Blake's 71.4 win percentage leads team.

I think it's primarily because he is so mediocre that he leads the team. I don't think it has as much to do with making a positive impact, as it is NOT making a negative impact. If he comes in, adn doesn't run a fast break, doesn't take chances with penetration, etc. usually, we aren't going to turn the ball over, will run slow and deliberate, and have a better chance in that small sample of "winning" those possesions. He's basically low risk, low reward. I'll get the ball up the court, give it to others, and basically just not screw things up.

 

Actually, you just gave a good argument for playing him the full 48.

 

Well that's the thing, if you get great play out of your other 4 guys, then by all means, play him the fuill 48. Blake isn't as bad as he is made out to be. Also not as good as he is made out to be by some. But he's not AS bad. The problem is, he isn't playing with 4 great guys. Blake would be perfect for the Lakers. Woudl fit well in the triangle, good shooter to spread the floor, and with Bynum, Gasol, Artest and Kobe, he wouldn't be needed for anything mroe than hitting open jumpers, and playing decent defense. The problem on our team is, we need somethign else out of that position. We get very little out of the C position, and very little out of the SF position. If we had a consistent scoring threat at SF, and a healthy Oden who was integrated well, Blake woudl be fine. As it is, we struggle for baskets, and when that happens, someone like Miller or Bayless is much better on the floor, as a 3rd scorer.

 

For whatever reason, looking through game logs from last season, with guys actually healthy, Blake seems to perform well when others are performing well. That might seem like a dumb statement, but basically, when his role is to do nothing but sit and hit open jumpers, he is good at it. So he would generally have his games of 15+ points when Outlaw was also hitting. Or Rudy, or both. Or Greg or Joel got over 10. There were few games where he was the only scorer outside of Roy and Aldridge. I know that isn't his role, and I do not expect him to be something he's not. Just saying, it's almost like, he's there when you don't need him, or don't need him as much. No, that's not right. I don't mean to say you don't need him in those games. But, if our offense gets stagnant, having someone that can do something about it is beneficial, and he's not that player. And he can not play that role for us.

 

This is where my head is at. Blake on a team full of scorers and threats is probably perfecct, in that he's unselfish, and when nobody's pressing him he's actually pretty good at hitting the outlet 3. This year, I've noticed that teams have been paying a lot more attention to him when he catches on the perimeter and with that added defensive pressure he's forced to do things that don't play to his strengths (having to step inside the arc and shoot off the dribble for instance).

One of the reasons I think the 3 guard lineup was successful is because Roy and Miller are both threats to score off the dribble and even though we gave up inches defensively with Roy covering 3s and Miller gaurding 2s, the mismatches worked the other way in that having 3 defacto point guards on the floor made it tough for guys to recover out to the three point line to cover Blake on kickouts from Miller or Roy.

The real travesty here is that Martell has been so bad, that they are probably better off with Blake, Miller, and Roy in the backcourt, instead of playing Martell as the starting 3.

 

I don't even see the point of debating this ridiculous Blake sucks topic anymore. There are some who will defend him to the death, there's no convincing them, and I'm done trying.

[video=youtube;iCaLjttPxVk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCaLjttPxVk[/video]

 

Damn, I only come for the ridiculous debate. When it shifts to intelligent discussion, I'm out!

 

We are a MUCH better team with Outlaw than we are without so I don't know why you would call him one of the crappiest players on our team.

 

We have had this discussion earlier - and we noticed that if you look at Blake's win% over the last 4 or so years (including when playing in Denver next to 'Melo and AI) - you will notice that he is usually among the win% leaders on teams with good players.

This tells me that something he does helps good players play well when he is on the court next to them.

This, to me, shows that he is a better player to have on a team with good players, as a glue guy, than people give him the credit for.

 

It's real simple folks. This is just another way of stating the +/- stat. This stat is more related to the players and unit you are playing with than how you play yourself.

 

No, it is not exactly like +/- - it is a much less volatile version of it. If the team wins by 2 points for 10 games with you on the court and loses one game by 30 when they run into one of those games, your win% reflects your value a lot better than +/- which will show a big minus.

And, since basketball games are played by 5 men units - it only makes sense to look at what combinations work well and what do not - and win% can give you a pretty decent idea about what players work well in many combinations and what do not...

 

Not really. Because if other players don't get playing time, they really cannot have an accurate rating on the stat. Statistics only really tell a story when there is a huge sample size. PERS only starts to tell a story on a player when it has been measured for about 3 years of their career and they get the playing time to produce accurate stats for it. To clarify this point, many member of the team have not played much or enough with the good units, to compare against him. You can't have a positive stat on this if you never get off the bench.

 

Which looks good when you use multiple games that all fall into that, but as was mentioned earlier, if you are subbed in and out of a game and end up with 5 separate stints on the floor, there is the possibility you can have a horrendous stint, where you have 5 TOs, couple of missed shots, poor defense, and you could have a -25 for that one bad stint. Then, then next 4 stints you play, your team can be +1 each time. For the game, your +/- is -21, but your win% is 80%. That doesn't reflect what actually happened on the court. Sure, you "won" those 4 stints. What if one of those stints was for 15 seconds at the end of a quarter, and you stand in the corner while your star isos on top, and gets a layup? Well, you "won" that stint. So 100% win. But what did you contribute? Likewise, a defender covering you in that same stint covers you out on the perimiter, adn another man gets beat for a layup. He gets a loss, but didn't negatively effect the team.

 

The Synergy Sports analysis of Blake is the one I would put the most credance in. It clearly shows Blake is far and away the best defender at his position on the team (and nearly the best one overall).

Considering that it isn't a real stretch to say he should probably play big minutes. It hurts to type that but it's the truth.

Bayless is shown to be a very valuable scorer who should get at least twice as many minutes as he is.

Offense (which appears to be way easier to judge) is not Blake's strong suit. It really wasn't even in his best season. This year it is way worse.

But since all of the other guys who play in the backcourt are at best average defensively then Blake needs to play. Especially with Brandon since Roy has regressed defensively this season.

I don't like it. It hurts to watch. But right now Blake is the best option at Point Guard.

Though in all honesty I think that says a whole lot more about Bayless and Miller then it does about Blake.

 

Again, this is all very nice and true, but for large samples - these things will "smooth" out and a pretty reliable picture will come out. That's the gist of statistics everywhere and every-time.

The fact is that we have a pretty large sample size for Blake's win% - and he seems to be a good performer in Portland and in Denver. This is not taking a single game and making an argument. Once the data is there (and it is, for Blake) - I think there is something there that might not be easy to detect for the untrained eye.

 

and once again, the players he is compared to on the team don't have an adequate sample size to compare against him. How would Bayless fair if he got those minutes? Well we don't know because he never gets in the game.

 

How does synergy show Blake as the best option at PG? It shows his PPP on defense at .73, and Bayless' at .87.

However, on offense, Bayless is at 1.06 PPP, and Blake is .85. A +/- PPP of .19 for Bayless, and .12 for Blake.

I'm curious, does anyone know how synergy does their rankings and ratings? The excellent ratings in pick and roll, or isolation or whatever. How does it quantify PnR defense? If Blake switches off of his man, and the PG scores, does that go against Joel, or Greg? Or, if Miller switches off of his man, and the C scores, or PF, does that go on Miller? Anyone know?

 

Blake plays with the starting lineup most of the time. Pairing him with BRoy and LMA...Of course his win percentage would be high..There is no arguing Miller is a much better point guard than Blake. I would even go to say that Miller right now is better than Blake was in his prime (whenever that was).

 

You can argue in favor of Blake all you want. There are folks who love "Blakey" and are in his camp. There are folks like me who hate "BLANKY". Argue all you want, you won't convince me. Steve Blake has been in the league long enough to show who he is and what kind of a player he is. IMO he is a backup. You may disagree. Throw up all the stats you want, you won't convince me of anything.