG who (allegedly) has to have the ball to be effective. Don't get me wrong. I think Roy has been fantastic because he's a fantastic player, not because Miller somehow is turning him into something he isn't. But it's pretty hard to argue that Miller has somehow impeded him, or that a Blake/Roy starting back court would put up as good or better numbers as a Miller/Roy back court.
beating his man off the dribble to draw fouls on opposing Bigs isn't important? He is by far the best drive and dish/assist man on the club and gets Portland's many shooters wide open looks... I'd say thats a pretty important skill too. The ball movement is appreciably better when he's in. Dude has his shortcomings, but he's a solid player overall. STOMP
If you are drawing these conclusions based on the given sample size, I'd be more inclined to conclude a confirmation bias than any kind of academically rigorous statistical anaylysis.
Definitely not as important given that Jerryd can do it as well, if not better (Attacking the rim from the dribble and getting to the FT line). You might have a point about the ball movement, but again, if it does not translate to more wins, or more assists (we had a little more assists per game, as a team, last year) how important is it, really? Absolutely agree. Solid. Not a star. But there is a ton of chatter here how great he is, how he is the missing piece, how much better we are because he starts. Data does not support this. He is a role player on this team, a very nice one, but far from irreplaceable, and far from being worthy of the angst displayed when he is pulled out of a game or does not start etc...
No, it is just another data point in addition to the other data points I already presented, that adds to my belief, that overall, he is not the difference maker I am told he is.
