This probably has something to do with it. Then again I believe Portland's obsession with officiating is in part due to Mike and Mike constantly (and I mean constantly) talking about calls. I listen to other announcers and don't hear about the refs more then a couple of time. Rice talks about the constantly. Anyway, the reason Blake is hated is that his contributions to the team are hard to quantify. Further it doesn't appear that he does anything that another guy on the team doesn't do better. And I also agree with the scapegoat theory. I know I am guilty of that year after year. Juan Dixon, Stacy Augman, Robert Pack, Harvey Grant, Jamal Magloire, Darius Miles, etc.. have all been my official "Least Favorite Blazer of the Year". This year it's sort of a dead heat between Blake and Webster. For my own sanity I am going to have to go with Webster from here on out. Blake is going to play big minutes every game. It's better to hope he can do well then wish he wasn't playing. Really, only one of those options is possible. And him getting benched isn't one of them.
That's an interesting list. Outside of Miles, all were role players who had limited games. As for Miles, I admit that by the end I couldn't stand the guy, but it was due more to his seeming to not care about getting back on the court, because he actually had a decent all-around game that he could have improved. The excessive "hate" posts/threads for limited role players (Outlaw, Blake immediately come to mind) makes it apparent to me that a lot of fans here a wasting far too much energy on players who simply won't become the player that that they wish them to be. That being the case, I guess I'm just wired differently than others. I don't see how obsessing over a limited role player does much, which is why, I guess, I tend to expect more from the Odens and Millers - more rounded players (Oden potentially) who could actually play key primary roles on on NBA champion.
My so called "hate" for Blake isn't because of Blake. I think Fernandez is definitely a player that could be a star if used properly. I think Blake is taking a lot of his minutes away from him.
Great. I'm not sure how that is Blake's fault, though. Should he go to Nate and demand to be benched? Especially after finally having a decent game from 3 pt last night?
So everyone criticizes Blake for being in a horrible shooting slump this year, yet you want to pair him with Bayless, who though he has shown flashes of brilliance this season is still far from a reliable, consistent player. You want to make those two our primary offensive weapons off the bench?!?! And teamed with Pryz?!?! There's nothing wrong with having a Manu as the sixth man off the bench. Except that it's Manu. Hence we got Rudy. Who is not Manu.
There's Blake hate because a lot of people feel he holds the team back too much at times, and just feel this team won't win a championship with Blake averaging close to 30 minutes.
Um, I explained this on another post. A good coach won't have the entire bench sub in for the starters. You would still have Aldridge, Oden or Roy on the floor for 98% of the game. So no, they wouldn't be the #1 or #2 options when they are on the floor.
Good point guards distribute the ball, not dominate the ball. On the best teams, nobody dominates the ball. They move it around and have balanced scoring. And if a team is so weak it has to depend on 1 player dominating the ball, Roy is a far better choice than mediocre Miller.
Many a "good coach" would argue that point with you. On teams deep enough that they must play 10 players, platoon subbing is the preferred, and most effective method in many cases. Players get in rhythm better if they play the same lineups all the time and practice that way. The second unit can instantly change the flow of the game with the different style. It's like forcing your opponent to play against 2 teams. Of course, both your team must be good for it to work. If you are only 8 deep, then obviously it's not an option.
Well I disagree, but using this philosophy, Nate isn't doing a great job then. Even with Batum and Outlaw's injury, we are still 11 deep (Roy, LMA, Oden, Pryzbilla, Blake, Rudy, Webster, Bayless, Miller, Howard), which Nate should spread out the minutes so far. Look at Player Statistics and MP Blake is the third highest minutes played average. THIRD HIGHEST?!?!?! WTF?!?! If, in fact, Nate should spread the minutes out more, wouldn't you agree that Blake should be in the middle of minutes played? I think so.
Nate shouldn't be concerned about spreading out minutes (especially when you add Howard in that mix) . . . he should be concerned about winning games.
Please stop misusing this stat to prop up your argument. +/- is completely useless for evaluating a single player's performance in a single game. There are 9 other players on the court that contribute to an individual player's +/-. If he's on the court when his own teammates arent playing defense, or can't hit a shot, or an opponent he's not guard suddenly gets a hot hand a player will have a big minus through no fault of his own. There are too many other variables involved to use this stat for single player, single game analysis. You probably already knew that, but when a single game data point validates your position, it's hard to resist. BNM
I don't hate Steve Blake. I actually admire how he has managed to carve out a career as an NBA point guard in spite of limited physical gifts compared to the average NBA player. He is where he is thanks to a whole lot of hard work, dedication and love for the game of basketball. I respect that. However, his performance this year has been very underwhelming and a huge drop off from last season. Here's a list of our top nine players (by minutes played), sorted by PER (decending order): Code: Brandon Roy 20.0 Greg Oden 19.1 LaMarcus Aldridge 17.7 Rudy Fernandez 15.8 Travis Outlaw 15.1 Andre Miller 14.3 Martell Webster 12.2 Joel Przybilla 11.6 Steve Blake 9.5 Clearly Blake is not producing at a rate that would justify his minutes. PER is largely an offensive stat, but it's not like Blake is a lock down defender. Give his poor production, and his underwhelming defense, it's really hard to justify the fact that he's 3rd on the team in minutes played. Why, exactly is our 9th best player starting and getting to play significantly more minutes than guys who are clearly out producing him? And that doesn't even include Bayless who has a PER of 20.2 in very limited minutes. Quite frankly, Blake starting and playing big minutes is holding this team back. He's the weakest player in our starting line-up, by far, and weakest link in our rotation. He needs to move to the bench. I'd rather see, Rudy, Bayless or Martell starting in his place. They all give us better offensive production and better defense than Blake. BNM
And boy think about how hard this forum is about Webster, who is almost 3 points per higher. Fernandez is the 4th best in offensive efficiency, which clearly tells us, he should be playing more minutes than Blake. Hell with the starter hoopla. Give the minutes to the players that deserve it.
If this team was about offense, I get this. But this team's success has been their defense and I think you are underating Blake's defense. Also it looks like Roy has the highest PER and ironically enough he enjoys playing and is more effective with Blake on the floor, IMO.
When a player is being scapegoated for costing the team a game, yet is the only starter who was a plus on the court in terms of net differential, then it is not a "useless" stat. It's useless to you since it contradicts your flimsy claim, but to call it "useless" in general is merely your opinion. In other words, please stop telling me how I am "misusing" this stat, because I'm with it exactly what you are doing with it, just leading to a different outcome.
You honestly think a line-up of Miller, Blake and Roy is better defensively than Miller, Roy and Webster? I don't, and it's not even close. I'd even take Rudy's defense over Blake's. They both get burnerd, but for different reasons - Rudy gambles a lot (pays off sometimes - high risk, high reward), Blake simply can't stay in front of quicker players and isn't strong enough to guard most SGs. Having Blake in the starting line-up makes us undersized at two positions (SG and SF). Webster gives us more size/strength at SF and allows Roy to move back to his natural SG position where he isn't physically over matched. BNM
