UPDATED: Can somebody please explain to me why Blake is getting so many minutes?
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 8:04 AM PST
Email
PrintUPDATE: I think this thread has generated a fair amount of thoughtful discussion in it's first 150 comments. I would like to add a couple of thoughts and clarifications about my OP:
1) Several people have criticized my OP as being disrespectful of Steve, and looking back, I think their criticisms have some merit. My tone was a bit snarky in places. Steve deserves better; he has been an integral part of the teams dramatic improvement over the past two plus seasons. He is a good guy and a solid player. As my OP points out, his production has declined significantly (from 14.4 last season to 9.1, so far, this season), and I think that is a topic for legitimate conversation.
2) Several thoughtful defenders of Blake have suggested that Blake is making the team better in some intangible way that is not showing up in his individual stats that are the primary focus of my OP. This seems possible. Blake's non-adjusted +/- stats are the best on the team. Non-adjusted +/- is a notoriously fickle stat because there are so many uncontrolled variables that can have a huge impact on these numbers. Generally it is considered unreliable unless the sample size is very large, but it is a possible explanation.
3) In general, I think we should all keep an open mind on this subject. Those of us who have doubts about the three guard line-up should wait and see what unfolds on the court. Maybe the defensive concerns we have are overblown. We will know more when the team plays a few games against better quality opponents. Maybe Nate sees this is a transitional line-up. On the other hand, Blake's defenders need to keep an open mind as well. His production has taken the biggest decline of anyone on the team, if this trend continues, his role may need to be adjusted. You can give him credit for past service, and you can give him credit for team success, but at some point, he has to bring it on the floor. You can't keep a guy with a PER below ten in the starting line-up indefinitely when you have three guys who are more productive sitting on the bench.
4) Trout's injury occurred a few hours after my OP. Obviously, his absence is going to effect the rotation. Let's see how Nate handles this challenge and let's see how the team responds on the floor.
BOTTOM LINE: I think these developments all bear watching. Maybe the team will keep winning maybe not. Maybe Blake's play will improve, maybe not. Let's keep our eyes on the scoreboard and the stats for a few more games and then revisit this topic when things become a bit clearer. Again, thanks for the quality discussion.
Is it Blake's efficient scoring? Well no, his PER is at 9.6, which is absolutely atrocious, worse than any player on the team besides Howard. The other candidates for minutes: Bayless 20.6; Martell 15.0; Rudy 14.9; Miller 13.3
Is it that Blake's outside shooting is desperately needed? Well no, Blake is shooting at a 40% clip from three, but so is Rudy, so is Travis, and Martell isn't far behind. Even Bayless has shown an improved outside shot making over 40% of his jumpers and his lone attempt from 3..
Is it Blake's lock-down defense? OK, I am being a bit snarky. No one is likely to label Blake a good defender. Some might argue that he is the best we have at the point. Blake's Defensive Rating of 102 is a single point better than Miller's and 3 points better than Bayless' , but whatever edge he has over Miller and Bayless is, at best, slight. In particular, Blake tends to struggle against quick guys who penetrate.
Perhaps it is Blake's solid distribution skills? Well surprisingly enough, Blake is the fourth best assist man on the team so far this season. <strong>Assists Per 36 Minutes</strong>: Miller 6.0; Roy 5.2; Bayless 5.0; Blake 4.2; Rudy 3.2. Yes, you read that right, Bayless has more assists per minute than Blake.
Maybe it is Blake's ability to snag a few rebounds? Well, no. Blake is the worst rebounder of any of our perimeter players: <strong>Rebounds Per 36 Minutes:</strong> Bayless 4.3; Roy 4.3; Miller 4.1; Webster 4.0; Rudy 3.9; Blake 3.2.
Certainly, it must be because Blake makes so few mistakes? Well um, er, no. Blake has a higher Turnover Percentage than either Miller or Bayless: Bayless 14.2; Miller 16.0; Blake 16.2
I realize I am being a bit provocative. Blake is a solid player and he has played a significant role in the teams success over the past two seasons. However, Nate is the one who said that the players would determine who got minutes by their play on the floor. Judged by the very preliminary stats I have just presented, I think it is clear that Blake has not earned the minutes he has received.
To me, it is clear that those minutes should be split between Rudy, Webster, and Bayless. All three have been more efficient and effective than Blake. If Nate wants to stick with a three guard line-up, Rudy seems like the obvious choice alongside Miller and Roy. He can help spread the floor like Blake, but he is a more dynamic scorer, and he has better size to defend the two. If Nate wants to return Roy to his natural position and give the team stronger defense at the three, Webster is the obvious choice.
Bayless has been the team's most improved player, so far in his limited minutes. His PER and TS% have both jumped dramatically to 20.6 and .664 respectively. Furthermore, the stats suggest that while he is still a work in progress, his distribution skills are improving. His Assist Rate per 36 minutes is up to 5.0 and his Turnover Rate, while still having room for improvement, has actually been the best of the three PGs. Bayless has been the teams most efficient and effective scorer off the bench. To me, this is a case of, "if it is working, don't mess with it." Bayless has earned the back-up PG minutes even if Nate abandons the three guard line-up.
Nate should stick by his own motto that "minutes are earned." By that standard Blake's minutes should be significantly reduced.
All stats are taken from Basketball Reference.Com http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2010.html
157 comments
|
16 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
rec
Well argued. I don’t understand it either.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 14, 2009 8:18 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I don't know but it makes more sense than
us retiring Jordan’s number.
Delonte West: Zombie Hunter
by In Walks Rudy on Nov 14, 2009 8:27 AM PST reply actions 18 recs
LOL
Almost made me spew my coffee!
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions
that's a good idea
let’s compare every stupid idea to the Blazers retiring Jordan’s number.
You won.
by Roybot on Nov 11, 2009 1:41 AM PST
Doing that for every stupid idea
would be like the Blazers retiring Jordan’s number.
(jk)
I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
by haildablazer on Nov 14, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
haha
www.idonthaveawebsitetoshamelesslypromoteinmysig.com
by In Walks Rudy on Nov 15, 2009 8:02 AM PST up reply actions
Somebody will get moved.
It doesn’t make sense in the long-run.
There remains a cloud of confusion with the PG position on this roster – Steve Blake starting with Andre & the signing of Patty Mills. Seems like a dating relationship about to go bad.
Normally I would agree with everything you're saying,
but man, what the heck is wrong with Rudy right now? He is turning the ball over at a furious clip the last 2-3 games. It’s pissing me off.
I do agree Blake is getting too many minutes based on his performance though. Reputation maybe? Players around the league knows he will hurt you bad from outside.
Trade showcasing? I don’t know, something just doesn’t feel right with this rotation.
I would be thrilled if Nate was showcasing Trout and Blake for trade......
……but I am not sure that Steve ringing up a PER of 9.6 and Trout jacking shots is going to help their trade value.
I suspect Blake is Nate and Roy’s “Linus blankey.” They know it is time to grow up, but they are having trouble letting go.
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions
That is probably the reason. Roy and Blake are bff's, and Roy said publicly he is more comfortable with Blake, so the blazers had to give him what he wanted for a while.
by dario argento on Nov 14, 2009 9:08 AM PST up reply actions
I thought Roy and Outlaw were BFFs - WOW talk about a complicated relationship!!!!!
Maybe that explains why Blake and Outlaw are both struggling – THEY’RE JEALOUS!!!!
Hee Hee Hee!!!!! Just Having Fun!
Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I <3 LMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMA - Putting the POWER in POWER FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The concussion must have jarred him into "Destroy All Opposition Terminator Mode!" - BlazersOrBust
25:24 Mins, 5-11 FGs, 9-9 FTs, +12, 5 Off, 10 Rebs, 3 Ast, 19 Points!!!! LMA vs Puppies 11-8-09
37:37 Mins, 7-12 FGs, 2-2 FTs, +18 12 Rebs, 3 3 Ast, 1 Stl 2 Blk 16 Points!!!! LMA vs Grizz 11-10-09
Don't think for a second
that there aren’t many teams who would like to have Blake and Outlaw. They get too much dis from PTB fans always wanting more more more.
Dogs have Owners, Cats have Staff.
by bow4meow on Nov 14, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No "dis" intended to either Blake or Trout
I agree that folks take what Travis provides for granted. Despite his spotty defense and sub-par rebounding, he is a productive player who can play two positions. He was a legitimate sixth man candidate last year and he is still only 24 years old.
My OP probably comes across as a huge dis of Blake. It isn’t really meant that way. Blake is a solid player who has worked extremely hard to maximize his limited physical skills. He is smart, tough, and deserves a lot of credit for making a significant contribution to the teams growing success over the past 2+ seasons. Having said that, as the stats should make very clear, he is not playing very well right now. What Blake’s role should be from here forward is part of the debate I am trying to initiate.
It is precisely because these guys have value that I think it makes sense to explore what options are available. I am not of the opinion that either guy “should” be traded, although I think we should explore what we could get in return.
I do think that Blake is likely “in the way” at PG. He isn’t the long term starter. He takes minutes away from any young guy who might develop into our starter, and he is too expensive to sit on the bench as a third string PG.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 6:08 AM PST up reply actions
Well, when you say "Linus blankey" you make it sound like a childish, sniveling thing
When, really, it may be that Brandon is just more comfortable when Blake is on the court. Maybe that will change as the season progresses and Brandon becomes accustomed to Andre. At the mooment it is the most likely explanation for Nate giving so many minutes to Blake.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine, US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)
Not really the meaning I intended....
…..I used the term because it connotes comfort and emotional attachment. I think both Roy and Nate are comfortable with Steve. I understand that and realize that trust and comfort have real value.
I suspect, however, that the team has “outgrown” Steve as our starting PG. Andre is a much more dynamic player and his presence on the floor has a significant impact on how the team plays. A huge part of Oden’s emergence on the offensive end is based on Andre’s ability to get the ball to Greg in spots where he can be successful.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 6:15 AM PST up reply actions
It seems like they are trying to turn Rudy into a PointGuard
He has great court vision and a lot of the turn overs look to be him working on becoming a point guard. He has hit his last 6 threes in a row but the turn overs are a bit dangerous.and why he is getting pulled.
"Knowledge will get you from A to B. Creativity will get you anywhere." Einstein
by Garden of ODEN on Nov 14, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
Even Rudy can't learn to be a Point Guard in just a few weeks - give it time.
Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I <3 LMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMA - Putting the POWER in POWER FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The concussion must have jarred him into "Destroy All Opposition Terminator Mode!" - BlazersOrBust
25:24 Mins, 5-11 FGs, 9-9 FTs, +12, 5 Off, 10 Rebs, 3 Ast, 19 Points!!!! LMA vs Puppies 11-8-09
37:37 Mins, 7-12 FGs, 2-2 FTs, +18 12 Rebs, 3 3 Ast, 1 Stl 2 Blk 16 Points!!!! LMA vs Grizz 11-10-09
You should update your sig
I’d rather have 20/13 against David West than 16/12 against the Griz.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Good Point I will fix it shortly..
Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I <3 LMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMA - Putting the POWER in POWER FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The concussion must have jarred him into "Destroy All Opposition Terminator Mode!" - BlazersOrBust
25:24 Mins, 5-11 FGs, 9-9 FTs, +12, 5 Off, 10 Rebs, 3 Ast, 19 Points!!!! LMA vs Puppies 11-8-09
37:37 Mins, 7-12 FGs, 2-2 FTs, +18 12 Rebs, 3 3 Ast, 1 Stl 2 Blk 16 Points!!!! LMA vs Grizz 11-10-09
yes, Rudy wanted a bigger role
he doesn’t just want to sit in the corner and shoot 3s…if Rudy started he would be stuck in that role…which coincidentally fits Blake much better. Steve is (functionally) playing Batum’s starting role, this year. No, he’s not a SF/defender like Nic, but he is the guy on offense who parks in the corner and shoots the 3 ball, and keeps the ball moving on offense. (Nate and Roy call that being the “glue” guy)
OTOH, Rudy is getting to handle the ball more, coming in off the bench. He’s making more plays and should be happier in that role then he would be as primarily a spot up shooter on the “black” squad
it’s hard to argue with 6-0 since the lineup change
Now that Travis is hurt, the bench will need Rudy’s scoring even more…so that means the lineups will probably stay the same indefinitely and Roy will just have to get “beat up” trying to defend larger SFs
BTW, I’m not looking forward to playing teams like L*A or Denver without Batum and Travis.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I agree with your points
However I can’t help but think back over the 6 games. When we first had blake and andre, we seemed to swarm. Everyone was trying to put out all defensive team effort, perhaps it is just perception, because the opponents points scored are dropping, but the defense looks less intense and it looks like the other team is just bad at offense. Meanwhile our offense was red hot as having two point guards kept the ball moving quickly probing the defense, and now it has resorted to way too much dribbling up top instead of using a couple quick passes to get an angle entry into oden or LMA who has their man sealed. The offense needs to improve again to bring the streak to 7.
Basically, Steve Blake is the starting 3 and Rudy Fernandez is the backup 1 on offense thus far ...
this season. With Travis Outlaw injured as the backup 4 and Juwan Howard or Dante Cunningham taking his place, the wing/backcourt rotation will continue with Martell Webster (3 offense/3 defense), Jerryd Bayless (2 offense/1 defense), and Fernandez (1 offense/2 defense) playing behind Blake (3 offense/1 defense), Brandon Roy (2 offense/3 defense), and Andre Miller (1 offense/2 defense). Yet, over the long haul, this is a recipe for disaster against teams with bigger, more athletic wings.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
I know how you feel about Bayless
but I was just wondering if the situation is “dire enough” now for KP to consider dealing Jerryd and the capspace for a team who has a veteran forward making around 3.5 mil? I know you’d do it in a heartbeat, but it’s questionable if there’s a GM out there who stlll has a jones for what Rex brings to the court “enough” who would be willing to help KP out?
KP says he likes Bayless, and Jerryd is a former lottery pick, but sometimes desperate times will make a guy let lose of his prized possessions. (Of course, no sooner would JB get dealt and then Blake would go down, at least that’s how the season is going so far…)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I'd trade the injured Travis Outlaw and Jerryd Bayless to the Oklahoma City Thunder for ...
Nick Collison in a pinch. The Thunder, which’d waive Shaun Livingston — who possesses a non-guaranteed contract — to clear up roster space for the move, could give Jerryd Bayless a shot to learn from a pure point guard with defensive chops in Kevin Ollie. Additionally, Outlaw over Collison would bring cash savings this season — as well as a way to clear cap space next season — thus, that’d make the penny-pinching Clay Bennett a happy camper in dumpy OKC.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
All for adding Collison
Not willing to lose Bayless for him yet.
"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane
Think I just contradicted myself though
as I offered up a Blake/Bayless for Collison/Ibaka trade on the basis that an Outlaw for Conley or Miller for Hinrich trade preceded it.
Oh well.
"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane
Ridiculous. Down right laughable
Thank God, you are not the GM of this team.
You would trade away a 21 year old, lottery pick player, who may fit our biggest long term roster need and who has shown significant improvement this season, along with a 24 year old, legitimate 6th man candidate, for a 29 year old guy who has never had a PER above 15.
I realize you have your preferences AK, but how is this asset maximization? A two for one sending out two younger guys who are both arguably more productive for an older role player? It is simply ridiculous.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 6:42 AM PST up reply actions
People will continue to overrate players like Travis Outlaw and Jerryd Bayless, ...
while underestimating what an offensively efficient, defensively hard-nosed 4/5 like Nick Collison would bring to the table—especially on a team that’s looking to contend for a title rather than deal with teaching projects with limited potential.
Now, apropos of Bayless, he’s done a so-so job on offense in short minutes thus far this season as a backup 2 who puts his head down, bowls his way to the basket like a pinball, and looks to draw fouls; yet, he’s still a turnover prone guy with terrible court vision who sucks on defense.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Huh ???
Horrible trade idea ! B-Rex is going to be a very good player
in this league and our future PG !
It's GO time !
I agree that Bayless has game and is good at what he does
But what any good armchair GM should be looking at right now is “future potential versus immediate need” The Blazers are playing to win, this year. They have 4 very good guards, and Jerryd’s role is a relatively small one, unless one of the other 4 were to get injured.
In the meantime, the Blazers are down to 5 big men, one of them is 37, and another is an undersized rookie. (In the NBA, this is called “an emergency situation”) Contending teams need at least 6 big men, and at least 4 guys whose minutes aren’t limited by age and/or experience. Even if all goes well and none of those guy gets hurt for 5+ months, there’s always illness, and nightly foul trouble for Nate to negotiate.
So, can you see the dilemma for KP? Either he can waive Mills and pick up a waived 4/5 to patch up his frontcourt, or he can deal his best remaining (healthy) asset in Bayless and get a more-proven veteran big man. (Or, he can ride out the storm and hope that the “levy” doesn’t burst)
What? Me worry?
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Good points, but . . .
as much as you and I love this team, they are probably
not going to win the NBA Championship this year.. I think B-Rex will
be special with time, especially since my ex-roomie is a huge
Wildcats fan and a very good PG is his own right. He’s the one
who convinced me how special Jerryd’s athletic skills, intelligence
and work ethic make his game. The NBA is about getting the chance to
learn and grow. I think his skill set is the perfect pairing with a unselfish
SG like BRoy. We know BRex will never be a pure PG, but an attacking
combo guard with the ability to get to the rim, draw fouls and defend
on the perimeter is exactly what the Blazers need. The metamorphisis
might be next year or the year after, but that’s within our Championship
window. My two cents of course !
Nice Alfred Newman postscript !
It's GO time !
I will take issue with you on Rudy being the back-up 1
No. No. No. Your statement is just an extension of your oft repeated mantra that “Bayless is not a PG and never will be” or your other characterization that Bayless is a “shoot first PG.”
The stats don’t support either contention. If Rudy is the back-up PG, then how come Bayless is the guy who has generated more assists and a lower turnover rate? It is much more accurate to say that Rudy and Bayless are sharing the playmaking role on the second unit just like Roy shares the playmaking role on the first unit.
Just because Roy is a good passer does not mean that he is the starting PG. Just because Rudy is a good passer who helps distribute the ball on the second unit does not make him the back-up PG.
Just out of curiosity, how do you account for Bayless’ Assist % being higher than Blake or Rudy if he is “never going to be a PG.” Your basic position in this ongoing argument is becoming less tenable, and less consistent with the statistical evidence, with each passing game.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 6:30 AM PST up reply actions
Within the high-low zone offense, Rudy Fernandez has been playing the 1 whenever he ...
gets paired with Jerryd Bayless. In that role, Fernandez brings the rock up as the primary ball handler. Now, whenever Bayless gets the ball in the halfcourt sets, he tries his best Brandon Roy impersonation, as he either looks to score in an iso set or continue the offensive flow by passing the ball. Hence, Bayless plays the 2 on offense.
Thus far, Bayless has 7 assists and 4 turnovers in 50 minutes; however, he’s lucky that his turnover numbers aren’t higher, as there’s times in which he’s almost thrown the ball away via a misguided pass and a teammate has saved the possession by scrambling to get the loose ball. In the upcoming games, I expect that Bayless’ decent production as of yet — which is a small sample size — will dip tremendously
Regarding Steve Blake, I agree that him playing the 3 on offense as a weakside cornerman is a sad state of affairs. The absence of Nicolas Batum has been a major hindrance — and certainly more so than whatever occurs from the loss of the one-dimensional Travis Outlaw, whose time in Portland has hopefully come to an unceremonious conclusion — as Martell Webster has shown that he lacks the overall game to make up for the injured Frenchman.
At the 3, I so wish Ime Udoka was still here. That way, Udoka could play the first 8 minutes of each half, Webster could play the middle 8 minutes of each half, and Rudy Fernandez could play the final 8 minutes of each half at that position on offense. Alas, Paul Allen used his pull to keep Patty Mills.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Here's another possibility
In the spirit of the recent “anagram” fanpost:
Maybe when Nate really wants to take Blake out of the game… he looks toward the end of the bench… sees the young Bayless… then glances over at #2 on the floor… causing him to see vet, balk.
Clever....
…..but does that mean it makes sense?
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 8:52 AM PST reply actions
Hey, it's a coach thang
this “vet fetish” of theirs.
Not saying that I understand it. Or that it’s necessarily a good or a bad thang. It just is.
I’m a huge NY (Football) Giants fan and spend a lot of time reading and posting on blogs devoted to that team. In the wake of their current four game losing streak, their Head Cach, Tom Coughlin, has aroused the ire of the faithful by his unwavering partisanship toward older, physically limited veterans over younger, more athletic – but untested – players. Especially at the linebacker position (where they’ve been consistently horrible this season)
Perhaps it’s simply a case (from the coach’s standpoint) of “better the devil you know than the one you don’t.” Nate knows Blake as well as any player on the roster right now. Specifically, he knows (or believes he knows) just how his strengths complement the key players on the roster. He also knows (or believes he knows) just how to best compensate for his deficiencies while he’s on the floor. Bayless, OTOH, is more of a “wild card” at this point in his young career. Nate (being something of a control freak, as is the Giants’ Coughlin) is probably just not that comfortable with the idea of introducing such a potentially uncertain element into a game for which he has a particular “script” in mind.
If coaches have a "vet fetish" then fans have a "young buck fetish'
fans want what they don’t see cause it’s greater in their imagination than it could ever hope to be on the floor. We imagine Bayless being the long term solution when he hasn’t proven to be a short term solution yet. We don’t see practice, all we see is games, so we see the mistakes of the players that are in the game, and since Bayless isn’t often in the game, his mistakes are fewer, where as Blakes are amplified by his amount of playing time.
.
.
The grass always looks greener, but that doesn’t mean it is… sometimes it’s astro-turf… which is horrible to play on
Bust a bucket, who’d a dunk it, Blazer duty, super sunk it, slammin’ geez it, killer threes it, go up-get it-got it-good!
by The Arkitect on Nov 14, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
True Enuff
Especially when your team is 7-3. Then the “if it ain’t broke” mindset is tough to dispute.
Admittedly I don’t get much of a chance to watch the Blazers these days (I’ve only seen the two ESPN games so far this year) So I can’t really offer any useful observations on what Blake does or does not bring to the table. So my comment wasn’t really about Blake per se.
Rather, I intended it more along the lines of a general observation that I think is pretty indisputable from a historical perspective. Coaches do play favorites and those decisions are not always rational. Frequently the “coach’s pet” is a veteran or even a marginally talented player who the coach believes “plays the game the right way.” And these decisions sometimes prevent a truly talented player from getting more playing time than he deserves.
Is this the case with Blake, Bayless and the ‘09-’10 Blazers? As I said earlier, I’m in no position to judge. Hopefully, the “correct” answer to that question will become apparent while Bayless is still a Blazer and not when he’s tearing it up for another team.
I got where you were going… I was headed the same way… It’s the same with every team and their fans. There’s always some player the fans think should be playing more, and some player they think should be playing less
Honor Jordan, Retire #45
by The Arkitect on Nov 14, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Yep, we're all human
Fans and coaches alike. And, as such, prone to our own unique likes and dislikes – which are not always rational.
I guess what always sets my teeth on edge whenever one of these types of debates crops up is the notion that a fan questioning a coach is somehow absurd because “the coaches know way more about the players than even the most knowledgeable fan ever could.”
And, yes, while it’s true that coaches enjoy a much larger sample of empirical evidence upon which to base their evaluation of a player, I don’t think it precludes them from making decisions largely based on those irrational “likes” and “dislikes” that are common to all humanity. The history of sports is rife with examples of coaches who got it wrong; who, in spite of their insider status, continually favored lesser players over far more talented ones.
Of course, the coaches who get it wrong more often than not wind up fired and lost in the sandheap of time. And the ones who generally make the right call usually wind up lauded as legends. My sense is that Nate is one of those who gets it right more often than not. But that doesn’t mean that he is inacapable of making a wrongheaded decision that’s based more on his own biases than it is on a cold accounting of fact.
You said it
And, as such, prone to our own unique likes and dislikes – which are not always rational.
There’s a guy who posts here who likes the Knicks. Can’t get much more irrational than that.
Good discussion. And yet, coaches A) do have more facts B) do have more overall basketball knowledge than about 99.9999% of “analysts” and Internet commenters C) have an even greater incentive to make winning decisions than fans.
So if a coach is making irrational decisions based on “likes”, he’s being self-defeating. Now, we all do self-defeating, irrational things. But if we have assistant coaches and GMs and other players providing feedback, that is going to happen a lot less, and usually the GM or someone will say, “Look, these are the facts here, what are you doing?”
So my presumption is usually that a decision which doesn’t make sense to me usually is based on facts/knowledge of which I am unaware, or else on better basketball analytic skills.
In fact, I complained about the Miller/Blake/Roy lineup that Nate was using, and he turned around and started that lineup. And the post in which I complained about it also complained about lack of ball movement and lack of player movement off the ball. And suddenly, with that starting lineup, those things improved drastically.
So who was right and who was wrong? I’m prepared to say that I was right about the big problem, but totally wrong about that lineup, because it solved the problem when nothing else had.
So the “Nate is smarter” or “Nate has more data” argument has plenty of validity.
But you are correct that it isn’t the answer to every question, because Nate is also very human and very fallible. The difficulty is knowing for sure when he’s being fallible and when he’s being smarter. And results don’t always give that answer, because life isn’t like that.
Sometimes, our mistakes work beautifully, like the time I threw away a rook and fell into a magnificent combination that led to a checkmate against a player much better than me. And sometimes, making the right decision still leads to bad results, because life is like that, too.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I assume liking the knicks
is a connection to the city. I welcome him to follow the blazers while the knicks rebuild. His allegiance will be tested if the knicks sign lebron and the knicks/blazers meet in the finals.
No, he likes the Knicks
because when he was a kid they were a great team to support. Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Bradley, Debusschere (sp?), etc.
I loved that team, too. It was the kind of team that could make a hometown kid a fan for life.
They’ve just gone through an era comparable to our bad era a few years ago. In a couple of years, he’ll have a team worth supporting again.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
That's the exact Knicks team that I dreamt of playing for...
…when I was 10-12 years old.
Dave DeBusschere had a sweet baseline shot, Frazier (the first Clyde) was a defensive wiz, Willis Reed had that immortal appearance in the finals… then later add in Earl “the Pearl” Monroe and it almost makes up for the fact that there was a future L*ker coach sitting on the bench for some of that time… (yuck)
Great team from back in the day that was the first NBA team I loved!
But now…
GO BLAZERS!!!
It really wasn't fair when they added Earl the Pearl
They played the game the way it should be played. Until the 76-78 Blazers came along, and showed it could be done even better.
Those Blazers probably didn’t have as much pure talent as those Knicks, but played such a beautiful team game. But the Knicks were phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
absolutely, looking specifically at the Blazers
my instinct at the moment is to trust the coach who got the team to 54 wins last year. Based on what we’ve seen, Bayless hasn’t made a strong case for more playing time. Sure, his PER looks amazing, but it’s because he’s been playing garbage time against the other teams scrubs. Kosta Koufos of the Jazz has the highest PER in the League, but I don’t think people believe he should be taking time away from Mehmet Okur. Also, this situation differs from the Jermaine O’Neal situation of several years ago in that we’re not hearing about Bayless blowing everyone away in practice all the time and then not sniffing the floor. O’neal was dominating the bigs outside of Sabonis in practice when he was a Blazer, but the coach was concerned he would be mistake prone in a game situation. By all accounts I have read, the Bayless we see in games is the Bayless that is in practice, the potential is there, but it’s not realized yet, and until it is, he doesn’t warrant more time. If this was a team just trying to make the playoffs, then the situation is different, but the Blazers are no longer as focused as developing their young talent and are more focused on using the talent they have to make a run deeper in the playoffs.
.
That’s why I don’t see the bias that is being claimed. or I guess I do, I just don’t think it’s wrong
Honor Jordan, Retire #45
by The Arkitect on Nov 14, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe my point was too theoretical
for a discussion thread that’s devoted largely to Blake and Nate’s use (or misuse) of him.
As I’ve already said, I’m not making the claim that Nate’s decision to give Blake big minutes is definitively attributable to bias or a “vet fetish.” I merely raised the possibility, noting that coaches – being human – sometimes make decisions that are not entirely based on a rational analysis of empirical evidence.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, this whole discussion really touches upon one of my major pet peeves: the fallacy of the coach as “all knowing expert” whose intimate knowledge of his team is prima facie evidence that hs decisions will invariably be wiser than anything to the contrary suggested by an outsider. If it’s indeed the case, as jscot suggests above, that coaches “have more overall basketball knowledge than about 99.9999% of ‘analysts’ and Internet commenters,” then shouldn’t it stand to reason that their decisions would be correct roughly 99.9999% of the time? Obviously, this is not the case. Which would seem to suggest that there are times when a coach’s admittedly superior knowledge takes a back seat to such “unscientific” factors as emotion and bias.
At this point, I suppose I should fully disclose my own personal “bias” that drives my near-obsessive harping on this particular point. I’ve long been dismayed at our society’s near cult-like deference to the so-called wisdom of those in positions of authority. I realize I may be opening up the proverbial can o’ worms here but I think it’s safe to say that we’ve seen numerous instances in which insiders with superior knowledge make horribly wrongheaded decisions. You could argue that a CEO knows more about the workings of his business than 99.9999% of those outside the company. But that doesn’t stop him from making decision that many of those outsiders correctly know will ultimately be injurious to his company’s well-being. Or that the leader of a country knows more about foreign policy than about 99.9999% of the general population. Yet that doesn’t prevent him from entering into a war that many laymen understand to be misguided and ultimately ill-fated (and just to pre-empt this discussion from spiralling out of control – I’m not talking about just the most recent U.S. war, either. World history is replete with examples of leaders who squandered their country’s resources to fight an ill-conceived war)
OK; now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, I’ll get off my soapbox now and return this thread to its rightful owners: Blazer fans who want nothing more than to discuss Nate’s use (or misuse) of Steve Blake. Since I really have nothing to say on that particular subject, I promise this will be my last post on this thread. And to those of you who endured my unhinged ravings – thanks for your patience.
Your posts are usually solid material, even in a subthread in which the topic ...
deviates away somewhat from the original fan post. At any rate, you’re correct that it’s wrong for anyone act as if basketball coaches are omniscient. It’s that kind of appeal to authority and the unquestioning of leadership that’s created problems in every aspect of life, which you appropriately expalined in detail with your above comment.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Right, I was attempting (apparently poorly) to agree with you and apply it specifically to what I see others claiming the Blazers are doing
Honor Jordan, Retire #45
by The Arkitect on Nov 16, 2009 12:29 AM PST up reply actions
Logical fallacy
If it’s indeed the case, as jscot suggests above, that coaches "have more overall basketball knowledge than about 99.9999% of ‘analysts’ and Internet commenters," then shouldn’t it stand to reason that their decisions would be correct roughly 99.9999% of the time?
Well, no, that doesn’t stand to reason.
Being smarter than a two year old doesn’t make you a genius. Just because a coach is smarter than me at this doesn’t mean he’ll get everything right. It just means he’ll get it right more often than me.
I know more about my job than 99.9999% of the people out there. Actually, that might be too low of a number, we’re very specialized. Doesn’t mean I get it right every time, or 99.9999% of the time.
We’re also dealing with an area with a large measure of subjectivity here. In fact, there could be three possible “right” decisions, with no real way to distinguish which one is “righter”.
Now, all that said, as I stated above you have a valid point. Coaches have the same human flaws and biases that we all have. If they have a good staff and a good GM, there should be checks and balances to limit how much those biases impact decisions. I don’t know enough about the workings of the Blazers’ staff to know whether those checks and balances are in place.
In regard to your point about wars, etc, there is still a point to be made on the other side. Ultimately, unless we all get the same intelligence information our leaders are getting, it is going to be pretty hard to reasonably judge.
I’ll give you a scenario, which as far as I know has no truth to it. But suppose Obama were told that the current government of Pakistan has been taken over by extremists who are committed to the destruction of the US. They are developing ICBMs which could reach the US, and they don’t care if they end up martyring themselves and their nation, they are going to send the Great Satan to Hell.
Now, if he goes public with this information, our intelligence sources will be revealed, and executed, and we will have no more intelligence. So he has data none of the public has.
What does he do? If he twiddles his thumbs, and hopes it goes away, he’s being derelict in his duties. If he sends in the bombers and the troops, he’s a warmonger.
Whatever decision he makes, he has to make it based on information that the public won’t have, unless he decides to burn the spies. In which case he will be choosing to kill spies who have put themselves on the line for the US simply to cover his own backside, which would be pretty despicable.
The issue of “more info than the public” is a real one. It is why you have to 1) elect responsible and trustworthy people who have integrity and 2) have very real checks and balances, also with people of integrity.
The politicization of national security in the West is extremely dangerous. Lots of people are likely to die unless a dynamic is adopted where the main political parties have people of integrity who look at the intelligence together, agree on a course of action, and then back it up, instead of bashing each other for political gain.
National security is too important to play political games. And all parties are doing it, both in Britain and the US. It is reprehensible, and there are politicians in all political parties who are likely to have a lot of blood on their hands.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Ah, this is one area where you and I are complete opposites. As a strong ...
adherent of non-interventionist foreign policy — even up to pure isolationism, as I’m anti-globalization (i.e., I’ve got no use for the United Nations, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, et cetera) and an advocate of economic protectionism who abhors free trade (i.e., support quotas and tarrifs on imported goods) — I detest America’s current nation building projects via unwarranted police actions, massive trade deficits with foreign counties (e.g., China), and imprudent donations of bilateral and multilateral aid to countries across the world.
In the world of basketball, the United States of America would be akin to, oh, Allen Iverson, since we’re the inefficient ball hogs of the world. Conversely, a neutral country like Switzerland — which, unlike the U.S., ranks in the top-ten of the Human Development Index — correlates to an efficient “No-Stats All-Star” like Shane Battier. Oh, and for whatever it’s worth, I’d be a member of the Free Democratic Party of Switzerland if I lived there. Any group that advocates classical liberalism — which has been missing in the U.S. since the long-ago era of Jeffersonian democracy — gets a thumbs-up from me.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Perhaps you should read again
I was not advocating nation building, police actions, trade deficits, or foreign aid. And I think our Prime Minister is an idiot on multiple levels.
I was talking about the national security dilemma of dealing with known threats with specific information that cannot appropriately made public.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Your view of politics helps explain your views on basketball.....
……for the most part I agree with neither ;-)
by upper left corner on Nov 17, 2009 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I'm a fan of defense over offense in every aspect of life.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
You're right
I was guilty of sloppy phrasing, resulting in the logical fallacy you speak of.
Really, what I should have written was that if coaches really know more than “about 99.9999% of ‘analysts’ and Internet commenters,” then shouldn’t a coach’s decisions ultimately prove correct in 99.9999% of the cases where that decision deviates from those favored by the great unwashed?
Even when phrased that way, I admit that it’s still kind of a silly argument; in essence, suggesting a comparison between the nearly infinite and the very finite. With millions of “analysts” and internet commenters out there, we’re potentially talking about millions of possible opinions. Whereas most teams only have a handful of coaches, and therefore a limited number of viewpoints. Nonetheless, the point remains that among those millions of opinions you’ll frequently find instances in which an outsider (or several) with no access to the inner workings of the team makes the “right” call on the use of a player long before the coaches finally get around to doing so. It happens – and probably far more often than those who admonish against the questioning of coaches “because they clearly know more than we do” would like to acknowledge.
And, finally, you make an excellent point when you say "there could be three possible ‘right’ decisions, with no real way to distinguish which one is ‘righter.’ " And I suppose – at the end of the day – that expresses my larger point far more elegantly than the cumbersome, ham-handed arguments that I offered. Point being that no matter how thorough a coach’s knowledge of his sport; or how brilliant his use of personnel and/or his gameplans may be, there’s often a viable alternative (or perhaps even better) approach that could be used. Which, of course, opens up the door for lots of healthy debate and – gasp – the impertinent questioning the sagacity of the magi who dwell in the inner circle. But, hey, wasn’t the Internet invented for just that very purpose?
Nice post
I liked this one.
Whereas most teams only have a handful of coaches, and therefore a limited number of viewpoints. Nonetheless, the point remains that among those millions of opinions you’ll frequently find instances in which an outsider (or several) with no access to the inner workings of the team makes the "right" call on the use of a player long before the coaches finally get around to doing so.
This is guaranteed. Because somewhere out there in the blogiverse, there can be found commenters who have declaimed authoritatively on the proper usage of Jerryd Bayless, and covered probably every possible theoretical usage of Jerryd. So somebody has nailed the right one precisely. :)
The difficulty is sorting through the millions of opinions to find the right one, or “righter” one.
Now, I love your last paragraph, because ultimately, that is a big part of fandom. Yes, we just enjoy the beauty of a game well played, but we also enjoy thinking about the game. And there are so many right and sort of right and sort of wrong and wrong decisions to be made, over and over again.
And it isn’t just the rightness or wrongness of a decision, but the importance of that decision, that has to be called into question. I know you aren’t watching that closely, but I think Nate made a decision that cost us the Denver game. Rudy was on fire and torching the Nugs in the second half, so Nate went with Rudy and Brandon on the wings, and took Martell out in the fourth.
Webster had been doing a superb defensive job on Anthony, but he was hot, and had 22 points after 3. He destroyed Roy for 19 points in the fourth, finishing with 41, and we lose by 3.
Now, Nate made the indisputably correct decision from an offensive perspective. And most fans, at least, would agree that he made the indisputably wrong decision from a defensive perspective.
Which is most important? Well, I think in this game the defensive perspective was more important, because Melo torches us for 19 in the quarter and we lost. So Nate blew it. I’m sure of it.
Except that if he had kept Martell in and taken Rudy out, we might have struggled to score. And if we had, and lost, everyone would have proclaimed how stupid Nate was to not go with the hot hand. Offense would have obviously been more important, and if Nate had taken Rudy out, that would have been really blowing it. I’m sure of it.
The other option was to leave Roy sitting in the fourth. The fans would have liked that even more.
Every decision was both right and wrong. So you have to weight those decisions.
The whole discussion of the game, the whole question of coaching, roster building, fandom in general, any kind of basketball analysis, comes down to not only right and wrong, but proper weighting of the importance of each right and wrong.
Any reasonable basketball mind can see that Travis isn’t the world’s best rebounder. How important is that in the overall scheme? People legitimately disagree on the importance.
Any reasonable analyst could see progress in his rebounding and defense before he went down. How much progress? People can legitimately disagree.
So all this is a really long-winded way of saying that multiple rights and wrongs is only part of the beauty of discussing sports — another part of it is that we have legitimately differing views on how much each particular right/wrong matters.
I have trotted out the “Nate knows more” line, on occasion. I believe it is appropriate when someone says, “Nate is stupid, doesn’t he see?” In response to that, I will use it to encourage a little humility that maybe he sees things the poster doesn’t see.
I’ve used the “KP knows more” line in regard to not drafting Blair. Why? Because Ben cryptically posted that he had “rock solid” information that, even if there were no questions about Blair’s knees, he was not under consideration by the Blazers. That tells me they had information that convinced them he was not a viable member of this team.
I don’t know that information, nor does anyone who criticizes the decision on this forum — and we know it is out there. It is foolish, IMO, to criticize a decision when you know full well that you don’t have all the facts about it. It is one thing to criticize when you think you have all the facts, even if you don’t. That’s just a mistake. But when you know there is something out there, and you criticize anyway, to me that is foolish.
Anyway, I’ve banged on much too long, as is my bad habit. Thanks for the thoughtful comment, as always.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Well put, Sir Scot.
I find that my “Fan experience” has been greatly enriched because of the discussions I have here. I enjoy reading the thoughts and arguments of other fans and enjoy the opportunity to put my own ideas forward. Over time, I think I am developing a better understanding of the game and that makes watching it played far more entertaining.
by upper left corner on Nov 17, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions
I agree
I’m arrogant enough to think I knew basketball pretty well before I started reading Bedge. :)
But I’ve learned a lot here. And I’ve enjoyed the community, which is a real community made up of diverse people with differing views who (for the most part) enjoy the differences as well as the agreements.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Nate is stubborn
and he sticks with folks, which is usually good, but sometimes means that he takes longer than others to make a change that some might see as obvious. But he does make a change eventually if it makes sense. We certainly can’t argue with the results so far. I personally believe that he will eventually start Rudy at the 2 and bring Blake off the bench, but it may take him awhile to make that sort of decision, particularly if we keep doing so well. I guess the key question is how much it really matters, when the difference between 3rd most minutes and 8th most minutes per game is less than 8 minutes. (Blake is 3rd at 28.2 and Rudy is 8th at 20.4.) We’re not talking major roster contortions here, particularly when Roy, LA, GO and Miller are the heavy lifters.
Oops again.
I seem to be completely incapable of hitting the reply button when I respond to the bottom comment on the page. Comment below was intended for you.
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
You are probably right
…I commented above that,
I suspect Blake is Nate and Roy’s “Linus Blankey.” They know it is time to grow up but it is hard to let go.
I do think it matters on defense, and I think reduced minutes are affecting Rudy and Martell’s ability to find a rhythm.
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 9:11 AM PST reply actions
One thing I've noticed
is Blake moves very well without the ball. He is active and always moving to the spot. This off-ball movement forces the D to keep somewhat honest and I think has created some of the flow Nate was hoping for. It’s really hard for me to moan about Blake’s time when the team is winning and I’m on my first cup of coffee.
Second, Bayless’ PER #s or whatever statistic he has to show for himself can get tossed out the window like a cup of microwaved left-over coffee. His stats are artificial because Nate is maximizing what he can bring by playing him in brief early stints. No way Bayless wrests away Blake’s minutes. That’s not even debatable in my playbook.
Rudy and Webster could and maybe should get a deserving eye. After all, they do fit the 2 guard role more traditionally speaking then does Blake. But then again, wouldn’t the argument be against what is working?
My guess is Nate is trying to soften the impact of Blake eventually becoming the back-up point guard. Nate’s sense of loyalty is strong, and frankly I don’t think Andre came in here and just overwhelmingly clinched the starting role. But what seems apparent enough is Andre is going to start and you can’t go with Blake long term starting at the 2. Once the teams start playing some teams with legit big backcourts, Blake gets exposed.
Blake’s a great guy. Let’s cut him some slack. The team is winning. Everything always comes out in the wash. Go Trail Blazers!
Dogs have Owners, Cats have Staff.
by bow4meow on Nov 14, 2009 9:56 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
this pretty much sums up my thoughts...
I’ve been pleasantly surprised as how active Blake’s been without the ball.
I'll debate it anyway
Second, Bayless’ PER #s or whatever statistic he has to show for himself can get tossed out the window like a cup of microwaved left-over coffee. His stats are artificial because Nate is maximizing what he can bring by playing him in brief early stints. No way Bayless wrests away Blake’s minutes. That’s not even debatable in my playbook.
Three points:
1) As long as Nate keeps both Miller and Blake in the starting line-up, Bayless will likely get second-unit PG minutes by default.
2) If Steve comes out of the starting unit, you need to think about his fit with Rudy and/or Martell, Trout, and Pryz in the second unit. To me, Bayless’ penetration is a very good fit with a second unit that is long on shooters and short on penetrators.
3) How long will you and others discount Bayless’ improvement? Ten games, twenty games, half a season? Seriously, I realize that the numbers are very limited and are likely to regress to the mean over time and with better competition. Having said that, it amazes me that people are willing to wave off what Bayless is accomplishing with the wave of a hand. At the moment, Bayless is one of the teams four most productive players. Sending him to the bench when he is producing like that seems either stubborn or stupid. You do not sit a guy with a PER of over 20, for a guy with a PER of less than 10. This isn’t rocket science, but it is math 101. I am not arguing that Bayless should be starting or playing over 15 minutes a game. He isn’t ready, yet. But he is indisputably the teams most improved player to date, that improvement should be carefully nurtured not dismissed.
Bayless has a chance to become the answer to the team’s greatest long term roster question. As long as he shows improvement, Nate and KP should try to ride that development as far as they can.
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
friendly debate?
Counter-point 1) Bayless is getting some 2nd unit minutes, but Nate is also restricting those minutes in what seems to me an way to exploit his strengths in a short time on the floor. I see a point of diminishing returns the longer Bayless is on the floor. Maybe true, maybe not, its only perspective.
Counterpoint 2) I think Steve has the experience and skill set to mesh with about any type of unit. He’s not great at anything but does alot of things well. I just can’t see Blake and Miller co-existing long term both as starters. Unless there a trade to thin the herd, Blake is going to trump Bayless time on floor as back-up. I wouldn’t suggest Bayless doesn’t bring some good things to the floor with that 2nd unit, but if it comes down to Blake and Bayless for those minutes I think Nate is going to opt for Blake 95% of the time.
Counterpoint 3) If you are pointing the finger in my direction as to discounting Bayless’ improvement it’s misdirected. I have been a Bayless doubter for the most part, but this season I’ve eased up on him because he is starting to show improvement. I’ve even gone so far as to say there are some things about Bayless game I like, especially how hard he plays defense. Bayless has also made strides in learning what works in the NBA. He’s avoiding some of the mistakes he made last year, notably not attacking the hole against guys who stuff the ball down his throat time and time again. I’m not waving Bayless off, but still think he has a long way to go. If that’s stupid and/or stubborn so be it. I also wouldn’t say he is the most improved Trail Blazer— I give that distinction to Greg Oden, which in and of itself does not discount Bayless’ improvement.
In conclusion, I still don’t see Bayless as the answer to the teams desperate need to eventually upgrade at the point. Certainly the team should do all they can to develop him and ride that wave as long as possible.
We cool, right up?
Dogs have Owners, Cats have Staff.
by bow4meow on Nov 14, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
As long as Nate keeps both Miller and Blake in the starting line-up, Bayless will likely get second-unit PG minutes by default.
Not necessarily. As we saw against the Hornets when Bayless was hurt, Nate can sub Rudy “early” for Miller in the 1st/3rd and bring ’Dre back in to run the PG with the “white” unit. In this way, Nate can eat his cake and have it, too. As a starter, Andre gets Greg involved at the outset of each half, then when Greg (inevitably) picks up his 2nd foul, Miller joins him on the bench. Later on, Andre returns to run the bench unit—which is exactly what Nate planned, from the beginning of camp.
Jerryd might get back into the “rotation” depending on how sore his ankle is, but Rex’ minutes are not absolutely critical. He’s good at bringing energy off the bench, but his PT can be “overlapped” easily by playing Miller and Rudy for more minutes together
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I don’t think Andre came in here and just overwhelmingly clinched the starting role
Yes, he has. No, Miller is not the prototypical PG who shots well and plays sidekick to Roy. But Andre has gotten Oden more involved in the offense and that was the main point of signing him in the first place. There were times in the Charlotte game where the team needed a basket or FTs and Dre showed that he can manufacture those, with baseline/post moves. He can also push the ball and finish in the lane, which Blake cannot do. Miller is “in”
And any talk about #24 being signed as an “asset” to trade later should be put to bed, along with Linus’ blanket…
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I think he meant pre-season and early games in regular season
Miller looks to be getting in better shape as the season progresses. He looked like an 35 year old who just got out of bed for most of the preseason. I agree he is better than Blake but I don’t think he showed that overwhelmingly early on.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
they both played bad in the preseason, but Roy said he was comfortable with Steve
as soon as Greg was named to the starting 5, I knew he’d need Miller “in there” with him
2-3 before the lineup change
6-0 after, and with a Oden who finally looks like a #1 draft choice
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
They are also 6-0 with Blake in the starting line up
My thinking on Miller has always been he would be the eventual starter because he is better than Blake but in my opinion he didn’t come in and rip it out of Blake’s hands. Blake had history with Nate that a bad preseason (when no unit played that well until the final preseason game) couldn’t wipe out. Whatever the stats were in the preseason, Miller looked slow and disinterested. All it took was for him to play himself into shape and play a few games with the team and he is looking like a better fit. Nate thought he could keep a flow going from last year and maybe with Batum there would have been more continuity but they have now made adjustments and are on a good path.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
No. Blake has started every game. They are 8-3 with Blake in the starting line-up....
……they are 6-0 with Miller at the helm.
Big difference in terms of what it implies about why they are winning.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I realized that as soon as I hit post, but I had to run...
my wording should have been that Blake has been a part of that 6-0 starting unit along with Miller. That was my point.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
no unit played that well until the final preseason game
Miller-Roy-Oden went on a 24-6 run against Denver in the 4th quarter, to turn that game around (Oden’s preseason “monster mash”) That’s why I said, Greg needs Andre in there, as much as Brandon “needs” Steve
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Good point...
I was on vacation for that game and it didn’t stick in my mind like the others I attended and followed more closely. I guess all I am trying to say is that neither player grabbed a hold of it and wouldn’t let go so Blake kept his spot. I didn’t have a problem with that as I assumed Miller would play himself into shape and force Nate’s hand before too long.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Yeah, the biggest thing that Andre Miller brings to the table is he's a true floor general who ...
can set the table by distributing to big Greg Oden. Without Miller in the starting lineup, the main offensive players (i.e., Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) didn’t defer enough to Oden. Now, though, that’s changed for the team’s overall betterment.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Blake's defence is good
It’s not just his offensive ball movement but also his defensive. Blake has essentially shut down the perimeter game since the move to put Miller in the line-up. BRoy, Miller, and Blake have completely shut down the corner threes that were killing them in games earlier the season by being smart off-the-ball
One of the reasons so many fans don’t like Blake’s game is that they see most of their games on the TV. When Blake gets burned, its often one-on-one, but as a perimeter defender he’s great. The strategy of defending the perimeter, allowing the towers to guard against the easy lay-up, and forcing teams into taking long jumpers, is making the Blazers one of the best teams in the league. I watch a lot of home games from my, err, high upper deck seats, and I’m always amazed at what Blake does off-the-ball.
most fans appreciate team defense like they notice offensive linemen in football
I made this comparison the other day, but it’s even better on a NFL Sunday afternoon
Blake, Miller and Roy have the BBIQ to work well as a unit. They have each other’s back, and will communicate (and rotate over quickly) to cover for each other’s weaknesses. Everyone notices when an NFL offensive lineman gets beat, or gets called for a holding penalty. But without those 5 guys working as a unit, the ball doesn’t get moved down the field. If Steve was “replaced” in the starting lineup by Martell or Rudy, sure there would be better size, or athleticism—but there would also be more mistakes and break downs.
As long as Brandon can “hold up” guarding SFs, nate should ride the unit that has the winning streak and the top 3 defensive rating (with a lot of help from the big guys in the middle, of course)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
But you could argue the number one reason for the winning streak is Miller starting.
Blake seems not to add a whole lot more. How many times last night did we see Blake dribble around and not do anything with the ball. Blake is starting to look like Sergio out there.
oh, there's no doubt that Andre is the man
but my point with Steve is that he doesn’t appear to be “adding” anything (until he hits the corner 3…) but when you check the +/- stats the team is up over 13 with Blake in the game, and currently only Oden has a better ratio.
Take Blake out and insert Webster in the starting lineup and things might “look” the same, but all of the sudden the opponent is getting easier baskets because Martell isn’t in the exact right place on help defense like Steve is…because #2 has years of experience and Marty is still learning the nuances of the NBA game
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Martell Webster has always been slow as a team/help defender. Webster's one-on-one ...
perimeter defense isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, either, as he lacks the lateral quickness and footspeed to stay in front of quicker 3s. That, folks, is exactly why the Nicolas Batum injury is so devastating to the starting lineup, as well as why I wish Ime Udoka was still here to be the Frenchman’s fill-in.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
I think it would be very difficult...
…to compare anything Blake does to Segio Garcia.
I don’t think anyone is saying Blake is the number one reason for the winning streak and a good case could be made for Miller being that number one reason. I just don’t think there is any reason, statistical or emotional, to change the rotation at this time.
No he is definetly not.
That is certainly for sure, just he can run around with the ball like Sergio did from time to time. You just dont see Andre doing that so much, or at least it seems he doesn’t. He is a much more efficient point guard than Steve Blake. I emphasize point guard because Steve can be quite good as a spot up guard who can still handle the ball.
There is one really telling comment.....
The team is winning. Everything always comes out in the wash.
If we were losing, I would totally understand the desire for a change. But the team is winning. I swear, sometimes it’s as if we are concerned with style points.
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Nov 15, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions
I think it was has something to do with winning games lately.
I mean, I’m no expert…. but…..
Life is hilarious.
by SolGoode on Nov 14, 2009 10:05 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Lousy competition
Thinking ahead is not a bad thing.
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
I'll just say this
When I watch the games, the team usually looks better with Blake on the court than they do with Rudy or Martell on the court.
Ball movement is better, off the ball movement is better. Why, I don’t know. It certainly isn’t anything that Blake is doing in the statistical department, but it’s just happening.
I hope we can get that with other guys out there, because they bring a lot that Blake doesn’t bring, but right now I’m not seeing it.
Also, I think bow4meow’s comment about Bayless’ stats is really astute. His stats are great because Nate is using him in limited stints that are geared for success for him. I do see his decision-making improving, and he is shooting better. But I also see Nate telling him, “This is your time, get out there, hustle your rear on defense, and make stuff happen offensively when you can.” And Jerryd isn’t forcing things as much as last year, either.
But I don’t see any way he would have the same production in longer minutes. And the opponents really can’t build a game plan around stopping him when he’s only coming in for 8-10 mpg — they have bigger concerns. Nate is taking advantage of that. His usage of Bayless in these games has been very shrewd, and is furthering his development as well.
I would love to see Rudy get at least 5 mpg of those going to Blake, though.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 10:37 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I am not arguing for a significantly bigger role for Bayless.
Primarily, I am talking about the starting five.
Secondarily, I am suggesting that Bayless has been highly effective in the role Nate has created for him and saying that it would be a mistake to mess with something that has been very productive.
I also am not arguing that Blake should loose all his minutes. Roughly speaking, I would like to see Blake playing about 15 minutes per game with Rudy and Martell splitting the extra minutes.
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, I understood your main point wasn't about Bayless
I also do not want to see his role diminished. Not that he should get the minutes he got in a blowout against Minny, but that he should get a regularly scheduled 5-10 mpg run where he comes in and does stuff. And hopefully he can earn more than that as the season goes along.
As to Blake, we’re on a similar page. I’d like to see it at 20 mpg, but that’s not exactly a big difference between us. My problem is that when I watch the games, the team looks better right now with Blake than with either of them, even though it doesn’t actually look like he’s doing a lot. I do think his defense has been quite a bit better in this three guard lineup than I expected, though. Surprisingly good, actually. These guys are playing good team defense together.
Rudy is a better player. I don’t have much doubt that Martell is, too. I hope we can get to where the team is as effective with one or both of them as it is with Blake, because they bring more to the table. But I also have to admit that I’m not seeing it. Neither looks entirely comfortable right now. Until they get into the team flow, it’s hard to complain about Blake getting the minutes. Maybe they need those minutes to get into the flow, of course. Hard to read.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 14, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
These guys are playing good team defense together.
I think this is the point that gets overlooked when folks make a statistical argument for removing Blake from the starting lineup. Portland lost their best perimeter defender when Batum went in for surgery. Nate basically had 2 options, he could swap Webster into the starting lineup, but that choice led to a 2-3 start to the season. Choice #2 was to get Miller into the “mix” at the beginning, and this did two things; 1) Andre got Oden the ball where he could score more easily, and 2) the three “smartest” Blazer players were out on the court at the beginning of each game. Miller, Blake and Roy are not good individual defenders like Nic, but they have the BBIQ to overcome their athletic deficiencies as a unit.
Once the starters tigtened down their defensive rotations and made fewer mistakes on team defense, the opponent’s shooting percentage went down—and yes I know, the teams they’ve played lately have been lousy at offense—but the point is: Nate was looking for a mix of players who would make the fewest mistakes and have the least amount of defensive and offensive breakdowns…and for the time being at least, that starting unit includes Blake, not Rudy or Martell
BTW, the best reason to remove Blake from the starting lineup is this: Roy is going to get physically worn down if he has to defend larger SFs on a night-to-night basis. Period. This is like 95% of the reason why the 3-guard lineup is a “bad” idea for the long haul, the other 5% is just a peripherary debate
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Completely agree with what jscot and two4 are saying. From what I’ve seen, the team defense with Blake in has been improved, and his spacing is good. I agree Webster and Rudy are better players, especially Rudy, but at the moment Blake seems to be making them a better team. I have no doubt this will change eventually.
Stats don’t lie, but they are subject to interpretation. Look at players like Marcus Camby, and even our own Nic Batum. Camby was an overrated defender because people loved his stats. Nic’s stat line barely registers a blip, but we all know how important he is to the Blazer’s success.
I'm on your bandwagon. Eating your nachos.
Agreed on all points
But hopefully Nic returns before the playoffs, and Brandon will be back to the 2. And hopefully we blow out enough teams that Brandon doesn’t have to play long minutes.
But this also may be the making of Brandon as a defender. Because Crash didn’t abuse him. Why? Because Brandon was working hard to deny him the ball in the positions he wanted to get it. If Brandon can carry that intensity over to defending 2s, he may get “worn down” but he’ll also shut down the opponent — and if Brandon gets tired, once Nic is back we’re deep again.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Maybe it has something to do with....
the fact that the Blazers have now won 5 games in a row after a pretty shaky start?.. Maybe because there is more to evaluating performance than PER?.. Maybe because despite past observations Steve is playing smart, solid team defense?..
This question has been asked as a Fanpost a few times before and it seems to have really one simple answer and one simple reason…
Because Nate is giving him the PT… and because we’re winning!..
Will people EVER stop taking shots at Steve Blake? I for one think a Fanpost just to take sarcastic jabs at a quality guy like Blake is tacky… But then again maybe I am being “snarky”. I thought Fanposts were for exploring new ideas and viewpoints… This is as far from being new as they come!
GO BLAZERS!!!…
by Ilikeemall on Nov 14, 2009 11:07 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Is it tacky to put up the stats?
I agree it would be “tacky” to insult Steve, that wasn’t the reason for my post. In case you missed it, my OP gave Blake the credit he deserves for the team’s success the past two seasons.
Having said that, the stats don’t lie. They demonstrate that Steve has been far less effective this year than last.
I think it is legitimate to ask why Nate is not living by his own stated policy. Do you think Steve’s performance is not a fair topic for discussion?
by upper left corner on Nov 14, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Don't mind the topic
but stats do lie. They never tell the whole story. I think they can be used to help evaluate what is going on but they can’t be used to make the point you are trying to make about Blake. Blake is playing well this year and whatever stats you have used to show he isn’t doesn’t ring true because he has helped this team tremendously so far. He knows where to be on the court to make other players better. Rudy has this ability but this year he has been mostly a one-on-one player that makes an incredible pass once or twice a game. Webster still doesn’t quite have the feel of the offense that Blake does.
Whether this combination of starters will continue to work against better teams is debatable but the fact that it has worked is not. To be incredulous about why a coach would stick with a line up that is working seems like a stretch to me.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Nov 14, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
In my opinion... Yes...
Your post is tacky and wore out.
Adding…
Blake is a solid player and he has played a significant role in the teams success over the past two seasons.
To your otherwise admittedly “snarky” and “provocative” post doesn’t change its meaning. Your selective use of statistics is just a thin veil of disguise for yet another in a long line of “Why is Blake playing in front of player XYZ” post.
The reason he’s playing goes beyond your stats or dislike of him. He’s playing because he fits and they are winning.
I appreciate your right to make observations but reserve my right to disagree.
GO BLAZERS!!!
Sounds like my OP hit a nerve.....
……Sorry if I caused your blood pressure to spike.
Seriously, I think my post was a legitimate effort to to bring up a legitimate point. Nate has a publicly stated policy regarding playing time. I don’t think he is living by his own policy. I think that is a legitimate point for discussion.
Blake is a great guy, a solid player, and he has played a significant role in the teams success over the past two seasons. He deserves acknowledgement and respect for his contribution. If my efforts to make my Fanpost entertaining crossed the line, then I will apologize and/or clarify that no disrespect was intended.
Having said that, I do think it is indisputable that Steve’s production has fallen off significantly this season. His shooting is off, his assists are down, his turnovers are up. This is not an accusation it is an observation of statistically documented fact. As of last night’s game, Blake’s PER has gone from last season’s career high of 14.4 to its current level of 9.1. This is the most significant decline of any player on the team, and suggests that changing Blake’s role should at least be a topic for discussion.
I don’t think my use of stats was at all selective. I used PER, shooting %, assist rate, turnover rate, rebounds. What do you think I should have included?
You certainly have a right to a different opinion, but you do not have a right to a different set of facts. We are all fans, and we all want to see the team do well. I am just trying to add to the discussion.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions
I think Jscot and Two4 offered legitimate reasons as to why Nate may think Blake is earning his minutes. I’m interested in your thoughts on the spacing and team defense, as they seem like intangibles that won’t really show up in the stats.
I'm on your bandwagon. Eating your nachos.
I appreciate the thoughtful response and your attempt to move the discussion forward
I think Jscot and Two4 make a logical, coherent argument. It is really the only argument that can be made in the face of the rather overwhelming statistical evidence that Steve is getting more minutes than warranted by his production.
My first response is to want to go over to 82 games and look at some of the stats on various line-ups. Perhaps they are right, if so it should show that a better +/- when Blake is with the others starters than when Rudy or Martell are on the floor. Unfortunately I have a family obligation and don’t have time to look up the stats right now. Maybe somebody else can or I will try later.
Rudy and Martell are roughly equivalent to Blake as perimeter shooters. All three guys are proven commodities, but all have struggled a bit in the early going this season. I find it hard to see why Blake would do a significantly better job of spacing the floor than the other two, but it is possible.
Blake, IMHO, is a very mediocre one-on-one defender, but I do acknowledge that he is a pretty good help defender. He is smart and he has quick hands. On the other hand, both Rudy and Martell have better defensive ratings and both guys are better rebounders.
Again, thanks for trying to move the discussion in a substantive way rather than just calling names.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
The team is +13.3 with Blake in the lineup, and only +.9 without him
only Oden is better (+15.5)
(credit to Blazer Guy, his “…Blake all wrong” fanpost is over on the sidebar >>>)
Who knew? I guess Nate and the coaches “knew” eh?
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
ha, we’re judging Blake based on this kind of sample size? Raw +/- is so incredibly fickle.
Blake is playing minutes with Oden and Roy. He is very, very rarely on the court without Roy.
No wonder his unadjusted +/- is high.
i cry for nic
Then how is his +/- higher then Roy's?..
PER used in this post is a pretty “fickle” measurement also. As far as that goes it appears to me all the statistical catagories used in this post are directly effected by the fact that Steve is no longer really the PG but a SG. Is it really a damning statement that Blake…at his size… averages only 0.8 less rebounds then Martell Webster per 36min. and only 1.1 less then Brandon?
The only stat that is not subjective is wins and losses… 6-0 since the change to this line up…no matter the competition… is the only thing that matters to me.
His +/- is higher than Roy’s because we have a very small sample size to analyze. if you want to judge Blake by +/-, look at the entire year of data we have from last year. He is not one of the Blazers that ranks highly by adjusted +/-.
Statistics are not subjective. By definition, they are objective.
Also, we are 6-0 with Andre at the point. Can you argue that Blake is a better shooting guard than Rudy? i can’t imagine how that argument would go.
Steve has a TRB% of 5.4. this is far below Roy, Rudy, etc. 5.4 from the shooting guard position is bad.
i cry for nic
I'd say the best argument for this is that, yes, Steve Blake has made a ...
positive impact thus far this season concerning +/- — on both sides of the ball — for the Portland Trail Blazers. Yet, as is indicated by Blake’s past performance, this trend is unlikely to continue as the season progresses onward.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
I agree that this is a small sample size and Steve Blake's +/- on both offense ...
and defense will drop as the season progresses, although thus far this season he’s made a difference with spacing and rotations. Now, with that said, I’m ready to pull the plug on this three-guard lineup nonsense immediately, especially with the Atlanta Hawks coming up on the docket. Just like how I predict Jerryd Bayless’ overblown PER will dwindle over time, Blake’s astronomical +/- numbers will also soon fall back to earth.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Ok, let's look at Blake with a larger sample size, like all of last season.
He played very well, while injured for most of the year. If his performance is down this year, maybe it’s because he isn’t in the same role this year. It’s hard to get into your flow when the team has a new guy they want to give half your minutes to. Even in the three guard lineup Blake is playing a different role than before. He has to get used to that, and still has to wonder when he will lose his spot, since the lineup might not last. His shot will likely start to fall, and then he will lock down a good bit of playing time much to the chagrin of all the haters, and as last year, he will do all the little things that help the team win. You see, the coach hasn’t forgotten about the 54 wins last year, and what Blake can do, even if the selective memories of Blake haters have erased everything other than the rare occasions when he turned the ball over, or missed a shot last year.
Also Miller hasn’t proven a whole lot yet, we’ve only played an old Spurs team we would have beaten anyway, and a bunch of scrub teams we would have beaten anyway so far. I can’t believe we beat the T-wolves, Hornets, Grizz, and Bobcats!!! We already knew Miller was a very good player, but the jury is still out on if he can take this team to a “next level” over last year. He is also the beneficiary of an in-shape, improved Oden, that did not exist last year.
The claim that Steve Blake helps with offensive spacing and team defense have shown ...
up so far this season in +/- statistical metrics. So, yeah, the stats do seem to verify that point.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
You can call it anything you like...
…but I call it beating a dead horse!.. This has been discussed and discussed… and discussed!
Nothing is gained, there is no insight to this and apparently the fact that Steve’s role has changed significantly means nothing to you but specific stats do. The fact that the Blazers are winning, have great spacing and ball movement and greatly improved team defense is of less importance to you then pointing out slight and in my opinion insignificant drops in specific statistical catagories.
No matter how many obligatory,“Blake’s a quality guy” lines you throw out there this is still just another bashing of Steve Blake.
As far as stats I would suggest be used… I’m going to go with WINS and LOSSES.
GO BLAZERS!!!… Hang in there #25
Wow. Speaking of tacky....
I think your response leaves a lot to be desired.
I wrote what I thought was a pretty conciliatory response to a very negative and aggressive comment from you. Now, you respond with more aggression and negativity. It must be tough going through life being so grumpy…..
As best I can recall, there has been exactly one fan post whose main topic was Blake in the past month. That post was during the pre-season and was much more extreme than my post. My post is full of actual stats based on actual play. You may not like the arguments or the stats but the fact that it made the Rec’ed Fanpost list in under an hour suggests that others found it reasonably worthy.
Rather than hurling accusations and dismissing the “worthiness” of the topic, try actually marshaling some facts and arguments to bolster your point of view. It is called a discussion.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
So the fact that we're winning isn't sufficient?
Discussion means disagreement and differing opinions. I disagree with your assessment of Steve Blake. It seems to me that you “hurling accusations” at a valuable member of the team I love is ok but me defending him isn’t. I also feel like that, to you, me not jumping on your bandwagon makes me “Grumpy” (thanks for your commentary on the unhappines of my life… nice touch from a guy who claims to be conciliatory).
I can’t quote the actual count of how many “Why is Steve Blake getting so many minutes” posts but suffice it to say that just one in pre-season is highly inaccurate. The fact that you are on a Rec’d list makes no change to my opinion. Those Rec’s undoubtably come from those same people who have made this a redundant post in my opinion.
I have no further desire to discuss this with you. If what you got from my responses to you was aggression and negativity then even though I think you are being a little sensitive I apologize.
What I do not apologize for is my belief that this subject is wore out. Results will determine who plays and who doesn’t and right now…We’re winning.
Monty says...
Man:
An argument isn’t just contradiction.
Other Man:
Well! it CAN be!
Man:
No it can’t!
Man:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Other Man:
No it isn’t!
by Visionary2 on Nov 15, 2009 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Lets try going through this logically:
1) My title is a question rather than a statement. I chose that format for a reason. I am not stating “Blake sucks and should never play,” nor am I saying “Blake sucks and should be traded.” My post basically says, “hey, everybody Blake’s individual stats aren’t very good so far this season. Why do you think he is playing anyway?” My post was an invitation to a discussion.
2) My post did not hurl accusations, it cited statistics on a pretty broad range of measures.
3) My post suggested that Nate is not living up to his own policy. Nate is the one who established the policy. I think it happens to be a good one.
4) Blake has been in the starting line-up all season. He was in when we were 2-3. What has changed is that Miller is starting and the quality of the competition has been much lower. Saying “we are winning,” is an argument, but until you make some connection between the winning and Blake being on the floor, it is not a very strong argument, in my opinion.
5) While you were busy calling me “tacky” and asserting that I was “beating a dead horse,” and otherwise busy saying I was a bad guy for bringing up this topic of discussion, others have been making some pretty strong arguments one your side of the discussion. Most have involved around +/- stats while Blake is on the floor. These stats are notoriously fickle given small sample sizes so these arguments are by no means definitive, but they are suggestive. Perhaps Blake is helping the team in intangible ways that are not showing up in his individual stats. It is by no means certain, but it is possible.
Personally, I think discussing the teams performance and debating ways it might be improved is the main value of a place like BE. I think this Fanpost has generated a fair amount lot of thoughtful discussion and actually shed a bit of light on my original question.
People on both sides of the discussion would be well advised to keep an open mind. Blake has been struggling, if that continues people on your side of the discussion should admit that his role may need to be reexamined. On the other hand, it is possible that Blake’s lousy stats are just a result of a slow start and will pick -up with more play. It is also possible that Blake is contributing in intangible ways. We should all keep our eyes on this issue and be willing to discuss it further as the season progresses.
by upper left corner on Nov 16, 2009 7:52 AM PST up reply actions
For me personally...
This particular post wasn’t as much the content as the presentation. While I did call your post tacky and beating a dead horse my intention was never to say you’re a “bad person” and I apologize if that’s the message I sent.
To your points…
1) and 2)… My issue with this format… and I think even you see it… is that it seems sarcastic and accusatory. If the information you researched would have been presented without bias it would have reached a more open audience, at least in my case. It also offered no counter point or remedy which played more to the accusatory feeling. As it was it felt more like an invitation to defend Steve Blake or pile on him then to discuss.
3) I’m an obvious homer… As long as we win I don’t care how many of Nate’s own policies he breaks… But I understand your point.
4) What changed can be looked at as Miller got the start or that this group of 5 guys got the start. I think it is far past the time to choose sides with Blake and Miller. They are both Blazers and I love’s me some Blazers… This isn’t about which one is the better point guard or who’s right or wrong anymore. It’s about putting the best 5 man unit on the floor. Right now… I think we are doing that.
5) I already touched on this above but none of this is personal to me… In fact by nature it can’t be as I don’t know you and you don’t know me. I stand by my assertion that the way this was presented seemed tacky to me and that this dead horse has been beaten enough. It is quite possible / probable that I should have kept that feeling to myself just like you should have kept the accusation of me being a Grouch to yourself.
My eyes are wide open but I choose to consciously wear the Rose Colored Glasses and Drink the KoolAide. There are enough REAL WORLD problems to worry about on a day to day basis. I wait and worry about Blazer problems when they happen…not when I see that they might happen. Wrong or right that’s how I do it.
Agreeing to disagree is ok and I respect that you are a passionate fan just like I am… The one thing we can always agree on is…
GO BLAZERS!!!..
Yes, and it counts !!!
They have minimal understanding of team player, not to
mention your .275 career hitting 2B starting the season off
hitting .230 for the first 20 games. He’s still turning the double play,
drawing the walk/getting on base and scoring runs while he works
on his stroke. A month later, he’s hitting his usual .275 !
Go Blakey !!
It's GO time !
*sigh*
It’s terribly tacky and disrespectful to a guy who’s as selfless as they come. And the moderators encourage it. Annoying.
Because he's racist
He once got some lukewarm gazpacho at a Spanish restaurant and has it in for the Spaniards ever since.
Jokes aside, Blake does a good job of spacing the weakside and moving the ball. I already made my speculations why at another Blazer fan site (http://www.clubblazers.com/blazers-discussion/theory-behind-the-lineup-t2822.html) so I won’t go into details here. But, I believe when Roy becomes more adapt at his new roles with Oden in the starting lineup, Blake will be phased out of the lineup.
I cannot wait until Martell or Rudy gets the start over Blake
You won.
by Roybot on Nov 11, 2009 1:41 AM PST
by Magnum on Nov 14, 2009 11:58 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
On purely aesthetic grounds...
I’m ready to stop seeing Blake play. Completely. His offense game, in particular, is not pretty. The pump-fake then dribble around without attacking the basket is particularly boring to watch. It’s a sorta bad basketball opposite of Outlaw’s forced, contested jumper.
Why is he playing? I do think he contributes to ball movement and spacing on offense… I also think his defense against PGs has been the most reliable of any of the current Blazers. Even if Miller and Bayless have more defensive potential, Blake gives a more consistent and/or professional effort. Reliable defensive statistics are hard to come by, so that’s primarily my impression (though opponent PER and defensive rating point in that direction). Most importantly, however, I don’t think coaches tend to or should make playing decision based on statistics that cover a 9 game stretch.
My guess
Is that Rudy lately has been playing frantic and for every good thing he does, he does something stupid. Webster has also been inconsistent and Bayless right now is a one trick pony.
Also if Rudy isn’t making a neat pass, then the ball stops in his hands, Webster’s hands, and Jaybaybay’s hands.
Ball movement and player movement.
by tominhawaii on Nov 14, 2009 1:51 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
My prediction
There will be a move before Batum gets back, as of right now I would not be suprised if it involved Trout, Blake, Martell, Rudy or Bayless I think any of these 5 could easiliy be had for the right price.
Trade players for picks and draft Cole Aldrich 2010
There was a chance of that before Travis got hurt, but not now
Like coach Dale said in Hoosiers “this is your team”
It’s time to circle the wagons, the natives have crested the hill on horseback and they grossly outnumber the wagon train pioneers…fortunately, we’ve still got a few crack shots with repeater rifles
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I'm not a Blake hater, he does what is asked of him, he's steady and can shoot the three
those are good things to have. But it’s perfectly clear now why the Blazers never became a running team. Blake will not push it on the break when it’s even slightly contested. He just pulls up. No penetrate and kick or look for the trailer or give an go. Nothing. Ever. He stops and holds the ball. If you never want any fast break points, and your first priority is to minimize mistakes and run a set offense, Blake is a good ballplayer. If you want to d something else, you need someone else
Steve can still throw the kick ahead lob-pass
he did it again tonight, when LMA got behind the defense
re: your other points I agree. Blake acts like a guy who got his shot blocked a lot, in high school. When he gets into the lane he almost never challenges the basket area. It is very frustrating, but he does take good care of the ball, and that’s something that Nate values highly
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
it is rediculous
Nates allegence to blake is commendable, but not necassarily warrented, blake needs to play about 20 min a game. How the minutes should be distributed…
MILLER- 32 blake-17 bayless- 6
ROY- 35 rudy- 26
WEBSTER-15 Outlaw-26
LMA- 35
Oden- 30 Pryzbilla- 18
is anybody forgeting
that we are riding a six game winning streak and tied for second place in the NBA?
Sure the real test will be Atlanta, but seems like people are acting like we need to blow the team up.
Somebody may be saying that, but it wasn't me
I am talking about reducing Blake from 28 minutes to about 15. That is not a huge change, but warranted for defensive purposes and justified by Blake’s reduced productivity.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 7:21 AM PST up reply actions
Defensive purposes?..
First 5 games we gave up 93.2 pts. per game… Last 5 81.6 pts. per game… No proof even statistically that backs that up.
Steve’s not getting burned one on one… He’s rotating and closing out better then you’ll admit and he’s dropping in and rebounding as a guard better then a guy his size is expected to…
2-3 first 5 games… 6-0 since the change to this line up… It doesn’t matter to me why, how or what… The fact is it’s working.
No matter how “obvious” it is to you that Steve’s minutes should be divided up between Rudy, Martell and Bayless (which is what you said above… no mention of the 28min to
15 min thing) I’m afraid the results do not support your assertion.
Blake has started since the beginning of the season. Miller is the guy who came in 6 games ago.
Quality of opponents was also much different.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
The ingredients we have.
Oden, Bayless and Fernandez are second year players, and a 4th, Batum is out for another 3 months or so. Webster has yet to hit his starting form after a year off, and
Outlaw, whatever we feel about him, has never demonstrated that he can be a starter, in no small part because he is a “tweener”, meaning not really an SF, and nor really a PF. Right now our depth is at guard, as Roy, Miller and Blake are vets for which we substitute Fernandez and Bayless. Bayless, in turn, is the youngest player on the team, including this years draftee, Cunningham. As vets, the first team very likely plays better team defense, which is why they start. And, each can deliver the ball, and that alone prevents effective double teams. Because whether they take their own shot or create it, you have to keep a body on them.
Granted, Blake’s statistics haven’t been exactly stellar. However, Rudy seems to be off to a slow start, and Bayless is improving – but I still believe that Mac is deliberately bringing him along slowly by building his confidence by inserting him ito situations where he can be successful. He is, after all, still the youngest player. At this point, with Outlaw now likely out for 8 – 10 weeks, we’re likely to see more of Fernandez when the smaller wings are on the floor, and of Howard when the stronger PF’s are out there. In point of fact, I don’t know that we’ll lose that much – save that Outlaw creates mismatches whereas Rudy and Howard do not in the same way. We may also see more minutes for Cunningham, and I, for one, believe that the most likely reason Outlaw might be traded is if Cunningham can show that he brings many of the same skills to the table. Which I think he does.
It’s early, we’re now thin at the wing because Webster’s not yet 100%, Batum’s out, and Outlaw, who crosses over between the 3 &4 is also injured. In my book we’ll continue to see Blake, Roy and Miller in combination with the twin towers for awhile yet.
Part of Blake’s stats are also likely due to the change in roles that we see. Miller and Roy are both effective at delivering the ball, and this puts Blake more into the role of shooter, than of deliverer, which he has yet to fully adapt to.
Some comment on the future PG, but we also know that we’re talking a combo guard, not necessarily a classic PG given Roy. Perhaps either Bayless or Fernandez can eventually fill that role. Both seem to have some of the skills necessary, just not yet all of them. In the interim, Miller is proving to be a good man to fill the slot while we work with our younger players, and the Outlaw and Batum injuries will give the minutes to the younger players necessary for us to see if they can in fact be that future starter..
It’s still a work in progress, but a nice one. This rotation will change when Batum comes back – because he’s slated for a long career as a starter at the wing, and if and when Webster returns to form – to include improving his team defense. Until then, you bake a cake with the ingredients you have.
by Eben Calder on Nov 15, 2009 5:55 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Funny, I think your comment is one of the best in this thread, and yet, no one has responded.
I have to run now, but will try to respond later.
by upper left corner on Nov 15, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Good stuff, rec
I don’t really have a direct response to any of your excellent points, other than to repeat that the 3-guard starting lineup will only last as long as Roy is able to defend SFs, every game.
The “5th spot” in the starting lineup "debate’ is really Blake vs. Martell (who best “replaces” Batum in the corner) and right now Webster is struggling to relocate his game
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Batum in the corner is so last year.
We already know Nate wanted Batum to bring more offense and aggressiveness to the table this year. Martel started strong but is having trouble controlling the ball. Yes, Blake has no such problems. Perhaps Blake in a way is the only solution to Nates vision of three threats to create off the dribble in the starting unit. Although it can be argued Blake isnt much of a threat to drive to the hole….
spreading the court
if it isn’t Nic “in the corner” it will always be someone else—that’s a huge part of Nate’s offense. One of the reasons that Roy went to “talk” with KP last week was because he didn’t want to be “the” guy playing “SF” and always camped out in the corner. (FWIW, Rudy has voiced similar concerns, in the past) OTOH, Blake will accept that “corner” role in the starting lineup, even though he’s not a defensive SF.
The thing that most fans don’t realize is, Nate’s offense has interchangeable parts…they don’t refer to players as SGs or SFs at that end of the floor. Once a player knows the sets for the different roles, he can play the “2” and/or the “3” on offense—as long as he can hit the open shots that result from the ball movement. So, in effect, Blake has“replaced” Batum on offense. When he’s in the game with Miller and Roy, Steve is the “glue” guy who hits the open shot and swings the ball to the open man.
Of course, as soon as Andre leaves the game, Steve’s role changes—and that’s probably when you remember him pounding the ball. Some player-habits never change…but the good thing about Blake right now is his versatility, and his BBIQ. As long as Roy is fine guarding SFs and the team is having success, it will be “Blake in the corner, for three…”
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 15, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well I could live with Blake doing this.
But he needs to hit them, here’s hoping he finds and keeps his stroke. I always felt in the past that this is a waste for a player like Nic, who I’d like to see adapting Tayshaun’s offensive game as well as his defensive. We will just have to wait on that i know and I guess in the meantime live with Blake doing this. Still with Miller, Roy and Blake on the court you will let teams exploit you when they have to play D. I am somewhat surprised that they are doing as well as they have though? I would have guessed differently. Still none of those, with maybe the exception of Roy, can stay in front of their man on a consistent basis. Maybe why we see Oden picking up fouls more.
After all this debate...
I still don’t get it. The original post is by far the most concise, well-developed opinion backed up by statistics and logic.
Blake needs to see his minutes get distributed to Rudy, Bayless, and Webster. His skillset is still of value to the team, but for more like 15 minutes per game, not 30+.
I see the current starting lineup as similar to last year’s offenive system – works against mediocre teams, and easily game planned against when it really matters.
Why? 6-0 that's why.
If something is working, you go with it. Right now, Blake playing big minutes is working. He’s hitting timely 3-pointers and spreading the defense.
If the team starts losing, then you have some fine points. Until then, you ride the three-guard lineup.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
Record results based analysis = fail.
Past performance is in no way indicitive of future results.
by Free Bayless on Nov 15, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
That's why I say we bench Roy.
Him talking to the press expressing concerns about his role is distracting, and he’s selfish. And, there’s no indication that he’s any better than, say, Jerryd Bayless. Oh, except for past performance, but that’s not indicative of anything…
Wrong.
Past performance is the only reliable indicator of future results.
Everything else is just guesswork.
Is it perfect? Is it a guarantee? No.
It’s just better than any other method you can use.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
Actually...
Past performance is the only reliable indicator of future results.
Everything else is just guesswork.
Is it perfect? Is it a guarantee? No.
It’s just better than any other method you can use.
Portland Trail Blazers, Future World Champions 2010-2021.
Ok, let me elaborate.
Let me start: I meant to say that past results are not indicitive of future performance…I went dyslexic. Good results in the past are not necessarily a result of good skills, and bad results are not necessarily a result of bad skills.
I expected this kind of response…if anyone here has interests in the Mariners, check out ussmariner.com sometime. It can really expand one’s mind on analysis of valuing players.
Correlating lineups and playing time in the past with team wins is a dangerous mode of analysis. You can correlate things like “The Blazers are a .700 team with Terry Porter’s number retired!” They could have been winning in spite of Blake, not because of him (not what I think, just making a point.).
Analysis of the current abilities that contribute to the success of the team is what matters, and involves a lot of opinion. You can look at what players bring to the table statistically, but involving team wins can be a stretch. If Blake’s assets are shooting the 3 and being a good team leader guy, but not really passing, court vision, scoring in the lane, or defense, that skillset doesn’t point to 30+ minutes a game.
by Free Bayless on Nov 15, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Three guard lineup is fine
As long as Rudy is the third guard. In many ways he is like a taller Blake. They both bring floor spacing without having to have the ball in their hands much.
I like wins, but wins over broken teams do not tell me how we are going to do come May. We can put a number of sub-optimal lineups on the floor and still win against lesser competition. I guess if I beat up a junior high kid there can be nothing wrong with my fighting skills .
To Nates credit, he does eventually make good adjustments to help the team, and with Trout going down, there will be enough minutes for everyone to plainly see what are truly the best lineups. Should be fun to watch!
(On the flipside, Atlanta has improved so much that losing on their floor would hardly be an indictment of what we’ve been doing, either. Sounds like a few people are itching to jump on the other extreme)
by Sound_Automatic on Nov 15, 2009 12:28 PM PST reply actions
Blake’s +/- is 2nd to Roy.
If you use a per minute +/-, Oden and Blake lead the team with Roy a distant 3rd, and everyone else far behind them. Oden is far ahead of everyone in this stat.
With Blake and Miller playing together much of the time it seems Blake’s roll has changed somewhat. His shot is off a little, and since that’s about all he brings to the table with a shifted roll his PER is going to suffer. However, that being said, it’s hard at the present time to argue against the 3 guard rotation, which Blake is a part of. I think Miller is likely getting many of the assists that would go Blake’s way.
Romance me with that Roy rainbow shot which took flight from way beyond the arc and sailed so high that before it came back down to earth sealing the victory, it kissed the rafters and said "You're mine baby."
Stats don't lie, but don't indicate either.
You don’t get stats for setting up a particular play. Have you noticed how much Blake talks to the team during their defensive stretches? He’s a leader! Leaders don’t always have impressive stats. They can simply create an environment for success. Blake has done that for his players, hence 54 wins last season and a 7-3 start this season. Why do you think Juan Dixon was such a badass in college?
All that aside, I do think that Blake needs to do a better job of preventing the penetration to keep the big guys out of foul trouble.
by wheresBlazerBill on Nov 15, 2009 2:09 PM PST reply actions
Moot point now...
With Travis’ injury reducing our depth at the 3 AND 4, you’ll see more 3 guard lineup, not less. If you think about the players available to play the 1,2 or 3, and rank them, I get:
Roy, Dre, Rudy, Steve, , Martell, Bayless, Cunningham…
I’m not a big Steve guy, but as I think Nate believes Steve is playing better than the other three guys, Steve’s minutes won’t be going down anytime soon…
Bayless??? Are you serious?
This post is ridiculous. Bayless has been playing shooting guard, while Rudy has been doing the ball handling. He’s had very little playing time, mostly against terrible team’s bench units, so of course he has a better opportunity to keep his numbers up and TOs low. Expose him to real playing time against starting units, and his numbers will level off, and likely dip. Also let him handle the ball, and watch the TOs quickly rise. I know I’m being a bit dismissive of Bayless, who has improved, but using his numbers, is like using Joel’s shooting percentage, when he had 80% to say he is a better shooter than Blake. It’s apples to oranges. Blake is not shooting as well as we know he can right now, but shooters go through that. Even Ray Allen goes through slumps. Blake is also a better, smarter defender than Bayless, without a doubt.
Because the team is winning?
I’m not a Blake should be starting guy either but he’s a good player and as long as you’re winning why mess with it?
I do think that in a year or two Bayless could surpass Blake’s level. But not yet.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 16, 2009 9:48 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
You mess with it because...
regular season wins don’t mean anything. This year a first round exit is a failure. We want our team to build toward a championship.
Yes, the team is winning. They won last year with Blake playing a significant role. But the team was terrible on the road against quality western conference opposition.
It’s valid to question whether Blake playing extensive minutes is the best distribution of playing time as we build toward a playoff run this year and hopefully championship runs in the future.
Blake might be the answer. He might be good enough similar to Derek Fisher. But it is valid to continue to ask the question… over and over and over and over again ;)
- cough *
consolidation post
- cough *
by buck_goggles on Nov 16, 2009 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
