Maybe we've got Blake all wrong
by Blazer Guy on Nov 15, 2009 11:42 AM PST
Email
PrintI confess to being one of the people on this site who has been outspoken in opposition to the idea of keeping Steve Blake in the starting lineup. As others have pointed out, it is difficult to find a statistical category in which Blake's production has been anything but mediocre this year, and there are guys on the bench (Rudy, Martell) who would seem, at least on paper, to be better fits in the starting lineup. Blake's offensive production this year has left a lot to be desired and he's never been known to be a good defender. And let's face it, he has virtually none of the skill set of a traditional off-guard.
All that said, as I was watching the Charlotte game last night, a thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm completely wrong about Steve Blake. Maybe there just aren't good ways of measuring what he's bringing to the team right now. I noticed that, on offense, Blake moves without the ball really well. And though he isn't shooting particularly well right now, he's a good enough shooter that someone has to stick with him. And that creates confusion and opens up space for others to operate in. More importantly, though, as I watched the Blazers put on yet another top-notch defensive performance, it occurred to me that Blake may be doing things on defense that he's just not getting credit for. It's certainly true that in a pure man-to-man situation, Blake is no match for most quick or offensively-skilled guards. But the Blazers don't play a strict man-to-man defense most of the time. And with the hand-checking rule, hardly anyone can stay in front of quick guards. The key to a good NBA defense these days is having guys who understand the scheme and know which spaces to be in and which situations to switch off or help out. I realize that the level of competition lately hasn't been great, but it's still worth noting that the Blazers currently rank as the 3rd best defensive team in the league. And they're less than a point away from passing Boston. Given the amount of minutes Blake has been playing lately, he has to be a big part of that.
While plus/minus stats can be over-interpreted, it's worth noting that Blake currently has excellent on court/off court numbers. When he's in the game, the Blazers are +13.3 (per 48 minutes). When he's off, they're only +0.9. The only Blazer with better numbers is Greg Oden (+15.5 per 48). A lot of us wonder why McMillan is giving Blake so many minutes. As a defensive-minded coach, it might very well be that Nate sees Blake doing his job on defense more consistently than others.
This also may explain why McMillan moved to the three guard lineup and has stuck with it. When you're playing a zone or partial zone defense, it is generally more important that the perimeter guys get to the right spaces than that they make great individual defensive plays. The defensive scheme relies on filling lanes and providing timely help, not staying with your man one-on-one. In that set up, three guards may well do just as well as a traditional lineup.
Don't get me wrong. I think the jury is still very much out on the three-guard lineup and Blake's membership in the starting lineup (though with Travis' injury, Roy and Fernandez will have to play big minutes at SF). But based on the team's defensive performance lately, I'm at least re-examining my premises. It may be that Steve Blake is one of those players who contributes to the team's success in ways that just don't show up in the box score.
102 comments
|
21 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Of course Steve is a much bigger contributure than the box score indicates.
by prof.mike on Nov 15, 2009 11:53 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
it would be hard not to
bayless leaves over my dead body
thanks for starting Andre
by thomasikehara on Nov 15, 2009 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
Great Post!
Its good to see some folks admitting the 3 guard lineup is pimpin! Blake has been good this season, especially defensively. And he does contribute things that dont show up in the box score—you are so right. Blake isnt my favorite, and I still think he or Trav are the most likely to be traded, but there is no way to deny that Steve is in the starting lineup for a reason. Plus with our schedule being ridiculously easy(especially compared to last seasons), (Steve Miller—LOL!!) and this 3 guard lineup will have us sitting pretty come January!
PS—STEVE MILLER is my nickname for Blake and Andre— I hope it sticks!!
The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!
by cavejunctionblazer on Nov 15, 2009 12:04 PM PST reply actions
His defensive shortcomings are not for lack of effort or concentration.
I’ve never seen him make a play on defense that I would construe as giving up or not caring and he doesn’t seem to have the same mental lapses, such as blatantly missing rotations, as other players. He does everything he can possibly do to be a solid NBA player but just isn’t as athletic as most guards in the league. He doesn’t have his shot going on offense these days, but his shot selection is excellent and he doesn’t take stupid chances with the ball very often, something fans tend to criticize him for. I think he’s a good fit: he’s there to make the bigs look good early by spreading the floor and ensuring that there aren’t too many turnovers.
"Steve Blake is a good defender"
A quote from Monty Williams, speaking for, I’m sure, the entire coaching staff. I believe that that group of people knows more about NBA basketball than everyone here who says Blake is a lousy defender.
Blake gets minutes because the other players play better when he is playing. No statistic for that.
Thank you for this excellent post. Now, bar your doors.
this year alone
i’ve heard more about the quality of blakes defense than in all years prior. there was even a post on the miami heats sbn site about acquiring blake and how his defense would help the team. sometimes the grass isn’t greener on the other side.
if you wanna make the argument however that paid staff know more about fans, then bloggers wouldnt exist, or just fans like us who want to discuss the team. what if everyone used that as an excuse? if you want to apply the same logic, then micheal jordan, arguably the best basketball player of all time surely knows basketball…yet he can’t draft/scout players.
Aaron Sass, nominated for the Bedger of the Year award.
by Philthyanimal on Nov 15, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
sometimes they're right
and sometimes they’re wrong.
I’d argue, for the most part, this blazers staff/team know more than the fans.
I constantly hear complaints about Nate, and yet he manages to pull out records that many considered unbelievable at the start of the season. There’s constant second guessing, but in the end… Nate has ten more wins a year.
You could say “yeah, but we have all this talent.” Yeah… so do other young rebuilding teams without veterans. Go check out their records.
Not all organizations are equal. Not all management is equal. Prior to the Pritchard era I’d say fans definitely knew better than the blazers. now… not so much.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
Hmm, come to think of it,
I’ve seen some nice off-the-ball curls that Blake’s done with Aldridge. I was a little surprised at how well he moved and nailed some nice mid-range shots. Now with that said, if it became a question of who should start, (Miller or Blake), it should be Miller.
Agreed
But I think the question now is whether Blake should start over Martell or Rudy. Miller seems to have solidified his spot as the starting PG.
www.blazerguy.com
that's right
MIller isn’t going “back” to the bench now, unless Greg is…and that only happens when Oden gets 2 quick fouls
Martell is really struggling right now, the only way he re-joins the starting 5 is if Roy tires of defending SFs, and not because Webster has "outplayed’ Blake
OTOH, Rudy wants to handle the ball, not just spot up and shoot. So, he’s “better off” in a 6th-man “energy” role where he can take turns running the offense with Bayless
(And there’s no doubt who’s the better “team” defender of the 3 candidates—that’s Blake)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
well
there’s no doubt who’s the better "team" defender of the 3 candidates—that’s Blake
First of all, I’d say this is definitely debatable. But even granting you this, it’s even easier to say who’s the best “man” defender (an equally important part of defense) of the three—that’s Webster, and I don’t think anyone in her right mind would argue otherwise.
I hope Martell and Bayless both advance to the point where they can "beat Blake out"
but they’re not there, yet. As athletes they’re far above Steve, but as NBA players who study the game and are prepared for every situation on the offensive and defensive end of the court, they’ve still got a ways to go. And it’s not just them, the Blazers have drafted quite a few kids who have tried to knock Blake out of the lineup, and so far he’s still getting more minutes than anyone expected.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Not sure about your characterization of Martell vs Steve
He has a higher PER than Blake: 13.9 to 9.1
A higher TS%: .542 to .505
Higher rebound rate: 6.7 to 5.4
Martell has a significantly higher Defensive rating: 96 to 102 (lower is better)
Saying “Martell is really struggling” seems like a stretch. Martell is struggling a bit, Blake is struggling more.
by upper left corner on Nov 16, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
Notoriously fickle stat
Subject to all sorts of distortion because there are so many uncontrolled variables primarily who the other players are on the floor. Should be viewed with extreme caution unless you have a very large sample size like a full season.
by upper left corner on Nov 17, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions
Thank you!..
for this very well thought out post. It’s good to see that there are others who think that Steve Blake is bringing intangibles that are often missed by traditional stats… REC!
GO BLAZERS!!!
Good, thoughtful post,
But
I realize that the level of competition lately hasn’t been great, but it’s still worth noting that the Blazers currently rank as the 3rd best defensive team in the league. And they’re less than a point away from passing Boston. Given the amount of minutes Blake has been playing lately, he has to be a big part of that.
Is bad logic. Just because someone’s a member of a successful team does NOT mean that person is an important contributor. Even the most successful teams can carry dead weight (or worse).
I don't think it is bad logic...
to surmise that if 5 people are on the floor and the team defense is improved that all 5 of those team members are performing well. Add in the +/- statistics provided and the visual impact of seeing Blake rotate to shooters and get back to his man after helping and I am satisfied that Steve plays an effective roll in the defense.
+/- stats are solidly in Steve's favor
Blake’s not dead weight, and the team’s success when he’s been in the game isn’t smoke and mirrors
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Lemme break it down:
1. If five people are on the floor and the team defense is improved then it is certainly bad logic to assume all five of them are responsible for it. In high school, I was in a group that rocked three straight A+ on projects—was I responsible? No. My best friend was brilliant and hard working (thanks Kim!). I did absolutely nothing, and probably even impeded others from getting work done—I thought I was “funny.” Nevertheless, they were good enough and cared enough to make up for my uselessness.
2. It’s universally acknowledged that +/- is a flawed stat that only becomes less so over extremely large sample sizes, and no, ten games is not large enough. Not even close
Apples to Oranges...
It’s a ton easier to hide behind someone else’s hard work and dedication in high school projects then it is to hide on the floor in the NBA! I’m not sure if there is any comparison between these two situations. I can almost guarentee that one person… even someone hardworking and brilliant… isn’t going to earn any A’s all by himself in NBA team defense.
Are you trying to imply someone else is making up for Steve’s shortcomings or laziness? Doing “absolutely nothing” on the defensive end of an NBA court gets you scorched and I have not seen that happening.
It’s also universally acknowledged that wins and losses are an accurate gauge of success… in some circles… the only real gauge.
Nope
I’m not “trying to imply someone else is making up for Steve’s shortcomings or laziness,” merely pointing out that the success of the team when Blake is on the floor is not necessarily a reflection of Blake’s individual impact on the game.
As for my analogy—it is incomplete and inaccurate as all analogies by definition must be. But I was taking an extreme example. Clearly Blake doesn’t do “absolutely nothing.” For that, he’d probably need an armchair. It was just to show the broken logic of the original assertion, an assertion that is patently illogical, as my somewhat reductio ad absurdum analogy was attempting to illustrate.
It should really be clear as day.
Yikes...
It was just to show the broken logic of the original assertion, an assertion that is patently illogical, as my somewhat reductio ad absurdum analogy was attempting to illustrate.
It should really be clear as day.
Suffice it to say for me it is not clear as day…
Is it not at least more likely than not that he’s is performing adequately if the team of 5 guys is performing well as a team?
I'm making no statement about what is likely.
I will say this, though:
If the team won a game with Blake on the court, then he performed adequately. That is merely a pragmatic description of a past event, though, and is in no way a prediction of any future events.
by Marvin100 on Nov 15, 2009 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
or someone else
performed well enough to offset his detrimental play…
not saying it’s so, just completing the logic
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Nov 15, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, but the discussion was team defense
and in team defense, if ANYONE doesn’t do their job, you have breakdowns. The weakest link and all that.
Our performance on team defense statistically tells me what my own eyes have been seeing — Blake knows where to be in the defensive schemes, he knows where to funnel his man, he knows where his teammates are going to be, he is a mediocre man defender but a brilliant team defender.
If you aren’t seeing that, you either aren’t paying much attention to him on the defensive end (understandable) or your eye isn’t trained to recognize team defense and what the defensive schemes are intending to accomplish. That’s fine, most people don’t have a lot of awareness in that area, unless you’ve got some coaching background or played on a team that used various defensive schemes (few people have).
It’s not the most obvious thing to watch, announcers never talk about it, bloggers rarely do, because it is hard to describe and diagram. So a lot of fans never really pay attention. It isn’t that it takes a PhD to figure out, it is just something that few people are nerdy enough to focus on.
But Blake has been brilliant since the three guard lineup started within the team defensive scheme, and that’s part of why opposing PGs, some of whom are pretty good players, haven’t been torching us. It certainly isn’t because we have great man defenders to shut them down.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
well stated
And this is the kind of skill that people often point to with guys like Shane Battier. He’s a great team defender, a guy who knows where to be. He’s also a decent man-defender, but that’s not what makes him such a valuable guy.
www.blazerguy.com
I'm making no statement about what is likely.
I will say this, though:
If the team won a game with Blake on the court, then he performed adequately. That is merely a pragmatic description of a past event, though, and is in no way a prediction of any future events.
Sir all you've spoken to is what is likely...
Theory and speculation is all you’ve cited to this point. There has been nothing fact based or substantial in your wisdom… Even if you say it twice.
You appear to be seeking a philisophical debate mainly unrelated to basketball… I choose to pass on that opportunity.
Good day to you and…
GO BLAZERS!!!
GO BLAZERS!!! indeed!
I’m not seeking any kind of debate, nor am I speculating. The initial assertion claimed that because the team did well with Blake on the court, Blake must have done well as an individual. I made an attempt (probably ill-advised, given the context) to expose the fallacy of that assertion—without asserting anything about Blake’s performance.
Logic is neither “theory” nor “speculation.”
Good day to you, too! :)
or someone else
performed well enough to offset his detrimental play…
not saying it’s so, just completing the logic
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Nov 15, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not so sure I can agree
To say that if we win, blake performed at least adequately, is reasonable logic. Clearly he did not cause us to lose, because we did not lose. While it makes sense initially to say that he may have played poorly and someone else made up for it, and that may be the case, even if he was completely incompetent and a detriment to the team (not true, but I’m making a logical case) allowing an opposing guard to shoot 20 for 20, he still would have performed adequately in the sense that so long as a loss does not occur, noone has been so inadequate as to cause the loss, regardless of who played well and who carried.
This is not a bash on blake, only expanding on the logical situation, Blake’s name may be replaced by the name of any other person to ever touch a basketball for the sake of this post. I think Blake’s team D has been solid, but I do greatly enjoy a case on logical arguments. This is clearly splitting hairs, and perhaps could be considered a matter of personal opinion, but it is late and the urge to play devil’s advocate was particularly strong. This logic of course assumes the team goal is a win, and not necessarily a blow out, only a win and that by meeting the objective all criticism is null (or just talk) because the objective was reached and at the end of the day there is a W or an L received from the event.
To all people involved in this debate: GO BLAZERS
well, Blake still could have a net negative effect
as a singular component of the equation that lead to victory.
Watch this screwed up “equation”
if WIN= 10 and C=2 PF=4 SF=2 SG=4 PG=-2 then the sum still = WIN but the PG was still a negative variable and was detrimental to the cause. Replacing the PG with a 0 or a + would make wins easier and more reliable to predict when facing opposing starting lineups with their own +/-’s.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Nov 16, 2009 7:07 AM PST up reply actions
Thank you for posting the equation
This was my point. Even in said situation with the PG being -2, he still performed adequately in that he did not explode for a -25 and lose the game. It is clearly true that in such a situation replacing him with almost anyone in a jersey would be an improvement, however this hinges on the definition of adequate. In the event that we assume any time we win, the play was adequate, than no matter how negative his number, if it is not enough to bring down the team total, it would still be construed as adequate because it would have required being worse to stop the team from achieving the minimum for successful outcomes.
What really surprises me here is that so many people understand the nuances of logical argumentation. The percent of people are vastly higher than you would find in the general public (or places I’ve worked), and I usually don’t think of blogs as recruiting such a highly intelligent crowd. We have an exceptional fanbase, so go blazers, and go blazer fans.
inductive vs. deductive logic
This is a sideshow at this point, but I think people are confusing two different kinds of logical reasoning: deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic deals with what you can deduce with absolutely certainty. Inductive logic deals with probabilities. It is certainly true that it is possible to have great +/- numbers and still not be helping the team. Substitution patterns and luck could combine (especially in a relatively small sample size) to make it appear as if a player is making the team better when he’s on the court, when in reality the team would be better replacing him with someone else. That said, it is also more likely than not that if the team is doing noticeably better with a guy on the court than with that guy off the court, that guy has at least something to do with that. I think that’s especially true given the non-regular substitution patterns Nate’s been using. He’s playing all kinds of different lineups. If Blake’s bad play is being masked by the other guys on the court, then it’s getting masked by a whole host of different combinations of players, which is very unlikely. It’s possible that’s just luck or random variation. But it’s more likely that Blake’s play has at least something to do with it.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 16, 2009 7:08 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
that is an excellent point
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Nov 16, 2009 7:08 AM PST up reply actions
Right on for inductive vs. deductive
This distinction is often lost on the Internet, and this leads directly to straw man argumentation. Someone uses inductive logic to arrive at probabilities, and people refute it as if it were deductive logic to proclaim certainties.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
So just because you happen to be a worthless drag on group activities ...
… you’ve concluded that the same likely applies to Blake? Yep that’s definately better logic than Blazer Guy’s.
We are not looking for universal truths here. But Blazer Guy has put forth a very well thought out and written case for Steve Blake being perhpas more important to Portland’s success than many give him credit for. That as a team, the Blazers have a very good +/- rating is a fair indicator of whether they are playing good defense or not, be it 10 games or 50 games.
hakkaa päälle !
Take away Oden and put some scrub back there
I think you’d see Steve Blake’s amazing effect on the defense lessen
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 16, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
But it's easy to do that when you look at +/-
Oden has played far few minutes than Blake and yet Blake still has the second best +/- on the team. Blake is playing a lot of his minutes without Oden on the floor. And conversely, many other players are playing alongside Oden and don’t have +/- numbers as good as Blake’s. It’s not as simple as Blake benefitting from Oden’s presence.
www.blazerguy.com
Spoken like a very wise man...
…I’m surprised I understood it… That’s the kind of logic that rings true with me. Thanks for the OP and the follow up.
I think this is probably true
But that doesn’t invalidate the fact that Blake knows how to defensively take advantage of having Greg or Joel behind him.
Nate has put together defensive schemes that take advantage of those guys. A PG gets the ball on the sideline and his defender is not standing between him and the basket, he’s shading towards the top of the key to shut off penetration or passes in that direction, and the center is standing on the edge of the key between the PG and the basket. We’ve seen this several times recently.
What is happening? The PG is being given the drive to the basket by his defender, and he isn’t taking it. Why? Because there is a shot-blocking monster in there. So Blake is shading off of him to take advantage of that, and that shuts down other options. Is it great man-to-man defense? No. But it is perfect team defense. Blake is playing the team game to perfection. Take away a shot-blocking center, and we’d be stuck with having to play man defense, and he’d be torched. Sure. But that’s irrelevant to what is going on between the baselines.
Here’s another one. The opponent brings the ball down, and we show zone. They start to run a play to attack the zone, and halfway through the possession, someone makes the call, and we’re in a man to man defense. They have to scramble to recognize it, adjust, and sometimes restart their offense to attack the man defense — but now, they have less time on the shot clock. Team defense, everyone in his zone, everyone quickly finding his man without leaving anyone open. To do that, you have to rely heavily on your teammates to be where they are supposed to be.
We’ve been playing incredibly smart defense, and Blake’s been a big part of that.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I don't think you can call a scheme
that leads to both of them basically leading the league in fouls/minute a scheme that’s “taking advantage of the big men”. We’re not really directing guys into any easy shot blocking lanes, it’s just that guys are getting into the lane fairly easily, and because Oden and Joel are both excellent shot blockers, they’re able to block a lot of shots. However, because the players aren’t getting into the lane in a predictable way, i.e. funneled to a spot, it’s also leading to a lot of fouls by both our big men.
If it were just Oden collecting a ton of fouls, I’d write off whatever fouling issues as his own, but Joel is back to leading the league in fouling %‘s again as well. I find it hard to believe that the two aren’t correlated through some sort of systemic defensive deficiency.
As far as shading guys toward the baseline when they get in on the corner or the wing, you’re right, but that has nothing to do with Oden or Greg. You hear all the time about using the endline as an extra defender, which is just elementary practice. Teams will always rather have a guy drive baseline than take it in the middle. If a perimeter player has the ball on the wing or up top, there seems to be no coherent effort to direct him anywhere on the court.
It's more than shading toward the baseline
The centers are coming over across the key, leaving their man entirely, and the on-ball defender is significantly overplaying towards the top of the key. It cuts off passing lines, denies the drive (if he goes inside he dribbles into a trap), and keeps the center at home near the basket. The on-ball defender, despite being beside instead of in front of the man with the ball, is close enough to contest a shot.
You can beat it if you have a really good shooting center who drifts outside on the weak side and you swing the ball around quickly.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Not bad logic at all.
Looks like you still need a few more whacks with the skillet in order to see what’s in front of you.
hakkaa päälle !
Oden
Very few teams in the nba could successfully start a three guard lineup. With Greg, however, the Blazers seem to be able to make this work. This is because the biggest weakness of a small line up on defense is defending against dribble penetration. With GO in the middle, a guard or SF beating his man to the hoop is no longer enough to guarantee an easy bucket. So long as the blazers can rotate and not leave shooters open, their opponents will hopefully continue to take low percentage shots.
Then, so long as the 3-guard is not a defensive liability, the Blazers benefit from the increased offensive flexibility that it gives.
Boston pretty much runs a 3 guard lineup
Peirce is 6’6", an SG really. Allen has decent height 6’4"-5" but is thin, and Rondo is 6’1" and like 175ish.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Nov 15, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
exactly
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Nov 15, 2009 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
I think Miller has to be Rondo, and Blake, Allen.
That means Blake needs to find his shot again, which could happen any time (shooters keep shooting), and Miller needs to take it to the rack a little more often than he has been so far. Of course the comparisons are only in terms of “role” in the offense, not talent level.
I’m still not convinced the three guard lineup will work against teams with big athletic small forwards like Carmelo, or shooting guards like Wade, but it’s easy enough to keep these guys starting and substitute Webster early when needed. I think we could get away with it more than 50% of the time, but the playoffs may be the time when we can’t. But, then again, if our guys were firing on all cylinders, the Boston comparison might say otherwise.
Isn't Wallace a big athletic SF?
It’s the shooting guards like Wade or the guy we face tonight that scare me more.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
also agree
Our defensive scheme seems to be focused on making guys take lower percentage perimeter shots, but it gives them relatively open looks from the perimeter. At some point we’re going to face a good shooting team and they are going to torch us.
www.blazerguy.com
When your defense focuses on forcing perimeter shots
sooner or later there will be a variance and despite good contesting and heady play the team will shoot 60% and drop 120. The question is how large the sample size will be, and how lucky are we with not getting the worst outliers.
It already happened
with Houston dropping a ton of 3s on us. If they hit a normal percentage, we win that game.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
?
Pierce is a legit SF, with 6’7" height and with his playing weight around 230 ish for most of his career. Not many SFs out there can back down Pierce, unless it’s someone really big like Artest. Actually, it’s Pierce that likes to work with his back to the basket and shoot that tirn around jumper. He’s bigger and stronger that your prototypical SF like Butler or Richard Jefferson.
Your point is accurate and so is HurraKane212 is seeing Pierce with guard-like skills as well
His handle is better and he is quicker than many SFs but stronger than most as well. He has played the SF position through his 3 years at Kansas and at Boston pretty much continuously. Brandon is more guard than Paul and shiftier but cannot carry that weight and strength to be effective.
Draft Express has him at 6-6 and 230 and I remember him in college as 6-5 back when they actually measured them. He certainly can play bigger.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
I would think the biggest strength...
…of a 3 guard line up would be defense against dribble penetration. The assumption is that 3 guards are quicker therefore better at containing dribble penetration and that seems to be the case here.
Combine that with the veteran savvy of the 3 guards in question and Greg’s huge strides this year and what you have is a pretty dang good defensive team.
Yes this is more accurate.
Dribble penetration should be more difficult on smaller guards. Now backing them down and posting them up on the other hand should be in your favor. I haven’t seen other teams do this too much so far besides Gomes backing down Roy, but that was quickly resolved by Oden or someone double teaming. Plus…it was Gomes.
Clyde the Glide, the greatest player ever
Cliff Robinson got mad at my brother who was trying to sell him a cellphone when my brother called him Uncle Cliffy. Apparently, he doesn't like that name very much.
by BeaumontTXBlazerFan on Nov 15, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
As I pointed out in my own Fanpost a few days back, defense, like offense, is a TEAM EFFORT
I hate to drag out the work “synergy,” but it does apply here. Everyone wants to look at players as discrete individuals—at both ends. That’s understandable—it’s easier to measure & assess players that way. But the inconvenient fact is that basketball is a team game in which there are no strictly mano a mano matchups as there are in baseball, for instance.
I suggested that the 3-guard starting line-up may actually be better than the 2-guard version (with Martell starting at the three) on DEFENSE. Heresy, I know. But because of the way Miller, Blake, & Roy are able to coordinate and communicate and work with the twin towers down low, I see them making up for their individual shortcomings as defenders.
Everyone said that the 3-guard lineup would crash & burn the first time it encountered a strong, high-scoring two or three. Well, it looked to me like Gerald Wallace was the one doing most of the crashing & burning last night. Tomorrow will be an even tougher test, as the tired Blazers face the big, active Hawks in their building. On paper, Joe Johnson & Josh Smith should have a field day.
But I’m not betting against our guys. What they lack in size in the backcourt, they make up in coordination, communication, & smarts. Plus—importantly—length, strength, & quickness down low.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Amen
Steve Blake is a veteran that doesn’t make a lot of mistakes and understands the game. On a young team you can’t have too many of these guys.
And people say Steve Blake isn’t tough.
Eric Snow is one of the five worst perennial NBA starters I've seen in 20+ years of watching the Association.
BUT HE DIDN’T MAKE MANY MISTAKES!
(um, except not being able to shoot, defend one-on-one, make the great pass, or rebound particularly well…at least Blake can [usually] shoot…)
Are you making another comparison?..
…or is this another “complete the logic thing?”
Your obvious…and in my opinion illogical… need to cast doubt on Steve Blake dis-credits your otherwise intelligent comments and I don’t think your sarcasm towards Thadius is necessary.
Comparing Blake to Eric Snow in this manner is disrespectful to a guy who is an absolute pro who does his job every night without complaint. In my opinion a true fan would not say such things about a dedicated player who has been instrumental in the growth of this team from Jailblazers to what we have today… a quality group of which we can be proud.
Just my opinion though…
Not to be a jerk...
but I do not believe an emotional desire to cast doubt on someone would have a quality of logical or illogical. I think the qualitative measurements may vary under different names. To suggest his stance is illogical would be to say that the base assertions can either be proved conclusively wrong or that his process in some step does not lead directly from the previous. I do think the devil’s advocate role he has played her may seem strange, misguided, or otherwise absurd, but I wouldn’t go with illogical (at least if you are going to bold it, presumably as a counterpoint to his general logical structure of postings)
Good night to you sir, and I’d like to add that I agree whole heartedly about Eric Snow being an unequal comparison.
Wow...
Them’s some fancy words you folk are a usin’.. Are you and Marvin readin’ the same books?
This post was well written and expressed… I’m not sure how it got turned into a Mr. Spock battle of logic vs. human emotion.
Just look at the post below by Marvin and you will see that his statements are much more about illiciting an extreme response then making proveable points about results… Subtle (or not so subtle) jabs at Blake followed by the standard “I admire him” and then digressing into a show of intellectual wordiness.
Here’s my real bottom line… I like Steve Blake as a player and a member of the Blazers. I think he is playing the minutes he deserves based on the only true criteria… wins and losses.
GO BLAZERS!!!… Beat Atlanta…we owe ’em one.
I agree with your points to only one exception
I’m not entirely convinced that Marvin means to jab at blake so much as enjoys creating a logical paradox. I’m afraid I’m in that boat with him, I enjoy blake and think he is earning his minutes through intelligent play and complete effort on defense and suspect that it is more likely than not that the +/- is an accurate reflection of his defensive intelligence and ability to funnel players to the center so as to keep their expected value from the shots relatively low and create more wasted possessions for the other team. The small sample size certainly makes the degree of confidence lower, however the limited supply of evidence is still in concurrence with what I witness in games.
As for if we read the same books, it is entirely possible. I’ve gone through a few books on logic in my time :) If I had an opportunity to read at work I would have a far stronger understanding of many subjects, but my best jobs (at least working for someone else) are behind me, and working for myself I don’t allow that kind of laziness :) Wins and Losses are certainly the most important criteria at this point. In a few years, I think we’ll expand on that to say championships are the important criteria.
Did you ever see the Star Trek...
…where Frank Gorshin (The Riddler on the original Batman) was Black on one half and White on the other… and the other dude was White on one half and Black on the other?…
Interesting “paradox” between you and Marvin…
Either way it seems we are all looking for the same thing. An entertaining, high quality team to pull for… I for one think we have it and can’t wait to watch it develop further.
GO BLAZERS!!!
I agree Eric Snow is an unequal comparison.
And I like Steve Blake—admire him, even.
I was just (probably too stridently) casting doubt on the claim that you can’t have enough guys who don’t “make a lot of mistakes and [understand] the game.” My use of Eric Snow was, again, a way of taking that claim to its obvious extreme—Snow is the perfect exemplar of that kind of player, but a team made up of guys like him would produce very, very few wins, despite his veteran understanding and ability to avoid making mistakes.
That said, I’ll gladly bow out; I see my comment is causing more commotion than it’s worth.
Correct Assessment of Mr. Snow
Your statement resembles those of the late Bill Walton. Very impressive.
Bayless= the answer
Actually...
Bring Gary Payton out of retirement. I would think he can still play and he wouldn’t want big minutes. Maybe that sounds stupid but maybe not…
I really like the 3 guard lineup.
But how will it fare against the Lakers? We already know what it did to the Spurs and I think the Blazers are a better team then the Nuggets. In my opinion the Blazers will have the number 2 seed in the west when the playoffs arrive. But I think at some point Nate has to move either Miller or Blake to the bench. I don’t think you can go all season with this lineup. I think the Lakers will kill the Portland 3 guard lineup. The Blazers need to put Rudy Fernandez in the Starting lineup I think. I know the starting small forward spot was Martell’s and Rudy has been coming off the bench for the Blazers since he’s been in Portland. But I think Rudy would fit well with the starters. If you keep Miller as the starting point guard I think Rudy would work well with Roy, Miller, LA, and Oden.
That's still a three guard lineup
I’m not opposed to giving Fernandez a chance in the starting lineup, but if he’s a guard too. If you start Miller, Roy, and Fernandez, Roy will still be playing SF. Rudy is not a forward.
www.blazerguy.com
The point works in reverse
Think smaller lineup provides inverse advantages in getting open shots.
The biggest issue so far to me is making those shots. If that is not happening we are in trouble.
Without Travis we are not the same team, as he is the match-up for Odom on the Blazers. Martell will need to make his shots and Rudy and Steve as well.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
Free bayless
I suspect since he has maintained a fairly high PER and A/TO ratio he may get some additional burn out there with rudy. His minutes won’t increase as much as an arbitrary number, but in relative terms his percentage increase may be very significant. (From 6 minutes to 8 or 9)
Steve is a nice fit in the starting lineup for a few reasons
A. He does not need shots to feel like he is part of the team. This might be the most important part of why Nate has him in the starting lineup. When Nic was healthy, it was a blessing to have two players in the starting five that did not need shots.
B. He is the glue that holds things together. You can track shots, fouls, steals, rebounds, etc all you want. One thing that does not get tracked is communication & leadership. Blake knows what Nate wants, and it appears that he often communicates that to the other people on the floor. He also understands spacing, and often reminds players where they need to be.
OMG I just jizzed in my France
by sug on Nov 15, 2009 8:03 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I would submit that Miller communicates equally as good if not better
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 16, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise...
At this time there is no competition between Blake and Miller. It’s ok for them to both be good at something.
have you gotten used to Miller starting alongside Roy, yet?
Brandon and Andre are making it work, for Greg’s sake
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
The question then
Is whether the other four guys out there are better off or worse off with Blake compared to playing with any other guy on the roster. I can see arguments for both positions. But long term, I doubt that the three guard lineup can work because all it takes is one scoring SF to really louse it all up.
I think Martell will be the answer here, I think he’s smart and tough and going through a relearning process. We will eventually go against a team that can punish the Blazers for fielding a small lineup, and has the best physical tools and the best brain to play alongside Roy and Miller. Obviously Batum really earned this last year, but hopefully Martell can rise to the opportunity eventually.
I think people are making too much of an issue over the workability ...
… of the current lineup.
Right now it is pretty hard to argue it is not working. One of the oldest adages in the NBA (and other sports as well) is when something works, stick with it until the other guy figures out how to stop it. Once they do, then you show them something else.
If Nate’s lineup gets exploited every now and then by certain teams or players, he’ll hopefully make adjustments for those games. But that’s not sufficient enough reason to scrap a strategy that works more often then it doesn’t.
Rather than debate the failings of our current lineup, I’m going to enjoy the results it has provided so far.
hakkaa päälle !
You make good points about the defense
The first indicator I got of the non-statistical advantages of going small was in that first game (SA). Steve, Brandon, Andre, Travis and Greg were in the lineup at the. The three guards spread the court and Travis was posted in the corner. As the play swung to the other side of the floor Travis drifted out of the corner toward the free-throw line until Steve on that side motioned him back where he belonged just before Brandon zipped a pass there for an open made three for Travis. That is illustrative of the communication advantage – that no matter what is happening we have leadership to direct it.
KP has made a point of getting players who are flexible enough to play two positions. Nate has made a point that he wants the opponent to have to adjust to our offense and not the reverse. Against San Antonio that seemed to happen before the tip when Pop went smaller before the opening tip.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
Uh, opposing guards still run circles around Blake
That said, he’s a smart heady player who can hit threes and rarely complains about his role. Pretty much every team needs one of those.
Blazer Fan
I haven't been seeing that...
granted there have been no Aaron Brooks types in the past 6 games but we did contain Parker until he rolled the ankle.
What about the drubbing Chris Paul put on us until he left the game with and injury?
The Blazer’s are not going to win many games where they allow All-Star PG’s to carve them up with 1-8 shooting performances.
hakkaa päälle !
How do you figure he'd have done that?
We held him to 8 shot attempts in three quarters. The logical progression is he gets three more in the fourth, so you’re looking at 1 1/3 made out of 11 shots. I think we might have been able to withstand the onslaught.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
speaking of Blake
I think the more important question to be asked, looking at this team’s future is whether you would want Blake in the starting line up as this team gets into the playoffs this season, and the next few seasons. He would go against PG’s such as D. Will, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, Brooks and so forth. What is it that he would do to help us against any of these guys? Not a lot in my opinion, and past history shows us that he has always struggled against these guys. He also always seems to struggle in clutch time, go see his stellar play during clutch time when he played for us or for Denver in the playoffs.
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.
