Player-by-Player: Steve Blake
by Dave
on Apr 23, 2008 1:06 AM PDT
Minutes-- Last Year: 27.1 This Year: 29.9 Change: +2.8
Points-- Last Year: 6.4 This Year: 8.5 Change: +2.1
Field Goals Attempted-- Last Year: 6.2 This Year: 7.9 Change: +1.7
Field Goal Percentage-- Last Year: 41.1% This Year: 40.8% Change: -0.3%
Three-Pointers Attempted-- Last Year: 2.5 This Year: 3.7 Change: +1.2
Three-Point Percentage-- Last Year: 32.2% This Year: 40.6 Change: +8.4%
Free Throws Attempted-- Last Year: 0.8 This Year: 0.8 Change: 0.0
Free Throw Percentage-- Last Year: 67.2% This Year: 76.6% Change: +9.4%
Offensive Rebounds-- Last Year: 0.3 This Year: 0.4 Change: +0.1
Defensive Rebounds-- Last Year: 1.8 This Year: 2.0 Change: +0.2
Overall Rebounds-- Last Year: 2.0 This Year: 2.4 Change: +0.4
Assists-- Last Year: 5.0 This Year: 5.1 Change: +0.1
Steals-- Last Year: 0.7 This Year: 0.7 Change: 0.0
Blocks-- Last Year: 0.1 This Year: 0.0 Change: -0.1
Turnovers-- Last Year: 1.6 This Year: 1.4 Change: -0.2
Assist-to-Turnover Ratio-- Last Year: 3.1 This Year: 3.6 Change: +0.5
1. To shepherd the youngsters at wing, forward, and center from the point position, getting them the ball where they could do damage without dominating the game.
2. To provide Nate McMillan someone he could trust.
3. To push the other point guards for the starting position.
Given those guidelines you have to say Blake’s season was a rousing success. At the very least you have to say he didn’t interfere with the progress of our young stars. Even that faint praise is not to be taken for granted. How many point guards in this league are selfless enough to lay aside their own agenda and adopt the team focus so completely as Blake? And that is the very least you can say about him. He was the point guard on three of our top four 5-man units. He probably helped our more prominent players more than we realize. His substantial minutes and starting role showed that he also fulfilled objectives two and three. Done and done.
But defining his season simply in terms of others doesn’t capture it fully. Blake’s rise in three pointers attempted and three point percentage showed his value to this particular incarnation of the Blazers. Besides a competent set-up man this was the attribute the team needed most. His 40.6% three-point shooting clip was a near career high, exceeded only by his 41.3% performance the last time he wore a
If you want to describe Blake’s strength in a single sentence the best one is: He gives you whatever you need--whether that’s his natural strength or not--and he does it without disrupting the game.
Obviously his stellar assist-to-turnover ratio speak well of his ability to man the helm and shows exactly why he earned Nate’s trust. His tough-mindedness and chutzpah sealed the deal. You just can’t help liking him and our coach did.
That’s not to say Steve is perfect, or even ideal. He had up-and-down offensive nights. His body doesn’t match his heart, especially on defense. He still shoots in the low 40’s. How many teams during the first three-quarters of the season did we see him get in the lane off the dribble only to get stuck, unable to think of scoring? His not dominating the ball or the game is an asset for this lineup, but that asset slips too easily into not affecting the game. If there’s a failing in the Roy-Aldridge pairing it’s the occasional lack of spark. Blake is feisty, but he’s neither a flame-thrower nor a fire-starter. If you’re thinking starting guard you just need…more. This is exactly why almost everybody loves Steve but very few claim him as their favorite player.
The complaints and doubts, though, mostly involve future potential and prospects. (They also cease entirely as soon as you remove the burden of the prospective starting role from him.) This is supposed to be more of a recap than a future prospectus. Under those terms it’s pretty easy…
Verdict:
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
25
comments
EmailComments
Heck Yeah
I love the shaka from your little tike. Here it is a polite way of saying get the heck out of my way, I’m moving into your lane. People stick it out their window then cut you off.
It’s also used after a nice person lets you in. You have to throw them a shaka to show your aloha spirit.
As always, great analysis. You should start a blog.
"We need a live rooster to take the curse off Jose's glove and nobody seems to know what to get Millie or Jimmy for their wedding present."
by tominhawaii on Apr 23, 2008 2:33 AM PDT 0 recs
From my perspective point guard is our weakest position both offensively and defensively. Please check out the following link:
http://www.82games.com/BYPOSIT.HTM
Blazers rank 29th in the leagure at PG. Now this is not a complete analysis and of course does not take into consideration intangibles, but there is no doubt this position needs major upgrading.
by Renegade on Apr 23, 2008 7:51 AM PDT 0 recs
Effective fg%?
I really like the statistic review. Is there any way to include effective field goal percentage? Of all the “new age” stats, I think this one is pretty unassailable. Since you already include the break-down of threes and 2’s, it would be a nice summary statistic.
by PoliSam on Apr 23, 2008 8:01 AM PDT 0 recs
Sure, if you want
I am trying to stay away from the more obscure stats for a couple of reasons:
A. I’d have to explain them every time.
B. Smart people tend to put more weight on them than they deserve, I think simply because they are obscure and that makes the knowledge revealed by the stat seem more true. I mean, if 20 basics stats and common sense observation say one thing but some weird, concocted stat says another, We’re 30x more likely to have the obscure stat lifted up as the deciding factor than the body of evidence.
But effective field goal percentage is pretty basic and easy to include, so you’ve got it. Blake’s was 47.6% last year and 50.2% this year, for a change of +2.6%.
—Dave
by Dave on
Apr 23, 2008 9:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
If you'd prefer...
Hypothetically, if you didn’t like eFG% as a stat, could you at least give us 2PT FG%? Plain combined FG% is a very generic statistic that doesn’t tell you much, except that great shooters like Nash or Stockton and also scoring centers like Howard or Shaq typically have high FG% numbers, and players with high FG% numbers are usually great players. Of course, good players who shoot a lot of threes can have good 2FG% numbers and good 3FG% numbers but a poor FG%. Whether this actually means anything is debatable (maybe they take too many treys?).
by royroty on
Apr 23, 2008 11:29 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I like efg%
and will include it from now on. Shoulda done that to begin with.
—Dave
by Dave on
Apr 23, 2008 11:30 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Effective Field Goal Percentage
From BasketballReference.com (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html)
Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).
by Dave on
Apr 23, 2008 11:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
PG of the future.
We should use all our 2008 picks to move to the future, to pick the baby of the photo. Have you seen how he stops the cat?. And his left leg´s quick lateral movement?.
You own what you are.
by amlmart1 on Apr 23, 2008 8:45 AM PDT 0 recs
Whose kid is this?
There’s simply no way that baby is Dave’s. Way too cute.
by Lance Uppercut on Apr 23, 2008 9:19 AM PDT 0 recs
I have no doubt
looking at his little finger. Have you seen him pointing?. That baby is Dave’s.
You own what you are.
by amlmart1 on Apr 23, 2008 9:34 AM PDT 0 recs
What Blake needs to do
learn how to finish in the lane like Jack. Then i will be happy with him as our starting pg. and maybe a little better defense too
Woof
by Charles Barkley McLovin on Apr 23, 2008 11:29 AM PDT 0 recs
Blake is my boy
... no seriously, I am his father.
by Sabonis4Ever on Apr 23, 2008 12:19 PM PDT 0 recs
Then your BE name should be Blake4 Ever...
otherwise how could you ever consider yourself a proud Papa? You should be ashamed of yourself and Steve should disown you and… (This post needs the just joking font)
43:12 Min, 9-18 FG, 4-5 FT, +14 +/-, 4 Off, 16 Rebs, 1 Ast, 1 Stl, 1 Blk, 22 Pts - LMA vs LA 4-8-08
by LaMarvelous on Apr 23, 2008 12:31 PM PDT 0 recs
That would be confusing with other Blakes
There is only one Sabonis. Don’t want to be associated with these tools:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_blake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Blake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Lewis
by Sabonis4Ever on
Apr 23, 2008 1:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hey now!
Blake Lewis is the poor man’s Justin Timberlake.
Trade Freeland!
by rockingharder on
Apr 23, 2008 11:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Speed kills
Anybody that saw Chris Paul or Tony Parker last night knows just how far this team is from being a force in the West. Work your magic K.P.
2-4 the who
by 24thewho on Apr 23, 2008 12:53 PM PDT 0 recs
Good enough point guard?
I don’t think the Blazers are going to land a super-star point guard in the near future so the question seems to be “Can we find [or do we have] a good enough point guard who complements Roy, Aldridge, and Oden?”
I’d rank Blake as “good enough” when compared to Jack or Sergio, but I think we need an upgrade to advance in the playoffs.
As much as I like Roy, it can be difficult for a “pure” point guard to play with him if he (Roy) has the ball in his hands as much as Roy does in the fourth quarter. When we add Rudy to the mix, we are way overloaded at the guard postion with too many “combo” guards (Roy, Jack, Blake, and maybe even Wafer) and too few “pure” point guards (Sergio is the only one since Greene is gone).
Still, I wouldn’t drastically overhaul the Blazer lineup in some attempt to get a top eschelon point guard, but explore ways of getting a “good enough” point guard with Blake being “good enough” teaching point guard (with Jack, Sergio, and Wafer gone).
Blake’s numbers are “good enough” to keep him, but at some point (no pun intended), we’ll need to upgrade (and the upgrade will be more urgent if Nate/B-Roy decide to play B-Roy less at point guard).
by vcubed on Apr 23, 2008 1:46 PM PDT 0 recs
Every team
has non-star starters.
Portland won a championship with Dave Twardzik. It’s hard for me to see that he was any better than Blake. Maybe a little better defender. A good shot, but certainly not better than Blake from deep.
Those who think you can’t win a championship with Blake at the point are wrong. If the “Big Three” become as good as everyone here thinks they are going to be, if we upgrade at SF through trade, FA, or improvement of the players we have, and if the team melds together as a team, you can win with Blake at the point. You can win 60+ games and a championship.
Someone above said that we rank 29th in the league at the point. As he said, that isn’t complete analysis, but clearly we are weak at the point. But our biggest weakness at the point is not Blake, but who comes in behind him. If our backup PG play was as effective as Blake, then the point would not be a strength for us, but it wouldn’t be our Achilles heel.
We’re going to be in the top 2 teams in the league at the center position within two years. Some teams may have a starter competitive with Oden, but nobody has a tandem like Greg and Joel. We may be #1 in the league at center.
We’re going to be in the top 3 teams at SG. With Brandon starting and Rudy backing him up, we may be #1.
We’re going to be in the top 5 teams at PF within two years, no matter who backs up LMA.
We only need to be in the top 20 at the other two positions to have a championship-level team. Extend Blake’s level of contribution to 48 minutes, and we’d be there at the point.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on Apr 23, 2008 11:52 PM PDT 0 recs
Dave Twardzik was called Pinball
because he drove into the lane with such abandon he would literally bounce off of bigger players and still finish. Blake is a number of good things for us but he does not shoot many foul shots and does not drive nearly enough.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on
Apr 24, 2008 1:18 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Sure
He had different strengths, but you’d be hard pressed to say that overall he was a better player.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Apr 24, 2008 7:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Blake is feast or famine as a scorer
I remember the last couple of months so I charted Steve’s stats for those months. His stats for April go down appreciably from the total year. In March he shot 40% FG and 38% 3FG but in April he shot 40% and 32% 3FG. In those two months he had 13 games shooting over 40% FG and 6 games shooting under 30% FG. In those same two months he had 10 games shooting over 40% 3FG and 10 games shooting under 30%. Feast or famine. He had 6 games of over 12 points and 9 games under 10 points. Steve was more consistent on assists (7 and 5) and turnovers (1and 2) in March and April although a typical game in these two months had Roy with more assists than Blake. We were 5-1 when Blake scored over 12 points and 3-7 when he scored under 10. We won 10 of 23 in those two months.
All to say I am encouraged with improvement but suspect that Steve is better earlier and later has trouble – could that be from the playoff intensity nearer year end? Or just tired? Either way we need our point guard to be strongest at the year-end and post season periods.
This in no way seeks to refute Dave’s terrific analysis – only provoke more thoug
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Apr 24, 2008 1:16 AM PDT 0 recs
My analysis isn't terrific
Just an overview to invite more detailed work such as yours. In general I’m giving the players as much of a break as I can muster and grading them on what they can accomplish more than what we need.
I would say that Blake has to prove himself more than most other players because his contract was set up specifically to allow us to use his slot for cap space. He can’t just be decent, he has to have proven value to the team in order for us to keep him.
—Dave
by Dave on
Apr 24, 2008 8:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I didn't see it that way at all
I saw Blake’s contract structure as insurance. If the young PGs demonstrated that they were going to be the answer, we would have the cap space to pursue a SF. If not, we would be able to retain Blake as a backup, at least, perhaps a starter in the interim but not in the long term.
I have always felt that Steve’s future in Portland was likely to be determined more by whether Jarrett, Sergio, and perhaps Koponen would take giant steps forward, and less by his own performance. I thought with Steve that what you see is what you get, and while there may be some improvements in some areas, that’s going to continue to be the case.
I don’t think he has to prove himself at all. If out of Jarrett, Sergio, Koponen, and possibly this year’s pick we find both a starting and backup PG, Steve is gone, thank you for two good years, best of luck. If not, he’ll probably be here forever, if he raises his game more than I expect, as the starter, if not, as the eventual backup.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Apr 25, 2008 2:13 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree that Steve has performed
as well as we could reasonably expect. My belief is that great point guards often take 7-8 years before they get it together. The difference is outside shooting and driving to the hole. Steve has good outside shooting numbers but tailed off in April.Next year I hope to see him finish strong. And he does not drive to the hole, evidenced by his very low free throw chances. Will he ever be Chris Paul? Not likely but if he can score he can force the defense to adjust to him like Paul and Nash and Williams do. He is a very good backup point guard as he is. Someone will step up next year with new weapons on offense and become the man.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on
Apr 25, 2008 10:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost