I concede for now. One thing is clear and I think it's the reason why I'm having a hard time seeing your POV. I'm watching the game with Miller plugged into last year's system. Miller can't succeed in last year's system, and that's what I'm expecting him to do. That's not really fair. He deserves a fair shake. Draw up a new system that includes the talents of both Brandon and Andre, stick with it for a large sample of games, let them execute and then evaluate. Great discussion.
You are basing your entire argument on the misuse of a single stat - win%. It's a TEAM stat, not an individual stat. It's greatly influenced by who you play with and who you play against. Who's a better player and helps the team win more, Steve Blake or Brandon Roy? If you only look at win%, Steve Blake should be an all-star and Brandon Roy should be benched. Blake's win% is 63.6% and Roy's is only 55.9%. Heck, Martell has a higher win% (58.8) than Roy. In fact, Roy has a lower win% than all of the following: Blake Aldridge Outlaw Oden Webster Bayless Cunningham Is Roy really our 8th best player? Is he the 8th most important in how many games the team wins? Of course not, because win% is not an individual player stat. Why is Miller's win% lower than Blake's? Simple, look at some of the guys Miller has played the bulk of his minutes with - as a reserve earlier in the season: Joel - 44.8 Rudy - 40.0 and as a starter now: Howard - 37.0 Pendergraph - 20.0 It's actually Miller's win% is as high as it is, given that he almost never played with Oden (team "leading" 66.7 win%) , and rarely finishes games when Roy, Aldridge, Oden (prior to injury) and Outlaw (prior to injury) are on the court. BNM
Better yet, draw up an offense that utilizes the talents of Roy and Oden together rather than one that pits them against each other and has Oden "getting in Roy's way". That's what this team needs for long term success, and it shouldn't really be that hard to do. Can you picture Greg Popovich NOT being able to use Duncan/Parker together, Jerry Sloan NOT being able to use Malone/Stockton together, Phil Jackson NOT being able to use Shaq/Kobe together, Pat Riley/Stan Van Gundy NOT being able to use Shaq and D-Wade together? It's ridiculous to think that adding Greg Oden to the Blazers starting line-up would make Brandon Roy WORSE, but that what Nate's "system" did. Roy should feast off having a big, strong physical center to run two-man plays with, but under Nate's guidance, Oden merely gets in Roy's way. If Nate isn't up to the task, and based on his misuse of Oden and Roy's poor start and grumbling, it doesn't appear he isn't, then he's not the answer for this team and should be let go before he keeps the team from reaching its potential. BNM
I am sorry, but water is not hydrogen, but there is no water without hydrogen in the H. Teams are made from individuals and you need to look at the number of statistics and see how the individual influences the team and the other way around. Statistics take a lot of individual occurrences that look "random" in isolation - and given a large sample size - the math shows you that you can come to some conclusion with a "degree of confidence" (another way to say "margin of error"). The data we have on Miller is from a large sample size, 2 and a half years now - he is a 50% win% guy. At this point - there is more to the data than just a random collection of facts. You have to start asking more questions. Given that we have 11 years of data on Andre Miller - and his teams never won 50 games, never got out of the first round and never dominated - there is a very good chance that Andre Miller's influence on team wins is over-rated, given his shining individual stats. Looking at the large sample size, including last year and the year before - the data shows that Roy is a bit higher. But, if you look at Blake - you will see that his high win% is no fluke, he had high win% in Denver as well. Something Blake does on the court translates to wins, despite his rather mediocre individual stats. He was a key cog on a team that won a college championship - the history tells you that something he does out there, works well in the context of team sports. Now do the same exercise and apply it to a large sample size. You will see that you are cherry picking data from a small sample size. Aren't you the guy that is upset about people using +/- single game stats? Yet, here you are doing the same... We have a long, thick book on Andre Miller. 11 years worth. And it is not a good read. He is rarely a high win% guy. You guys give Andre Miller the same Zach Randolph treatment he got when he was here. He puts great numbers, thus he must be great. Well, the data tells us that he is not, and have not been for most of his career.
But, you've got to admit, Oden's development, on the offensive side, has been slow and nowhere near as polished as the players mentioned above. Personally, I think he will get there. Something happened between OSU and the Pros that left his offensive confidence back in Ohio, but we saw signs at the end of last season, especially against Houston I thought, and more so this season, that they're not such a distant memory. He's still got it. Maybe it's the hindering control applied by McMillan. Maybe it's the injuries. Maybe it's just being away from basketball for so long. Maybe it's Roy's presence. I agree with you that the offense should be built around the two of them. I also could see that Oden may not be ready for that large of a role yet, or at least the coaching staff would be weary of thrusting him into that role, for worry that it would adversely affect him or possibly Lamarcus? Anyway, just wondering if you hadn't considered that some patience with Greg and bringing him fully into the fold offensively shouldn't be applied. I'm sure you're of the opinion though that he's a professional and shouldn't be held back in that way. The quicker you solidify him into that role, the quicker the team progresses. I can see logic to both approaches.
Rick Adelman is definitely the poster child for "great coach adapting his system based on facts on the ground." I have a really hard time imagining Nate pull off what he's done in Houston.
Miller's win% was just as high on those Denver teams as Blake's were. Something Blake does works. Apparently something Miller does works as well. On those Denver teams, he was always above 55%. You're rtying to talk about Andre Miller's 11 year history, but then choosing to look at 3 years of it. 2 on mediocre teams in Philadelphia. And then taking a 3 year sample of Blake. So you are upset about himusing small sample sizes, but you're only using the data that fits your argument. What was Blake's win% in Milwaukee? 27% 2 years ago here, Blake was only at 50%. In 05-06 here, he was at 25.8%! And he was awful in Washington as well. So don't talk about "years of data" and then ignore it because of a 2 good years(half this year, half with Denver, and last year), and more than that of bad years for Blake. And good years for Miller you choose to ignore, and act like the only years that matter for him are the last 2.5. If you're going to talk about a long thick book, don't just read the chapters with the cool action scenes. Blake is "down" to 63% this season. But was up in the 80s earllier in the year. It seemed to drop once he went to the bench. I don't know if there exists a split on starter/bench win%. It'd be interesting to see why blake fell off so hard though, playing with the guys Miller was playing with.
Precisely. In my mind there is at least the appearance that Nate refuses to even consider changing his rigid approach to tailor an offense to get the most out of his best players (plural). Nate appears to be extremely good at what he does, within the constraints of his tunnel vision and inflexible system. If Nate can't effectively incorporate our best starting five into a cohesive unit (I'm talking Miller, Roy, LaMarcus, Oden), based on the skill sets they provide, he doesn't deserve to keep his job. Get someone with a fluid and creative basketball mind in here.
The system won't let me rep you again. I don't even know why I bother posting with you around. I at least should read the whole thread first.
Given that most of the teams Andre Miller joined were lottery teams before he got there, a 50% career win% is actually pretty damn good. Blaming Miller for his teams never winning 50 games is misguided - especially after you just got done lecturing me on how basketball is a team sport. You surround a superstar (like Kobe Bryant) with crappy teammates and his team is in the lottery - and Andre Miller isn't a superstar, just a solid, above average starting PG - which is what he's been his entire 11-year NBA career. You want to talk wins and losses, go back and look at the teams Andre Miller has played on. Look at their records before and after he joined. In most cases, the team won more games, in some cases a LOT more games, after adding Miller. Cleveland improved by 10 wins Andre Miller's rookie year. Denver went from 17 wins to 43 (but admittedly they also added a pretty good rookie in Carmelo Anthony). They won 49 games the next year, but regressed to 44 wins the year after that when they swapped Miller for Iverson. Just look at what happened in Philadelhia after Miller arrived. Prior to acquiring Andre Miller, the 76ers were the worst team in the league with a 6-19 recored and had recently come off a 12-game losing streak. After adding Miller they went 29-28 the rest of the way and were actually in contention for a play-off spot. That was an amazing tunraround for a team that traded away their best player, and league's second leading scorer, for Andre Miller in what was considered nothing more than a salary dump at the time of the trade. Yet, the team went from playing 0.240 ball to playing 0.510 ball after adding Andre Miller. Please explain to me again how Andre Miller's individual production does nothing to help his team win. That "something" Blake does is benefit from playing big minutes with his team's best players. How can you not see something that blatantly obvious. Hell, I'd probably have a pretty high win% if I got to play next to Melo, Iverson (when still in his prime), Roy, Aldridge, Oden, etc. Give me a break. Steve Blake isn't the reason his teams win, he's a classic coattail rider who benefits from being on the court with great players. It's as simple as that. Put Blake out there with average players, and his flaws will be even more obvious and he won't do some mysterious, undefined magic that wil help his team unexplainably win more games. What was Blake's win% his first season in Portland? What was in in Milwaukee? You want to condemn Miller for being a career 50% win% player, but he's had to play most of his career with inferior teammates, while Blake has benefitted by playing next to superstars. You also need to understand more about how win% is calculated. Obviously, if you play on a team loaded with crappy teammates, you're going to have a poor win%. What was Kobe's win% in 2004-05 when the Lakers won 34 games and ended up in the lottery. It couldn't have been very high on a team with a 0.415 win%. Likewise, when you play in a great team, and get to play big minutes with the team's best players, you're going to have an artificially high win%. That doesn't mean you're a great player, it means you are benefitting from playing with superior teammates. A rising tide floats all boats. Wrong, my beef with +/- is that people use it as a single player, single game stat to show player A sucks and player B is a star in the waiting who just needs more PT. That is an improper use that that stat. Because he's rarely played on teams blessed with abundant talent. As stated above, given that the majority of the teams he's played on were lottery teams before he joined, a career 50% win% is pretty damn impressive. Add Blake to those same lottery teams and I don't think it's hard to imagine he'd have a career win% well below 50%. BNM
Like a LAC team with Brand, Magette, Odom, or a Denver team with 'Melo, Camby, Nene, Martin or a Philly team with Iggy, Brand, T-Young? All it shows you is that he is not the difference maker you make him to be. He is a good player that does not elevate teams to real greatness. It's that simple. Dude is not the great top-10 PG people try to envision him as. He is Zach Randolph as a PG. Great stats, no real impact. I think I have pretty much said all I have to say about Andre Miller. You want to think it's never Andre's fault? His entire career is one poor Andre situation after another? Go for it. I think there is a reason his services were not requested by many teams, I think there is a reason he was option 4 or lower for Portland and I think there is a reason his career achievements are nothing to write home about. He is not as good as you think he is.
Quick was just on Wheel's show and said it was a giant manlove fest between Andre and the media today...also said Nate apologized for letting it get so out of hand yesterday.
The Clippers were a lottery team before Andre Miller, they were a lottery team with Miller, they were a lottery team after Miller. Blaming him for failing with the Clippers is totally misguided. That team has much bigger problems - and they start at the top. The Nuggets were a lottery team before Miller, won 43 and them 49 games with him, and then 44 games the season they traded him for Iverson. In case you missed it (you seem bound and determined to ignore it), the 2006 76ers were 6-19 (0.240) before Miller and 29-28 (.510) with him. They more that doubled their winning percentage by adding Anre Miller to the team. Please explain how that's possible if he's "not a difference maker". 0.240 to 0.510 winning percentage seems like quite a difference to me. I have never called Andre Miller a top-10 PG. I have called him above average and significantly better than this year's version of Steve Blake. You want to put down Miller for his lack of career success, but how many times has Steve Blake, with his "lofty" win% made the play-offs? How many times has he led his team past the 1st round. I'm not arguing that Andre Miller is a superstar PG. I'm arguing that he is now, and has always been, better than Steve Blake. As the better player, he deseves to start and finish games. If our coach can't figure out how to use Miller's talents in his one-dimensional offense, that's the coach's fault, not Miller's. P.S. Last year the 76ers were 41-41 (0.500) with Andre Miller in spite of Elton Brand missing 53 games due to injury. This year, with a healthy Brand, and no Miller, and no other changes in their top 8 players, they are 10-24 (0.294). So, before Andre Miller they were 0.240 and one of the worst teams in the league, with Andre Miller, they were a 0.500 play-off team, and after Andre Miller they are 0.294 and the second worst team in the Eastern Conference. Still think Miller doesn't help his teams win? If so, please explain Philadelphia's big improvement when adding Miller and their big fall off after letting him go with essentially no other roster changes in either case. BNM
I'm sorry this is going to have to be revised. It utterly fails to comply with article 3 section B paragraph 8 of the "Putting up meaningless stats on a bad team" message board argument rulebook.
OK, here's the cliff notes version of my position on this issue: I don't think Andre Miller is a great player, or a superstar, and I have never said he is. I think he is a good player, an above average starting PG, and a better player than this year's version of Steve Blake. I don't think Andre Miller is a bad fit with this team. He is, however, a bad fit with this coach. Nate has jerked Miller around from the first day of training camp, started Blake (with an 8.3 PER at the time) over Miller (15.0 PER) for WEEKS after it was obvious Miller was the better player. I think Miller CAN successfully co-exist in the backcourt with Brandon Roy, and could be successful with this roster with a coach that is capable of devising a team oriented offense that revolves around more than running ISOs for one specific player. Nate is not that coach. OK, I'm done. Beat LA! BNM
My original reference was: if playing .500 ball is real greatness, we have a different definition of what real greatness is. This is an absurd statement that does not regard fit. Last year, the Phoenix Suns had a dominant center that had a 22.3 PER. This year they replaced him with an average center that exhibit a 15.3 PER. Yet, magically, they play much better this year with the much lesser player. Individual play and team fit are not always correlating. How hard is this to understand? It is not the coach, nor Miller's fault. Some players just do not fit very well with each other. Miller's forte is in a fast break, run and gun system, with the ball in his hand and finishers at his disposal. Roy's is in a structured, half-court system with the ball in his hands and long-range shooters next to him. Using them together is going to put at least one of them at a disadvantage - and the coach needs to choose which one needs to sacrifice more. Nash and Shaq did not mesh. Roy and Miller do not mesh. Nothing less, nothing more.
It's a hell of a lot closer to "greatness" than 0.240 ball, which is what the 76ers were playing before Miller arrived and 0.294 ball, which is what they are playing now (with a healthy Elton Brand, no less) after he left. You have insisted over and over and over in this thead that Miller is a Zach Randolph type stat padder who does NOTHING to help his team win. His time in Philadelphia proves otherwise. You just won't admit it's true because it doesn't fit your incorrect image of Miller. BNM
As far as I understand it (based on discussions I've read at APBRmetrics) this is Win% in a nutshell: A player is part of two rotations, in his first run his team outscores the opposition by +5 points, he goes to the bench, comes back in later in the game and his unit gets outscored by -3, his win% is .50% (one shift won and one shift lost), but the team is still +2 in the points column. Focusing so heavily on this one statisitc seems to be missing the larger picture. If you want to really give Miller's impact on the court a thorough treatment then you need to look at much more than just Win%; look at his adjusted plus-minus, his PER differential with his opponent, his on/off court numbers and most importantly, has the team won more games or lost more games with him starting/playing a large role?
