The Bayless Quandary

by Dave on Dec 14, 2009 1:34 AM PST in News

For reasons big and small, Jerryd Bayless is a hot topic lately among Portland fans. And nowhere does the topic get hotter than when discussing his effect on the floor and how much playing time he should or shouldn't be getting vis a vis the other guards on the team. We've written about it extensively here but my inbox still fills up with questions regarding his status, impact, and future prospects. I'm not going to try to deliver the definitive treatise here but I want to look at some of the concepts involved in determining Jerryd's court time and especially to what extent the general assessment that he needs to get more is accurate.

For a comparative look at the backcourt I visited our old friends at 82Games.com. Click through for some of the key stats they list followed by general analysis.

The Basics

	ROY	BLAKE	MILLER	BAYLESS
Net Production vs Opponent	+6.5	-3.3	+3.2	-2.5
Net Production On/Off Court	-2.2	+6.3	+7.5	-7.1
Simple Net Rating	+3.0	+0.5	+4.9	-4.3

These stats provide a big-picture overview of a player's production in the context of team performance. They include the team's production versus the opponent's production when the player takes the court, the team's production when the player is on the court versus when he's sitting, and an aggregate rating. It's important to note that all of these stats--indeed all of the ones I'll be citing today--are contextual, meaning they fall prey to the vagaries of teammates, opponents, and the occasional odd situation. They're going to be more indicative as the season progresses and aberrations even out. It's also important to note that these numbers don't necessarily indicate the best and worst players on a team. LaMarcus Aldridge and Joel Przybilla rank fairly low on the simple net rating scale, for instance, and we know that LaMarcus is among the most talented and Joel among the most valuable Blazers right now. The value, if there is any, comes not in the absolute but in comparing the four players being mixed in to the same backcourt positions. In general we're not trying to compare the players in isolation but look at the blend with the team.

Other Particulars

	ROY	BLAKE	MILLER	BAYLESS
Win %	54.5%	71.4%	54.5%	53.8%
Average Plus-Minus Per 48	+4.0	+7.0	+7.8	-1.6
Net Points per 100 Possessions	-5.7	+7.0	+9.2	-5.6
Net PER as PG	N/A	-2.5	+1.2	-3.0
Net PER as SG	+5.4	N/A	+4.9	+0.6
Net PER as SF	+7.1	N/A	N/A	+50.0

Here we get some more details: how often the team outscored the opponent when the player was on the court, the average plus-minus of the player's tenure adjusted to 48 minutes, the net points the team scores per 100 possessions with the player on or off the court, and the average net PER of each player over his collective counterparts' average PER at the same position. Again, this is a wide-angle, contextual look. Jerryd Bayless has a much higher individual PER at point guard than does Steve Blake, for example (21.3 to 11.1). But as you can see their net PER's are comparatively close.

In case you're wondering the sample of Bayless at small forward is quite small, thus the wacky number in the Net PER category.

The Point Guard Stuff

	ROY	BLAKE	MILLER	BAYLESS
Hands Rating	19.5	21.2	19.6	12.5
Passing Rating	8.0	7.7	9.8	4.8

This gets into the wheelhouse of point guards: how well they take care of and pass the ball. Again the comparative look shows us why certain players might be favored at the position.

Here's the overall point. When you look at a specific situation or just compare player-to-player it appears that Jerryd Bayless is exceeding Steve Blake. But when you look at the bigger picture and try to quantify effect on the team, they're either close or Blake is ahead. Simply put, there may be bigger reasons that Bayless is being moved along slowly than just his personal skill would indicate.

Building on that point, one of the simplest (and I believe most inaccurate) ways I've seen the situation typified is: "Blake sucks. Jerryd is doing well. Play less of Steve and more of Jerryd." The way the team is constructed, especially the way the roster looks post-injuries, Blake and Jerryd aren't even on the same planet as far as their fit with teammates. Or at least they haven't been heretofore.

It has been remarked that a solid wall seems to have materialized between Brandon Roy and Andre Miller this year. Even when they play together generally one is scoring or the other is. Seldom do they find synergy. This is not unusual in and of itself. Most teams with dominant off-guards have complementary point guards and vice versa. It's unusual to see two players in the backcourt who score prolifically and in the same fashion. Even when both of those players are unselfish--such as in the "dream backcourt" of Jason Kidd and Penny Hardaway that the Suns fielded a few years ago--the mix just doesn't work. Somebody needs the ball. Somebody needs the lane. Neither one is comfortable with the catch and shoot, playing off of the other.

Jerryd Bayless is fashioned in the Roy-Miller mold far more than that of Steve Blake. To the extent that Roy and Miller do coexist it's because one is a Second-Team All-NBA player and the other is a 14-year veteran. Even so, one or the other disappears all too often. Were Bayless--at least the Bayless we've traditionally known--to be paired with either guard consistently the same would happen to him, except not having the chops of the other two he'd be the one to vanish. And that's playing with just one of those two. Injuries have forced the Blazers to play three-guard lineups to this day. Take Blake out and insert Bayless with Miller and Roy together and you have a train wreck.

The point is, Jerryd's main competition for minutes is not Steve Blake, it's Roy and Miller. He has to catch up to one of them in order to increase his playing time significantly. In doing so he also has to overcome that star or veteran gap in the minds of the coaches. It's not impossible, I guess, but you can see why the going is slow, especially since Bayless trails both handily in nearly every category listed.

In fact I will go out on a limb at this point in saying the chances of Roy, Miller, and Bayless existing long-term on the same team are small. Steve Blake's presence in the equation changes it not a whit. You could cut Steve tomorrow and you'd still have the same issue. Eventually one of these guys has to be let go.

Does this mean Jerryd's situation is hopeless until that happens? I'd say no, for a couple reasons.

First, I think it's obvious that Jerryd was unsuccessfully typecast as a point guard during his early tenure. This is something we called from the beginning. You have to let players play to their strengths if you're going to play them. You can teach them beyond those natural strengths, of course, but you can't suppress the strengths in doing so and find success. Judging by the way Jerryd is playing and the time, position, and role he's finding himself playing in, it seems the coaching staff is learning or has learned this about him. When he does play he's driving, scoring, and providing a credible offensive threat. The removal of the burden of setting up plays has freed him. He looks more fluid, confident, and ironically is more in tune with what's going on out on the floor than he used to be. They may trade him in favor of a pure point guard if that's what they think they need but they won't be putting him back in that box. That means his play should remain strong and has a chance to get stronger.

Second, and more importantly right now, Jerryd has been showing signs of being able to play a more Blake-like role. ‘Twas not an accident that I made a semi-big deal of a small moment in the Milwaukee game wherein Brandon drove, tossed the ball to Jerryd on the sideline, watched Jerryd drain a three, and then high-fived him as they went to time-out. Jerryd's outside shot has looked better this year. He's understanding more when and where he can get it in the offense. Beyond that, think of some of the painful situations we've seen Steve in so far this season and some of the things we've posited he should do in response. Think of the early season when Blake got stuck dribble-driving repeatedly, to little effect. Think of recent games when he's been miserable from distance and we said he should step in a couple feet and shoot it if he can't hit the long ball. Now envision those same situations with Bayless instead. Problem solved. The key is what it always has been: Jerryd's ability to provide a credible threat from 18 feet and out when left open. If he can hit the jumper consistently he then becomes a threat beyond what Blake can provide.

In fact if he can hit that jumper, think eventually of Andre Miller's late-game position when Roy is handling the ball and calling the shots. Who do you want in that corner shooting the bail-out jumper or trying to create off the dribble?

So where are we now? We're to the point where you understand that the fit has been problematic heretofore, but Bayless has shown enough production that the door opens for an incremental increase in minutes and responsibility to see what he can do. We're not talking going from 10.6 minutes to 30.6. We're talking maybe 15-18 most nights...more when he's hot or the matchup is right, less in certain situations. 3-4 of those minutes might come from Blake. 1-2 of them could come from Roy himself. A Blake-Bayless-Roy three-guard setup is viable as well and may be the best option of the bunch.

If Jerryd can't hack it, so be it. If he has no outside shot there's no way he can play with Miller or even with Miller and Roy together because you can't just turn Brandon into a three-point shooter and expect to succeed. Then he's limited to playing with Steve or in the three-guard setup with Steve and Brandon. That's probably the 10 minutes he's getting now at best. I don't see him catching up to Blake and Miller in pure point guard skills this year and he'll not displace Roy whether he's playing behind him or alongside him so at that point you shrug your shoulders and lament that he's stuck behind these guys. But he's earned the chance to see whether he can fill some of the roles that the other guards are filling less successfully. I'm betting he's going to get that chance soon.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 301 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

How are Blake's stats since Greg went down

and we don’t have a monster to help him out defensively? I’m going to guess his net PER has gone in the tank by comparison.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 1:55 AM PST reply actions

Dave, I've been thinking about this post today

and I have a question.

Are you pulling our leg?

First, your argument just doesn’t ring true. You usually write as if you know that what you are saying is clearly true. This sounds almost as if you are trying to convince yourself, or perhaps to convince others that you believe it.

Second, you use plus/minus on an incredibly small sample size with Jerryd, when you are on record in the past as wanting at least half a season, preferably a full season. Jerryd has played what, 20 games? You have treated a small sample size on these stats with total disdain in the past.

Third, Jerryd has been hitting 18 foot jumpers, just not 3s. You make it sound like this was the first jumper he has hit.

Fourth, the whole “Jerryd can’t play with Roy or Andre” argument is far below your usual analysis. Jerryd doesn’t need to pound the ball to be effective. He doesn’t have to stand there and evaluate the defense for five seconds before deciding what to do. The dude is an offensive time bomb waiting to explode. All you have to do is dish him the ball when he’s open (just like you do with Steve) and he’ll either put up the open shot, or if there’s a lane to the basket, he’ll take it.

Fifth, you used to argue, a couple years ago, that Jarrett Jack was a great complement to Roy, even in the clutch, because Brandon would create, dish to Jarrett when he was open, and Jarrett would go crash into people and make the free throws. Sound familiar? How is Bayless stylistically any different than Jarrett, other than that he jumps higher? That was the kind of analysis that you provided that people would believe, or at least consider, because it was obvious you really believed it….

You contradict several things you’ve written in the past in this post, and you don’t sound as if you really have it nailed down. It is almost like, “Well, the stats say this, so there must be something, but I sure don’t have it figured out what it is….”

Do you really believe what you’ve written here?

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions

I took it as

He’s providing an argument as to why the coaching staff may do something different than the fans. There are stats out there that show Blake is better on defense and so on, and so there may be some good reasons that FANS aren’t aware of as to why the coaching staff is making the decisions they are making.

Fans seem to be on a LYNCH BLAKE movement, which i find horrendous. I may agree with many points, but the demonizing of blake is horrible. This season is not his fault as many would like to make it be.

All that said, frankly I want to see more Bayless too and I REALLY wish we hadn’t signed Miller. Unfortunately we did and until we’re able to correct that, Bayless may not receive the playing time he deserves or wants.

I also took this post as being one that stated that Bayless wasn’t competing against miller for playing time but was competing against Blake and needed to fill in BLAKES role (plus what he can offer) as opposed to being really good at what both Roy and Miller can do.

Personally I agree with that thought. Bayless needs to keep his game, hit the three, decent at passing, and step in (as mentioned below) to take the easier shorter range shots if the threes aren’t hitting… or take it to the basket to keep defenses honest (an already strong ability of his). He also needs to play decent defense.

I agree that dave also seemed to be looking for a good reason as to why we’re not playing bayless more. Given that this season hasn’t gone so well, I really don’t see one though. Bayless needs more run to improve and I’d like to keep him as a blazer.

"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

by ratbastird on Dec 14, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

Well, yeah

if this is a “I think this is what they are thinking” post, it makes a little more sense, but he didn’t state that, did he?

Usually, when Dave writes something, you think, “He nailed it, and he knows it,” or at least, “He really argued his case well, and he’s got a point.” And this was just different, didn’t seem like Dave at all.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 10:51 AM PST up reply actions

Do I believe

that Bayless’ offense has improved, that he should get some more minutes, that one of the keys to those minutes will be him continuing to hit his shot as he has been, and that his fit in the overall scheme will play into the equation as much as his overall ability? Yes, I do.

—Dave

by Dave on Dec 14, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions

You cite the plus/minus numbers, and then reach the following conclusion...

Here’s the overall point. When you look at a specific situation or just compare player-to-player it appears that Jerryd Bayless is exceeding Steve Blake. But when you look at the bigger picture and try to quantify effect on the team, they’re either close or Blake is ahead. Simply put, there may be bigger reasons that Bayless is being moved along slowly than just his personal skill would indicate.

The way the team is constructed, especially the way the roster looks post-injuries, Blake and Jerryd aren’t even on the same planet as far as their fit with teammates. Or at least they haven’t been heretofore.

Do you really believe that? Based on the way Blake has played this season?

I don’t think the plus/minus numbers support these conclusions. Basically, with this sample size, the plus/minus numbers mean nothing at all. Blake plays most of his minutes with the best players on the team and Bayless plays most of his with the worst players on the team. In a nutshell, there’s enough statistical noise with that factor alone to make these stats completely meaningless.

If you’re saying that, based on your own observation, you don’t think Bayless fits as well with the other players on the team as Blake, then fair enough. But I disagree.

I think (like Nate) you’re confusing “fit” with inactivity and passiveness for “taking care of the ball.” Yes, Brandon gets more shots when Blake is on the court because Blake hardly ever shoots, never attacks the bucket, and just dribbles around and waits for Brandon to do something. But that doesn’t make him a better “fit,” and it’s done much more to hurt Brandon’s game this season than it’s done to help it.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions

And to the extent plus/minus numbers have any relevance at all, at this point of the season...

They would only be relevant if the players individual performance thus far were somewhere in the vicinity of the same ballpark. Bayless and Blake are not.

Take a look at Blake’s stats over the past two seasons, and there’a pretty clear picture. In 2007-08, Steve was a below average but not atrocious point guard. PER around 12.

Then, last year, everything clicked for Steve. His shooting percentage, foul shooting percentage, points per 40, and true shooting percentage all went up, without any corresponding increase in turnovers. As a result, his PER jumped to around 14.5. In short, he had a career season and was pretty good.

This season, Blake has regressed in every way not just from last year’s numbers, but from 2007-08. Even compared to that season, Blake is scoring less, shooting much worse, and (somehow) turning the ball over more. The result? He’s no longer even an adequate point guard. Instead of just “hot helping,” he’s hurting. In a big way.

Meanwhile, in limited minutes, the opposite is true of Jerryd. He’s scoring over 20 points per 40 minutes. His shooting percentages are through the roof. And his turnover rate is actually lower than Steve’s, which is amazing considering their respective style of play. As I said below, his PER is up around 18. In the past two seasons, only Greg, Lamarcus, and Brandon have ever maintained a PER that high on any kind of consistent basis. It’s early and Jerryd’s minutes have been limited, but he’s done a lot with those minutes.

Essentially, then, my point is that it’s not close. Bayless’s individual performance has blown Blake out of the water. Without doing the math, it appears Bayless ranks in the top 15 percent of guards in productivity, while Blake ranks in the bottom 10 percent.

Whether you subscribe to PER or not, those numbers couldn’t be more compelling. And given the lack of reliability of early season plus/minus numbers, those numbers can’t be used to justify any type of an argument that Blake somehow is a better “fit” than Bayless with the other players on the team.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, I agree with all those points

Here’s the thing. By citing the stats you have, and your following comments, you give the impression that you don’t think he fits that well.

The point is, Jerryd’s main competition for minutes is not Steve Blake, it’s Roy and Miller. He has to catch up to one of them in order to increase his playing time significantly.

I call rubbish on this point. Jerryd can play the Blake role just as effectively as Steve (more so, in fact, the way Steve has been playing). He may not hit the 3 (or he might), but he can do it exactly the way you said. You refuted your whole argument by saying Blake should step in a couple feet to shoot — and Jerryd has been shooting effectively from there.

And you refuted it in the past by lauding Jarrett’s ability to do exactly what Jerryd does in taking it to the hoop and drawing fouls — next to Brandon Roy.

And I also call rubbish on the point KP Corleone cited just above me here. The only reason to say Blake and Jerryd aren’t on the same planet is the stats you’ve cited.

Look, when Andre and Steve both started, we moved the ball better, but in the last 5-10 games, ball movement has completely died. Steve is a good fit in that he is joining them all to run the clock down, it’s truly a team effort to get to the last 2 seconds of the shot clock. But it isn’t happening anywhere near as much with Bayless on court.

What specifically are you seeing while you watch the games that makes you think Bayless doesn’t fit as well playing next to Brandon? I’m not seeing anything. Are they leaving Jerryd to double Brandon? Is Bayless standing out front and dribbling for ten seconds, freezing Brandon out of the offense? I’m just not seeing this stuff.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions

Then what was the point of confusing everyone with the first part of the post?

by PoliSam on Dec 14, 2009 9:15 PM PST up reply actions

98% of Blake's minutes have come with Brandon Roy on the court

90% of those minutes have been with both Roy AND Aldridge on the court.

Maybe that’s why Roy has struggled so much this year. Having to play with an inferior basketball player for virtually all of his minutes.

Blake’s 11.1 production rating is the second lowest on the team (Juwan Howard is the only one lower). He simply isn’t producing at an NBA level right now. We can talk about how the team has performed when he’s on the court, but the discussion we’re having at that point is “how good can we be despite Steve Blake”, not “how good can we be because of Steve Blake”.

by as11osu on Dec 14, 2009 2:16 AM PST reply actions

Memo to Jerryd: Keep hitting your 3s

by conspirator5 on Dec 14, 2009 2:21 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

I'm not a big fan of the numbers you used.

Plus/Minus depends too much on who you play with and against. Adjusted plus minus (which he didn’t use) is better but is still unreliable over full seasons let alone a quarter of a season. Net PER I don’t like either. Defensive stats should be about team D, not the production of just the opposing PG— its not always the PG’s fault when the opposing PG scores or assists. Not even Mr. PER himself, Hollinger, ever uses Net PER. I have no idea what hands rating or Passing rating is and I don’t care.

Blake is giving us nothing and Bayless, for all his faults, is an efficient scorer with potential to be more. He can help us and we need to see what we have. Ergo Bayless should play more minutes than Blake and its the coaches job to make the pieces fit. Miller should start, Bayless should play, Blake should be on the bench.

That’s my opinion.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 2:37 AM PST reply actions

that came off as more rude than I intended. oh well.

I should add that a brief look at the nba.com hotspots might make you reconsider whether Steve is really a better outside shooter than Jerryd. He hasn’t proved he can hit the 3 yet, but he’s shooting very well from the perimeter. It seems at least possible he can hit the 3 at the 35% clip Steve is giving us.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 2:39 AM PST up reply actions

The 3 isn't that important, anyway

If Jerryd can hit the open 15-18 footer, his other ability to take it to the hole, score, and draw fouls will easily compensate for the lost efficiency of knocking down 3s.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 3:11 AM PST up reply actions

Wow!!! somebody makes sense of all this after all.

Being able to make 3’s is OK, but then you end up like Martell or Steve. If their 3’s are not falling they don’t go inside a few feet to get a better shot, they just stay out there and try and try again. That really doesn’t make sense. Then you wonder why BRoy is not trusting his role players. It is because this year non of the outside shooters are dependable.

When we lost Travis, regardless of how you feel. If he didn’t make threes, he went inside the three to create for himself. That is what JBay can do. Martell could if he would but all I see Steve do is drive to the basket and come out the other side without shooting.

Anyway, I am all for getting easier shots. If you live by the 3 you also die by the three.

Martell plays the heel or hero game with himself every game. How many times has he been the heel and how many times has he been the hero. Same thing, live or die by the three.

by BBK on Dec 14, 2009 6:59 AM PST up reply actions

...and, Bayless has been far more efficient than Trout ever has.

Bayless TS% .619 Trout TS% .489

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 7:53 AM PST up reply actions

The 3 is a valuable weapon

If you hit 40%, that is the same as hitting 60% on 2 point shots. Add to that the fact that long rebounds off of a 3 can negate the defensive rebounders’ inside position, so you can usually get more offensive rebounds off of a missed 3 than a missed 12-15 foot shot.

So don’t underestimate the value of a good 3 point shooter. But being multi-dimensional offensively, and able to take it to the rack as well as shoot, is more valuable. Ideally, I’d like to see Jerryd knocking down 40% on 3s. There is no reason he can’t up his percentage to that. He’s young, all it takes is practice and good technique, and the shooting coach is working with him.

But if there’s an opening, he shouldn’t pop the 3, he should go get the easy bucket.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:25 AM PST up reply actions

Agreed:

who on our team is averaging 40% per game. not 40% in one game? I am in total agreement with you on Multi-dimensional such as LMA. My point is they seem to fall in love with the three or the jumpers and forget about the easy buckets. And why not if the outside jumper is falling. But, so often the outside jumper doesn’t go in for whatever the reason is and they just keep shooting it instead of driving. I don’t think Bayless would be guilty of that.

by BBK on Dec 14, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions

Last year

We had Blake, Rudy, and Travis all at or near 40%.

The year before, Martell also shot near that.

This year, no one is making them consistently.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions

that's a very important stat in this conversation

I'm going to come up with the best line here ever, something really clever.

by musicdaniel on Dec 14, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions

It's a very important stat for the year

Like 3-4 losses might have been wins with a 10% improvement in team 3pt percentage. You also have to remember, when we’re not knocking down 3s, the lane gets mighty crowded for Roy and LA.

by superfly05 on Dec 14, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions

And several of the guys who are best at it

are injured.

I am Spartacus and I approved this message

by EngineerScotty on Dec 14, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions

no more open looks for blazers

Other teams have figured out our very simple offense and nobody is getting the easy 3s – so that weapon has pretty much been taken away

That is why a guy like Bayless could prove more valuable as the season goes on.

by ralphzillo on Dec 14, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions

stepping in a few feet

is statistically one of the worst shots you can take. It is why Frye’s TS% was so much lower here in Portland than it is now in PHX.

Cloudy is Sergio. Makes other people look good, can’t score himself. -Cablinasian

Greg Postertag is probably wielding a jack hammer of a Wenis - AK1984

by Philthyanimal on Dec 14, 2009 8:25 AM PST up reply actions

Hollinger's gig is PER

until he publicly says he doesn’t like Net PER, I’d hesitate to pull a Quick and attribute an opinion to Hollinger that may not exist.

Personally, I think Net PER is a very effective tool for telling us how teams win games, position by position.

Whereas it takes overall production to win games (outscoring opponents), Net PER can tell us where that is happening or not happening within a team.

Last season, the Blazers won games by outplaying their opponents at the 5, 2 and 3 – in that order. The Blazers were 3rd in Net PER at SG, 2nd at PF, and 7th at SF. They were slightly outplayed at PG and Center.

This season, the Blazers are outplaying their opponents at SG and SF (3.9/3.8) and Center (2.1). The Blazers are getting beaten badly at PG and very slightly at PF.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 3:06 AM PST up reply actions

Roland Beech is the one who uses Net PER and Opponent PER, which are garbage stats.

Dear Paul Allen:

Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.

Sincerely,
AK1984

by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2009 3:44 AM PST up reply actions

You are incorrect.

Net PER is one of the best stats out there. Name one better – and try to make a case for why it’s better.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:20 AM PST up reply actions

well

roland beech just looks at it as one piece of a large statistical puzzle, he is on record as saying that a one number rating is fairly useless and everything must be viewed in context.

To defend net PER as a standalone stat may be tilting at windmills just a bit.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions

ultimately, this argument can be settled quantitatively

using correlation. All individual statistics are subject to test – but I haven’t seen the result of any.

Net PER does pass the eyeball test though – because it tells us how the Blazers approach the game.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions

I hate NET per

I got my BS in Psychology so I have some knowledge of statistics, but it’s certainly not the level of yours if that’s your job. Can you explain to me why you like it so much?

I feel like it’s so archaic at this point. What team in the league doesn’t cross-match on the defensive end, and how often does one player end the possession guarding the same guy that he started with? Teams switch the pick and roll. Teams will have their center guard Boozer and their PF on Okur. Teams will play zone. I don’t understand why you like it so much, but I’m asking with a genuine interest in learning more about it.

"One of the bright spots of the young season has been rookie point guard Jonny Flynn, whose name sounds like he should be the lead character in a Broadway Musical. "What are you doing here, Jonny Flynn?" "Why I'm here to court trouble, and woo a girl, and build the most fantastical contraption the world has ever seen!" -- Dave, Game 7 Blazers versus Timberwolves preview

by BlazersOrBust on Dec 14, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions

What Net PER tells me

is that the Blazers won last year because they outproduced their opponent at the 2, 3 and 5 positions.

Where I agree with some of the criticism of the stat is using it to say that Player X is better than Player Y because his Net PER is superior.

I admit I have to back off that position. However, I do believe that with some homework (establishing correlation of Net PER position rankings to winning percentage), we could put the argument bed one way or the other.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions

that would be awesome

and a true addition to the APBR discussion, one way or another.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions

Hollinger's been writing columns about his all-defense teams

for at least the last three years, and I don’t think he’s mentioned Net PER a single time. Considering that the last year he explicitly called out defensive on/off efficiency numbers from 82games.com in his ratings without mentioning net PER which he could have gotten just as easily from Beech, I think assuming that he’s not a big fan of net PER can be considered a pretty safe assumption.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 5:35 AM PST up reply actions

who said anything about defense?

I made a case for why Net PER is effective in describing how it is a team outscores its opponents. Saying Hollinger doesn’t use it to measure a players defensive ability is completely irrelevant (straw man irrelevant).

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:22 AM PST up reply actions

Dave is using it to measure between players' defensive abilities in this post

so it isn’t irrelevant or a straw man at all.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions

my take on Net PER wasn't in context of Dave's post - so straw man sticks

but I am thinking that there is a big hole in the context fabric of all these advanced basketball stats.

Basketball is way behind baseball in developing context for all these numbers. It’s a chore to establish correlation, but correlation to winning percentage trumps all personal opinion. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen anyone provide correlation for any of these stats.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions

I just asked KP2 on twitter

about individual measures and predictive power, I’ll update as he informs me.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 9:04 AM PST up reply actions

I don't see it

Dave used net PER, jksnake said he didn’t think it was useful, you disagreed, and said don’t attribute attitudes to Hollinger. Royster gave a reason for assuming that about Hollinger, and you said that was a straw man. It wasn’t.

Your take was entirely in the context of Dave’s post, and jksnake’s reply to Dave’s post. Maybe you didn’t intend it that way, but that was certainly the context.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions

As Hollinger pointed out informally

with his whole “Value Added” and “Estimated Wins Added” stats, it appears he has done some correlation between PER and wins.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090325

I’d doubt that he’d arbitrarily state that 30 VA points are worth one win without doing some sort of rudimentary correlation. More than that, if he’s any kind of statistician at all, I’d guess that he examines the correlation between performance and PER after each year to tweak the formulas. It’s not like PER, or any other statistic was just decided by some guy sitting in a room arbitrarily picking coefficients out of a hat.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions

The problem with PER is that it tells only half the story

most opponents to Net PER criticize its applicability to defense. Rather than try to use it to quantify defense, I (now) think the best use of Net PER is to simply see where a team outscores its opponents.

Last year, the Blazers were decidedly average at the PG and Center positions, and exceptional at the SG and PF positions. Would the Blazers have been so exceptional at the SG and PF positions if CP3 had been playing instead of Blake, at the PG?

Tough question, I think.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

Then you get into the whole problem

of extracting team performance down to individual performance which is the same problem we see with WOW. I’m okay with looking at our “team net PER” by position and seeing that opposing SFs played poorly against us last year, or that opposing PFs played poorly against us last year, but I don’t think you can extrapolate that down to “LaMarcus held opposing PFs to 15 PER” or whatever just because there’s so much of a player’s production that goes beyond an individual’s stats.

If a PG carves us up on the P&R because LA isn’t showing properly, then the stats show that Blake (or whoever) got roasted, when it’s really attributable to largely to LaMarcus. On the other hand, though, I think you can still look at the stat and say “Our team did a poor job defending PGs last year”.

Just like team rebounds may correlate extremely well with defensive performance at a team level but not so much at an individual level (does any one really believe Troy Murphy was something like a top 10 player in the league last year?), Net PER, or opposition PER, may indicate things at the team level, but I don’t think you can go beyond that to using it to assess individual performance.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 10:14 AM PST up reply actions

Net PER only makes sense if you want to talk about defense

If you want to talk about a player’s production, that’s why he’s created PER. If he thought Net PER was somehow more descriptive than his base formula, he’d use that.

Like you said, his gig is PER, not “net PER”. If he preferred net PER, he’d reference that once in a while.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions

What Hollinger does or does not choose to use has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of a piece of information

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions

Looking at the net PER chart above

it says Blake has logged all his minutes at PG. Anyone watching the game however can see that Blake has played a HUGE amount of minutes at the SG spot this season – and continues to every single game.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions

As I recall reading somewhere

the way that Beech determines these stats about who’s playing where and who’s guarding who has something to do with ranking the players by size and assigning them on an ordered scale (i.e. assume the smallest guy is playing PG, the biggest guy is playing C), so any time there’s any sort of cross-matching, it screws up the stats, which is another reason why individual opponent stats are a poor measure of defense.

Unless of course, you have the funding to hire the manpower to have people watching every game and manually tracking who is guarding whom, then they gain at least a little bit more credibility.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions

exactly!

so the whole net-per argument (in context of this team this year) is almost useless then, since we’ve played so many minutes of oddball lineups – TONS of 3 guard, lots of 2 point guard, some 3 point guard, some small ball with Martell at the 4. and on and on.

Someone “randomly” assigning a corresponding opposing player to be the offset of the Blazer in question in terms of net per isn’t going to be producing any kind of number I want to bank on.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions

Fully agree: start Miller, play Bayless 25 mins/game, bench Blake

And by bench Blake, I mean, hI would BENCH him. I don’t mean bring him off the bench – I mean keep him there.

I like Steve as a competitor, but he’s not an NBA level talent this season, and he doesn’t deserve minutes on a playoff team. Any. Minutes. At. All.

Play Brandon and Dre 35 minutes each and play Bayless around 26. There’s your distribution of guard minutes. Blake gets squadoosh.

I don’t understand what the benefit is of playing a guy who is doing very little to help the team win now and who is not (or should not be) in the team’s future plans. Bayless is significantly better now and, needless to say, has 10 billion times the potential going forward. The kid has the work ethic and athleticism to be an all star one day, and he’s sitting behind a guy with a PER below 9 on a team that will struggle to lock down a low seed this year at best. It makes utterly no sense.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 7:38 AM PST up reply actions

Wish they would..

However the politics are not going to change anytime soon,I’m afraid.

by DowntownVinnie on Dec 14, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions

It never has,

it has always been thus…

We’ve always had teabaggers (smirk), birthers, truthers, and political outrage over mostly nothing. It is the human condition and we will never out grow it, we can only seek to mitigate it. e.g. checks and balances.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions

Who plays SF?

We have to play some three guard lineups right now, so that minutes distribution won’t work.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions

bayless is a +50 at SF ;-)

sample size shample size

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

rec

Travis Outlaw, the Funnel Cake of the Blazers

by 22baylor on Dec 14, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

I will go further

I think Dave’s approach is deeply flawed, as I explained in my post, “Method of Analysis, Dave?,” below.

Your second paragraph is the common sense “take” supported by almost all the individual stats.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 7:49 AM PST up reply actions

I bet he does not get the chance!

I am sorry but this post just annoyed the heck out if me, You mae some god points about how it would be tough on the team to play Miller and Bayless together. But there is no good reason to play Blake 30+ minutes and Bayless gets less than 10. With Rudy out, Bayless should be playing more and those minutes should NOT be going to Blake. I get that we need Steve’s 3pt shooting that we miss from Rudy but that only works if Blake actually hits those shots. So why can’t Roy SG? Why does he HAVE to have the ball in his hands all the time? I hate that we have to protect Roy from any critism because he won’t be the 3pt shooter and let the PG be the playmaker. We should be able to play Miller and Roy as PG and SG where the PG makes the plays and the SG shoots the ball from outside.
It will always hurt to see Blake playing Basketball for the Blazers so any excuse for why he gets more minutes than Bayless will just not fly with me. And now that he can’t hit an open shot, well its a real surprise that we have won 14 games this season.
I feel for Jerryd, it sucks that can’t get on the court because
A) Roy won’t play like a SG.
B) Blake gets to play even when he isn’t hitting shots.
C) The coaches won’t trust him to play even when he’s playing well. I always believed in the notion that players need to play to get better. Why are we still playing Blake when he is not a part of our future? Now is the time to integrate Bayless to the rotation and to let him learn from his mistakes. If the coaches don’t believe in him than why aren’t we looking to trade Bayless? This conundrum is really what irks me. Miller is not really a part of the future either so KP needs to put his hands up and say that he made a mistake and fix it. I believe that come the summer, either we resign Blake( shoot me if that happens) or we’d look at PGs at the draft and free agency. Nate does not have any faith in Bayless and will never play him until he makes Jerryd Bayless into Steve Blake.

by VinnyB on Dec 14, 2009 2:38 AM PST reply actions

I don't understand

Why we’re sticking with older players when they AREN’T WINNING GAMES. This is a unique opportunity for us to see how our young players do with extended minutes, and yet time and time again we send out known quantities (esp in crunch time, Milwaukee being case in point) to marginal effect. This is effectiely a “rebuilding” year in that we aren’t fielding our team of the future, so why not let future players play? Seems to be working for Grizz, Jazz, Thunder, Hornets. If it doesn’t work I guess we can gie Blake his minutes back, but I want to see the alternaties first

by momomoses7 on Dec 14, 2009 3:24 AM PST up reply actions

And the amazing part is we're playing for almost nothing

If we make the playoffs, great, we’ll almost definitely lose in the first round again just because we’re missing so many players, struggling offensively, and can’t seem to figure out our PG situation. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t experiment when you’ve got nothing really to lose.

by Seven06Renault on Dec 14, 2009 6:49 AM PST up reply actions

I think

that JBay’s defensive errors do not endear him to Nate’s system,unfortunately

by DowntownVinnie on Dec 14, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions

and blake's errors do?

bayless leaves over my dead body
Start Bayless (in a 2 guard lineup)
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52
#4
Can someone give a rational explanation of why blake plays 36 minutes a game?

by thomasikehara on Dec 14, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions

I agree and disagree...

Roy playing like a PG when playing with Bayless is perfect as far as i am concerned. Bayless does better coming off screens and moving around than he does setting up team mates. When Roy and Bayless play together, Roy should be the 1 and Bayless the 2. Then it works out defensively too because Bayless can guard the opposing teams pg. I think eventually if Bayless can knock down his 3 pt shots that a Roy/Bayless backcourt will be a match made in heaven…

ALL DAY EVERY DAY...

by Slopedoug on Dec 14, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions

the entire idea Bayless was hoping he could be an ultra-efficient scoring guard next to Brandon, a guy capable of both shooting off the ball and driving with it.

He’s showing that he can do that and he’s playing better defensively this year, getting lost on fewer pick and rolls especially. We never thought he would be a pure point guard.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 2:40 AM PST reply actions

I should add, the issue with Bayless last year was not that he was really a 2 in a 1’s body… it’s that he was an inefficient 2. If he is scoring efficiently, there’s no reason that a Batum-Roy-Bayless group can’t work.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 2:42 AM PST up reply actions

I don't generally like the simplification of the "pure point" definition

what is a pure point? Nash? 0 points 20 assists, 10 steals, 0 turnovers?

define a “pure point guard”. A pure point, in my mind, can either pass to a teammate for a direct score (assist), shoot a spot up J, pull up J off the dribble, break a defender down off the dribble, lead a fast break and finish a fast break.

Bayless is the closest thing to a “pure point guard” on the team because none of these offensive “decisions” are major weaknesses, unlike Blake or Miller. Bayless is the least flawed, yet has certain skills that are still top flight.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 2:55 AM PST up reply actions

The closest thing to a "pure point guard" on this team is Andre Miller, but this team doesn't need ...

a “pure point guard.” Rather, it must have a defensive-minded off guard who can adequately defend any opposing backcourt player one-on-one and be a fairly efficient spot-up shooter on offense.

Suffice it to say, though, this poorly constructed ballclub doesn’t yet have the right type of player who’s a perfect stylistic fit next to Brandon Roy in the backcourt.

Dear Paul Allen:

Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.

Sincerely,
AK1984

by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2009 3:02 AM PST up reply actions

When Bayless was drafted, Roy's opinion is that he could coexist very nicely with Bayless

because he would play the point in the half court, while Bayless could bring the ball up and defend point guards.

Ultimately, I think Bayless could play “off” Roy a lot better than Miller because he won’t demand the ball – but if he gets the ball he has more options than Miller without any of his weaknesses.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions

and for what its worth

I think a “pure point” can bring the ball up against pressure, pass, shoot, score in the paint off the dribble and defend opposing points

Right now, Bayless does more of those things better than anyone else. Miller used to be a good point – but he is decidedly average now – at best. At worst, he is deplorable at the one thing we hoped he would be really good at – pushing the pace.

Bayless gets very little credit for being pass oriented – but I think he has more options than other players and shouldn’t have the ability to score degrade his “pure point” credentials. Exactly the opposite should be true, in my opinion.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 3:21 AM PST up reply actions

one addition

I think something that is assumed in “pure point guard” is also the ability to see a play develop. A point guard is the player on the floor who sees a lane open, envisions the cut before it happens, and gets the ball to the player to make it happen. Right now only Andre Miller is doing that.

The assists Portland seems to get now are mostly kick-outs. There is so little offensive movement that there aren’t many opportunities for better cuts/assists. But maybe there isn’t movement because, until Miller came along, the Blazers didn’t have someone who had the vision to make those passes.

I'm going to come up with the best line here ever, something really clever.

by musicdaniel on Dec 14, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

Sergio?

I remember Sergio hitting a lot of cutters, especially Rudy last year.

"I love me some mountain man." – ratbastird

by Devenex on Dec 14, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

Rudy is an efficient outside shooter, rising quickly through the ranks of all-time Blazer ranks of made 3s

Jerryd could form a potent backup duo with him, driving to the rim with his superior handles and athleticism while also throwing some oops to Rudy or kicking it out to him if he gets covered, and vice versa.

Roy also has improve his outside shooting. Jerryd too, though still on limited attempts. I don’t put much on the notion that the PG needs to be a great outside threat to be effective anyway. Or to make Roy effective in our particular case. Do defenses really respect Blake? No, most of the time his guard can afford to help off him and cover Roy.

Be able to bring the ball up court without turning it over, defend the point guard, be a scoring threat (and that has not to be as a No. 1 or No. 2 option). Those were always the criteria for Jerryd, and still are. In addition to this he is bringing an ability to get his points at the line only really rivaled by Roy, and to some extend Greg and Andre. He is close to fulfilling those criteria and should see his minutes increased to learn this year, like other young scoring PGs like Westbrook did. Yes, mostly at the expense of Steve.

Miller - Roy - Webster - Aldridge - Przybilla. Is that so hard?

by Norsktroll on Dec 14, 2009 2:51 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

It can't get any worse

After losing half our team in a Bizarre Gardening Accident and dropping a game to the freaking Bucks it can’t hurt to try something new. Sure, Blake is supposed to be the best spot-up shooter to pair with Roy but right now he just isn’t hitting those shots. Maybe Bayless shoots them just as poorly and goes back to guarding Pendergraph’s crutches but perhaps he really has developed some range and gives the team something new.

Sooner or later KP and the crew are going to have to make some hard decisions about this roster and their assets, even if Bayless comes in and shoots like a tub of Legos (Brick City Baby!) at least everyone will know that our guard of the future is not sitting on the bench today. Giving him a chance to build some on-court chemistry with Roy and LMA could be huge in deciding his future in Portland.

Or we could go by the stats and start him in place of Webster at SF. I’m no good at math but if his trends hold he would average a triple quadruple over the course of the season.

by JonathanPDX on Dec 14, 2009 3:52 AM PST reply actions

The Bucks aren't so freaking this year.

Losing to them on the road is not like getting blown out by the Grizz at home.

I am Spartacus and I approved this message

by EngineerScotty on Dec 14, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions

This is a lot of analysis...

…..this is a shotgun blast of analysis and statistic. I think the observations about what “type” of opportunity Jerryd Bayless might be able to garner is probably accurate. But could the whole quandary be that complicated and also much simpler?

Whoever said what, whomever quoted what, whatever anybody meant, I think it is pretty safe to conclude Jerryd Bayless is getting an unsatisfied mind. He’s personally not happy with his role. That’s the pebble dropped in the pond, everything else is ripple out from that center.

Also to simplify further, during the McMillan era being the 3rd PG on the depth chart has not been a fertile ground for opportunity. It wasn’t fertile ground for Sergio, or Taureen Green. During the McMillan era PG has been a high stress position. Is this due to the requirements of Brandon Roys game? Is this due to McMillans philosophy and coaching style? In my opinion probably a combination of both realities. It’s all been magnified this season with the addition of Miller and the horrific amount of forced sudden change to the team due to injuries.

Talented guard cores can work. We had them in Portland over the years. Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, and Vinnie Johnson in Detroit is probably the most famous. The key though is that everyone needs to be happy and/or at least accept their role. So far this season The Blazers have had the anti-Midas touch, finding a way to make everyone unhappy. I don’t think Blake is enjoying starting and the microscopic lazer beam spotlight he’s been playing under, all the while watching Miller over his shoulder. Regardless of what Miller is saying, it’s clear he believes he should be a starter. Now we are feeling the tremors from a growing volcanoe in Bayless…so presto…nobody is happy.

I’m just kind of afraid without a change in the form of one less PG on the roster, nobody is going to be happy. Because the reality is simple, on the Blazers you have your starting PG, your 2nd unit PG, your 3rd string PG and the wild trump card that comes into play at any given moment Brandon Roy playmaker. That makes playing time and reality for a 3rd string PG difficult.

From a fans POV I shudder to think what the squawk from the fans would be if we happened to have a healthy Patty Mills and he should happen to have a few decent moments on the court….Free Bayless, Free Miller, Free Mills?

I’m not blaming McMillan or Blazer management but I think tough decisions about our PG core have been put on hold. To use KP’s cake analogy it seems that section of the cake has fallen, but The Blazers answer hasn’t been to change cakes, it’s been to keep baking the one we have…I’m afraid it’s not going to “unfall”.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Dec 14, 2009 4:21 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

I'll just throw out the fact that

Bayless is still just 21 years old…the only way hes ever going to improve on any of his skills is getting more playing time. I find it hard to trust any of these numbers when they are taken from such a small sample size. The guy had 5 DNPs to start the year and has played over 10 minutes only 9 times ALL season and over 15 minutes only 5 times, which, to me, makes it pretty hard to trust ANY numbers we throw out on the guy, especially per 36 minute numbers.

I appreciate the analysis though, but really you can try and defend the Blake thing up and down with numbers all you’d like, but its become obscenely clear that Blake is not a starting pg in this league.

by abobo84 on Dec 14, 2009 5:56 AM PST reply actions

And really

what have we got to lose at this point by playing Bayless 20-25 minutes a game and cutting into Blake’s recent 35+mpg…heaven forbid we let our lottery pick develop by giving him some quality run…

by abobo84 on Dec 14, 2009 6:00 AM PST up reply actions

The bottom line.

Now that Greg is gone for the season and with the team playing like crap (except for the last two games only half crappy) we need something to root for. Do I find it entertaining to watch Blake brick shot after shot or dribble out most of the 24 second clock? NO! The whole team showed a lack of energy at time except for one guy. Bayless is the only player with any fire in him and I feel that he deserves a shot. Especially when the team is struggling and the fans want something more entertaining to watch.

Bayless = more fun to watch than Steve B.

by Flapbreaker on Dec 14, 2009 6:32 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

When does Miller start?

Who cares about Bayless? Miller still has not had the opportunity to get some run with the first unit. Miller should start and get 30 minutes, Blake and Rex should get 8-18 minutes between them, depending on matchups and who’s hittin shots. The consensus at the end of last season was we needed an upgrade at pg. Well, we got him. What’s the problem?

I don’t mean to sound harsh about Bayless; at this point he should be getting more minutes than Blake, but, regardless, they should both be backing up Miller.

Start Miller.

by RenoBlazerFan on Dec 14, 2009 6:35 AM PST reply actions

The point of the article was Bayless.

It was said that Andre and BRoy both would have to give up to much of their strength. It gives us the either or syndrome.

You are saying start Miller and bench BRoy, Steve and Andre can play great together. Not BRoy and Andre.

With all the new talent that JBay is showing, he can take Steve’s place and still be a productive gunner. I don’t think Andre can do that.

by BBK on Dec 14, 2009 7:23 AM PST up reply actions

I did not say, or imply, benching Roy

Start Miller.

by RenoBlazerFan on Dec 14, 2009 7:53 AM PST up reply actions

Miller > Bayless > Blake

Blake is really contributing little to nothing at this point. There can be only one reason he’s still getting minutes and that reason is that the team is terrified of upsetting Brandon.

That said I agree with Grumpy Jaynes that Bayless’s defense really isn’t amazing. He can’t keep his hands to himself.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Dec 14, 2009 6:38 AM PST reply actions

I also agree with those wh osay this season is a throwaway and there is absolutely no reason at all to play a journeyman with a known ceiling over your high draft pick that you need to evaluate

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Dec 14, 2009 6:42 AM PST up reply actions

I will say this,

a foul on Jerryd, is not a foul on our centers.

I’d be interested to see each center’s foul rate based upon what PG was in with them. I have a theory that Jerryd fouls, but he stays in front of his man more and allows less penetration.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:08 AM PST up reply actions

At least Bayless can stay with his man so that he can foul

Brandon Jennings flew by Blake so fast not even the Flash could provide cover.

Bayless will learn what he can and can’t get away with- and the refs are always unkind to young players.

by ralphzillo on Dec 14, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions

Not exactly sure about this point.

I saw Blake do a better job at fighting through picks than just about any other Blazer defender with the possible exception of Webster.

It also appeared to me that Blake was one of the reasons Jennings was a non factor in the first half.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions

Appreciate the attempt Dave,

But after reading through the comments so far, it seems that those who think “Blake sucks, play Bayless” still think that, and those that don’t…..don’t.

For what it is worth, you solidified what my gut was telling me. Whether Hollinger likes your stats or not, your conclusion that Bayless is really looking for minutes from Roy and Miller is what I was thinking too.

RoadBlazer

by Roadblazer on Dec 14, 2009 6:50 AM PST reply actions

When you look at the future, you will definnitely choose Bayless over steve Blake

Do you still believe that Blake is a contender’s starting PG?
We are not contender this year, why not develop our young players?

by RONO in HK on Dec 14, 2009 6:53 AM PST reply actions

Nice post Dave.

I don’t really like the numbers you used, but they do make a point, Bayless still has alot to learn. However I think the main point of the Blake/miller/Bayless arguement was missed by your article. Most Blazer fans are not calling for Bayless to play 30 mins a night, they just want a consistant 15-20, which you said at the end was what you though he deserved as well. However the team is barely giving him 10 a night, which is why the frustration continues.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Dec 14, 2009 7:23 AM PST reply actions

Numbers, just a bunch of numbers

Really all of the new fangled stats can be used to support anyone’s claims on how they view a player. Are they useful? Of course, but only if used in conjunction with what the eyes see and what the ultimate number is: A win.

My eyes tell me (and once again we need to look at the collective here, my eyes might be biased in certain ways that others might not) that Bayless is playing better than last year and Blake is not. My eyes are telling me that our offense is very offensive. My eyes are telling me that our defense is somewhat improved, but we still have a long ways to go. My eyes tell me that there is a lot of frustration in certain players faces (Roy and Bayless specifically).

Some of the above can be quantified by numbers. Some not so. How the coaches and GM perceive both the numbers and what they are seeing is what is important here. They can’t forsake one for the other. Sometimes I think instead of the here and now, playing time is alloted based on past history, bias and structure. Sometimes this is good, sometimes not so.

Now is the time to step back, analyze, look, observe and then react. If this is done I think changes will be made, some subtle, some not so.

At least to my eyes I hope so.

#52

by blazermaniac32 on Dec 14, 2009 7:32 AM PST reply actions

Method of Analysis, Dave??????????

This is your blog, and you put a ton of quality work into it and deserve to be lauded and respected for it…….

……however, I have to say this entry completely baffles me. You have chosen to rely almost exclusively on +/- stats for a player who has played LESS THAN 200 MINUTES so far this season.

How do you justify this approach? I am not a statistical wizard, but I did major in Sociology and minored in Economics (the qualitative rather than quantitative kind). I took a few basic stat classes. Based on my understanding, +/- is a notoriously fickle stat because it can be greatly influenced by a host of uncontrolled variables. The obvious one is that it does not take into account who your teammates are out on the floor. If you are playing with Brandon Roy, LMA, and Greg Oden, your stats are going to look better than if you are playing with Miller, Pryz, and Howard. This is pretty basic stuff. This bias is further exacerbated when you are talking about a very small sample size. I have heard that the basic rule of thumb is that +/- only starts to show some reliability when you start talking about a whole season or two.

Normally, when you are trying to compare individual players, who are usually on the floor at opposite times, the approach is to rely heavily on individual stats. You have almost entirely ignored the individual stats. Given that those stats are the core of the case against Blake getting the minutes he has, and are the primary evidence supporting the position that Bayless has “earned” more minutes, the fact that you have chosen to utterly ignore them seems very telling.

It pains me to say this, and I doubt that it is your intention, Dave. But the approach you take clearly creates the impression that this is nothing more than an elaborate bit of apologetics for Nate and Steve. If this is not your intention, then I think you should provide your readers with some insight and explanation for choosing to approach this topic in this way.

To my rather simplistic, social-science trained mind, this looks like a case of faulty methodology leading to faulty conclusions. To put it in the vernacular, “garbage in, garbage out.” Perhaps I don’t understand the stats well enough. At a minimum I would appreciate some discussion of why the individual stats paint such a completely different picture from the stats Dave cites above.

I hope my comments don’t come across as a personal attack. They are not intended that way. We are all trying to deepen our understanding of the game. If we don’t understand the stats and how they can and cannot be used, then we are not likely to draw the right conclusions.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 7:41 AM PST reply actions 13 recs

Dave, I think our resident stat guru PoliSam would agree that plus/minus stats are pretty worthless here...

Last season, I did an early post comparing various players’ plus/ minus off 82games.com, and I believe the feedback from our stat experts was something along these lines: the accuracy of these numbers given the small sample size leads to no possible conclusion at all. The likely margin of error is so high that it completely envelopes the conclusion.

So I agree with ULC that, in this case, plus/minus has no real bearing on the analysis.

I would primarily look at PER, just for the sake of simplicity. The fact is that Blake is one of the worst rotation players (and VERY worst starters) in the league (with a PER below 9), while Bayless has been extremely promising (with a PER nearing 18!) coming off an up and down (and mostly down) rookie season. If you want, you could get into the details (true shooting percentage, usage rate, scoring rate) supporting the difference in PER.

Hollinger has a basic formula for how many wins one point of PER typically generates for a player getting 2,000 minutes. I forget the specifics. But the basic point is, 9 points of PER is a LOT LOT LOT of wins. Who knows if Bayless’s numbers would stay so high and Blake’s so low, but why does the difference really have to be dramatic in order for Bayless to get minutes? Remind me again which one of these guys is (or should be) being developed to a future piece of this team’s foundation?

That’s not to mention that this is not a situation where statistics are really necessary – just about anyone watching most of the games could tell you that Bayless’s energy has an effect on the game, just like Blake’s quiet ineffectiveness. Are their many Blake supporters left out there? I’d love to hear an argument that Blake should continue to get more than 15 minutes per game.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 7:59 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Dave gets into quite a few details other than +/- or PER as well as subjective analysis

making your critique a way bit oversimplified.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions

I'd have no problem with 20 mpg for Blake

even 25, if he’s hitting. Excellent spacing, good team defense, few mistakes, etc.

A guy like that is great for spacing the floor if he’s on. I don’t mind giving him 20 mpg at this point to find out if he’s hitting that night, and more if he is.

That might change when Rudy comes back.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions

I don't disagree with that

If Blake is hitting, he can be a weapon.

Either way, when he’s out there, Steve needs to let it fly. If he is going to pass up open threes, and he lacks confidence, he should not be on the court.

Steve needs to shoot in order to justify his PT.

I’d like to see him out there in spot minutes as designated three point assassin, looking to shoot, and if he’s not hitting then get him a warm up jacket and a toul and let him work on his high fives the rest of the game.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions

There are a lot of logical fallacies in your rebut to Dave

sample size is always relevant, but Dave qualified his argument sufficiently to make your post pretty irrelevant:

It’s important to note that all of these stats—indeed all of the ones I’ll be citing today—are contextual, meaning they fall prey to the vagaries of teammates, opponents, and the occasional odd situation. They’re going to be more indicative as the season progresses and aberrations even out.

Emphasis is mine.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions

You say that there are a lot of logical fallacies in my post and then don't cite any??????

Seriously, if you are going to make sweeping statements, some explanation would be helpful.

You are right that Dave did offer the obligatory qualifier, but that doesn’t really adress the substance of my criticism.

I am asking if the current stats have any validity. Responding that they will have more validity “as the season progresses” begs the question.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:37 AM PST up reply actions

Eh?

I put the emphasis there on purpose….that was from Dave – and he knows that sample size is an issue – meaning your rebut shouldn’t (logically) focus on sample size.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:40 AM PST up reply actions

Saying the sample size is too small does not negate the fact that it is in fact too small!

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions

lol

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions

try this

Dave’s conclusions did not rely on the stats. Sample size is too small, yet it isn’t used to drive the conclusion, therefore no harm no foul.

It would be different if Dave’s conclusions were supported only by small sample size stats – but they are not.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

Now that is working it!

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions

Since I feel ill informed here about your disappearing stats theory

Can you tell me what Dave is basing his conclusions on?

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

twss

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

that's what stats say

;)

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions

How does quoting Dave's qualifier support your statement that my comment included a lot of logical fallacies?

Adding a qualifier does not mean the stats cited are reliable.

My point is that Dave ignores the individual stats, which are far more reliable given the small sample size, and which point to a very different set of conclusions.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions

i think he just ignored them because there have already been plenty of posts detailed his superiority individually this season

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 9:08 AM PST up reply actions

I get not actually reposting those stats, which I have posted ad naseum....

…..but I don’t know how you can ignore them when it comes to evaluating the four guards.

From a statistical point of view, he ignores the more reliable stats in favor of the less reliable ones. My professors would have called that a major NO-NO.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions

10 minutes a game is not a large enough sample size

to make these statistics significant. Argue all you want, until that changes, these stats don’t support any argument other than “let’s not see what happens if we play him more.” And that is absurd.

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 14, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions

What about the rest of his post?

I find it odd that so many are attacking his use of stats when even he doesn’t rely on them other than to say there is more to this than simple stats….

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions

You mean the part where he declares Bayless has the same impact

on the offense as Miller? Bayless doesn’t play with the starters, so how can you objectively argue for that? It’s merely Dave’s opinion.

Let’s be honest here – Steve Blake is a crutch for the iso Roy offense – no ball movement, no player movement, no easy baskets, no flow to the offense. When Blake is hitting, it works, but when he’s off, the whole offensive scheme is blown. The offense right now relies on individual talent rather than assisted baskets – good enough to keep us in games but not good enough to win.

Exactly what is the argument for playing Blake 40 minutes a game and Bayless 10?

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 14, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I think this is a pretty good summary of the situation

It may be a tad harsh and oversimplified but I think you are pretty close to the bull’s eye. Rec’ed

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions

there is no argument for Blake over Bayless

funny thing lost in all this discussion is that I’d love to see Bayless starting not only over Blake, but Miller as well.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions

Dave: I, too, am a bit puzzled by your approach.

Is there something I’m missing?

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Dec 14, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions

Rec

I agree entirely. The sample size is so small, and there are so many variables that are different, that this part of the statistical analysis is virtually useless. Jerryd with Juwon and Dante in garbage time is not the same as Steve with Greg and LMA in the first quarter.

As to the hands rating, I’ll say this:
1. Jerryd has had a much higher percentage of his playing time in garbage time, when turnovers happen at a higher frequency.
2. Jerryd is definitely a greater risk to turn the ball over than Steve. He is also a much greater risk to do something productive with the ball that breaks down the defense and results in a score.
3. “Hands rating” doesn’t count team turnovers, where the offense stagnates so badly that we get a 24 second clock violation, or effective turnovers, where an impossible shot is launched 2 seconds before the shot clock buzzer. Those things happen with a much higher frequency when Blake is in the game than when Jerryd is, I would bet.
4. “Hands rating” also doesn’t count missed shots, but whether it is a missed shot or a turnover, the other team gets the ball.

Basically, it comes down to this. It is relatively easy to get a decent “hands rating” if you never try to do anything with the ball. If you attack the basket, score, draw fouls, you are almost certainly going to have more turnovers than the guy who never, ever does those things.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 10 recs

rec

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions

rec number two

by BlazersOrBust on Dec 14, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions

Bayless has a lower TOV%, almost as high of Assist%, and a better Assist/TO ratio

I can’t find any explanation of the “Hands” stat cited. How can Blake have a better rating when Bayless has better individual stats?

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions

TOV% is calculated using USG%. Bayless turns it over less per possession used, but uses a lot more possessions.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 10:27 AM PST up reply actions

rec

For #3 especially.

by Corwin71 on Dec 14, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions

With all the players injured - you start to see the trees through the forest

Of the players that are available to play- you can see who can bring it and who can’t. I think it is as simple as that.

Blake has such a limited game, there is no room to step up. He is being stripped bare and there ain’t much game there.

Martel has a little more upside, but is limitations are also being exposed.

Bayless has shown he has stepped up his game in almost all areas- he’s making shots, getting rebounds, making a few passes, getting fouled and making his FTs. Yes, the defense is still a bit rough, but at least he is fighting for position.

by ralphzillo on Dec 14, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

+1 for use of "Garbage In, Garbage Out"

I don’t know if Dave is trying to be the devil’s advocate here, but it seems to me he’s making elaborate castles on a foundation of sand (PER and comparative +/-).

+/- can be informative at pointing towards TRENDS.

PER is a career vehicle for a journalist.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Dec 14, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions

ditto

by jcoop85 on Dec 14, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions

I am totally with you in this, ULC. But I have to point out the words you highlighted...

You have chosen to rely almost exclusively on +/- stats for a player who has played LESS THAN 200 MINUTES so far this season.

Now you understand why your very long post earlier this season about Bayless’ ultra-high PER in 23 TOTAL minutes all season is just as baffling as Dave’s use of +/- in this post.

I really don’t mean this as a personal attack. Sorry if you think I do. But what I am trying to say is we all have to be careful when using stats to back the argument, especially stats without enough sample size.

by iverigma2 on Dec 14, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions

I was noting a surprising early trend, one that I thought bore watching.

Bayless’ stats have regressed towards the mean, as any one would have expected, but his PER remain 10 points ahead of Blake and 10 points ahead of his season total from last year. I think I did a good job of noting an early trend.

I understood that they were not reliable stats. I was attempting to use a surprising statistical artifact to point out how much better Bayless was playing. I put about six qualifiers in my post and still got beat about the head and shoulders. Frankly, I would argue that individual stats for 23 minutes of PT is just about as reliable as 200 minutes of +/- . Oh well.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions

by the way, raw +/- is highly suspicious in my understanding

adjusted +/- is much more reliable. But it is very susceptible to small sample size so generally 3-year adjusted +/- is much better. But it doesn’t help in a lot of situations like the current PG mess in our team.

by iverigma2 on Dec 14, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions

Oh how I love it.

Provide an analysis that reaches conclusions that people don’t like and they find fault with it.

Use numbers to back up a point and the numbers junkies trash the choices you make. Apparently they only like those numbers that support their viewpoint. (Which in itself is almost qualification enough for a job with the IPCC.)

And of course there is the old standbye – “Screw the numbers. I can see what my eyes tell me.”

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 7:42 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

its true though

what good is an on court/off court net when Bayless sees 10 minutes playing with Miller/Dante/Howard/JP and Blake sees 30 minutes with Roy/Miller(Webster)/LMA/JP?
None! Of course Blake’s On-Court is going to be a +7.0 and Bayless will show a -1.6
You know, it looks as though the Blazers play better when Roy is on the bench, because according to 82games.com, Roys On-Court is +4.0, but his Off-Court is +6.2
Clearly these numbers are reliable.

by pdxlifer on Dec 14, 2009 7:59 AM PST up reply actions

Cheap shot, much?

Come on, actually read what I wrote just above. I laid out a pretty reasonable argument for why I thought Dave’s approach was flawed and then invited him, or anyone else, to try to explain/justify his methodology.

Thinking clearly and discussing reasonably is to be desired. I actually care about trying to understanding the game. It isn’t always about cheap polemical arguments.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:00 AM PST up reply actions

My post was already written before your's posted.

No cheap shot.

Of course I am reminded of a saying my mom used to use – if the shoe fits ….

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions

Are you saying that all stats are equally meaningless? That it is pointless to try to understand the game?

I hope that isn’t your position. I am trying to elicit a discussion about the meaning of the different stats and the fact that there is such a basic disagreement between the individual stats and the +/- stats.

You can either join the discussion and add whatever illumination you have to offer, or you can stand on the sidelines and fling cow pies.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:09 AM PST up reply actions

I am not saying anything about stats.

I was just commenting generally about how predictable it is to see people vigorously assualt Dave’s argument.

And I would point out that when the “discussion” is essentially a cow pie flinging exercise, can one be blamed for picking up a pie and throwing it?

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions

I can wholeheartedly agree with you on this.

I am not saying anything about stats.

It might be better if you did?

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:23 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Oh snap.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not that big of a believer in using stats ...

… when discussing basketball.

I fully believe in the use of statistics by people who are experienced in their field as one of many tools. But I’ve found that when they get used by fans, they tend to be more of a crutch to prove one’s point of view rather than a useful tool.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

this is a valid observation

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions

I would add that when someone takes the time to explain ..

.. about how the experts use stats – as you did below – it does help considerably with winnowing the wheat from the chaff when reading posts and viewpoints.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions

thanks

I’ve only had a few college statistics courses, my undergrad was political science and we don’t really have any statistics based classes in law school. So I’m no expert, but I do think stats are fun and somewhat useful.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:57 AM PST up reply actions

Oh snap.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions

Again I agree with you to a certain extent.

The problem here is that Dave brought up these stats for discussion—and that is what is happening!

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions

I will let others be the judge......

I certainly was not trying to fling cowpies at Dave. I was trying to point out that I think his methodology is badly flawed and I asked him or others for clarification.

I don’t know Dave personally, he seems like a great guy, but my guess is that he puts his pants on just like the rest of us. Hopefully he is not immune or absolved from all constructive criticism. Again, I mean no disrespect to him or you. There is, in my mind, a difference between substantive discussion and flinging pies. I think my hands are pretty clean.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:26 AM PST up reply actions

I attacked your critique of Dave's post directly

I am flinging cowpies at your argument.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions

What substantive criticism have you offered to my post? None.

You accused me of attacking his methodology because I didn’t like his conclusion. That is not a substantive criticism. It is a lot closer to name calling than substance.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions

Excuse me. Apologies.

Sorry, I thought I was responding to tim. Your comments have been substantive. I don’t agree with them, but they certainly have not been name calling.

Wish there was an edit button.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions

no problem

appreciate the clarification. Came just in time for me to delete a post of my own :)

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions

we are not "assaulting his argument"

we are questioning his methodology, in good faith I might add.

Should we just blindly accept what people tell us? No, the very heart of BlazersEdge is informed and respectful debate.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

When a player has such limited playing time

you use the stats and then you qualify those stats with personal interpretation of what they mean and you state that the sample size isn’t large enough for real conclusions – more time is needed.

Dave did these things, yet his approach is still the subject of criticism. Agree or disagree, you can’t attribute something to the logic that the logician didn’t put there.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions

Most people are simply asking for more time for Bayless

to see if the stats are significant.

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 14, 2009 8:40 AM PST up reply actions

which i have no problem with

I have rebutted those that are attacking Dave’s well-qualified (as in, he knows the limitations) use of stats

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions

well, that's because other stats

e.g. Oliver’s four factors, straight PER,

come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. When you use “the stats” and “the stats” you picked were in some peoples opinion, not the appropriate stat, then there is disagreement.

May I ask, (humbly and graciously might I add) what formal training you have been exposed to in statistics? I really don’t mean this as a dig, I’m curious

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions

such personal questions are pretty meaningless in the anonymous WWW

but I am a statistician by profession – environmental statistics.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions

yeah I know

but I’ll assume you’re replying in good faith.

So the gist of your argument then, is that you don’t feel Dave is relying on these stats, so you don’t feel the stats should be a featured part of the discussion?

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions

nope

I’ve been trying to rebut the idea that specific stats are central to his argument. I don’t think they are.

I particularly focused on those that attacked Dave’s use of +/- or PER, given that he used a lot more information than that.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions

ah, I see...

Well, I think that most of we dissenters feel that if those stats are somewhat iffy, and not central to the argument, they perhaps should have been left out, because people unfamiliar with statistics could easily draw erroneous conclusions.

What do you think of this idea?

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:59 AM PST up reply actions

lies, damn lies and statistics

I spent time defending Dave’s point in context of the information he used and his understanding of its limits. But if your case is that the audience drives the content, that is also true.

Personally, I think the audience needs to understand the author as much as vice versa.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions

this is true

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions

You are missing the most basic element of my criticism.

All stats are subject to error from small sample size. However the margin of error on +/- stats is far greater than the margin of error involved with individual stats.

By relying almost exclusively on +/- stats, Dave chose to ignore a far more reliable set of data: the individual player stats, which clearly suggest that Bayless has been far more productive and efficient than Blake.

It is fine to look at the +/- stats and it is necessary to quality such use by saying that the stats don’t mean much. It is in my opinion a basic mistake to do this while ignoring the individual stats which point to an entirely different set of conclusions.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions

sample size applies to all statistics, not the ones you pick

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions

But you full well know

that some statistics need a much larger sample size to be relevant than others, because some are much more susceptible to other factors. And these plus/minus stats are very much in the “need a larger sample” category.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions

Did you read my comment?

All stats are subject to error from small sample size. However the margin of error on +/- stats is far greater than the margin of error involved with individual stats.

Individual stats have a much smaller margin of error because they are not subject to all the influence of uncontrolled variables that are induced into +/- stats.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:57 AM PST up reply actions

Standard deviation

we certainly need this information to understand the merit of a particular metric and how to apply it.

Sample size is relevant – which we all know – but your initial post was heavy on the sample size without giving credit to Dave’s qualifying the use of the stat. Ultimately, that is what spawned this discussion.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

bingo

I unwittingly duplicated your point down below.

by BlazersOrBust on Dec 14, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions

I agree with some very good posters in this thread

all of whom — Jscot, ULC, Nick Van Excellent, timbo, KPC — have demonstrated statistical chops at one point or another. All of them have disagreed with Dave’s conclusion and voiced many of the objections that came to my mind while I was reading his post.

Just because people dislike the conclusion and attack the methodology does not ipso facto make the methodology legitimate. You often shake your head at the Blazers naysayers, and I often agree with your head-shaking. But I think you’re off-base on this one.

by BlazersOrBust on Dec 14, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I do get caught off base from time to time.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

Well done

Your response to timg56 maintains a positive flow that I do not think he or she was looking for. Again, well done.

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions

Exactlt where is the positive flow over criticizing Dave's post or methodology?

If you want positive, take a look at how KP Corleone does it. He actually offers up an alternative analysis without wasting a lot of words pointing out how Dave screwed up or is wrong.

If you want to be “positive”, try doing what Dave has done – offer up an analysis and try to support it with numbers, examples, anything, rather than attacking the numbers or choice of methodology Dave has chosen.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 8:11 AM PST up reply actions

I have written several Fanposts trying to point out that Blake's play doesn't seem to justify his minutes and....

…….pointing out that Bayless has shown dramatic improvement. I have cited a ton of stats to try to make the case.

In fact, I have been ridiculed repeatedly and mercilessly for these posts by a group of folks who remain very negative about Bayless’ development.

All criticisms are not created equally. Some are derisive and obnoxious. Some are reasoned and invite discussion. I hope that my comments to Dave were closer to the latter than the former.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 8:18 AM PST up reply actions

Bravo for your attempts, sir!

But I fear they fall on deaf ears…

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 14, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions

Asking someone if they are using the wrong numbers to back an argument is not being negative.

It may be shining the light on the subject.

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:18 AM PST up reply actions

People can't disagree?

I don’t think Dave is wrong, I just disagree with the way he is presenting his argument. It’s a little baffling that he would use such a meaningless statistic , especially since Dave knows better. He might as well be citing a horoscope or something.

I love plus-minus

I just love it for blocks of 40+ games or more. 82 is even better.

—Dave

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions

The fact that I respect Dave's knowlege .....

……is precisely why I found this whole post so disturbing. It really makes one wonder about motives and intentions.

I don’t want to accuse Dave of stuff based on one post, but this really did strike me as an attempt to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Blake and Nate.

As I said above, ignoring the more reliable data which points in one direction, and instead using the less reliable data which points in the opposite direction is a definite statistical No No.

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions

It's not inherently "negative"

to criticize the methodology that somebody has used to draw their conclusions. And I could absolutely make a pro-Bayless argument in this thread supported by objective and subjective analysis, but that drum has been beaten so loud and so hard recently that repeating it here would be a waste of everybody’s time. The discussion is centered on Dave’s post (and is taking place respectfully, I might add), and as this is the comment section for Dave’s post, the nature of the discussion seems appropriate.

by BlazersOrBust on Dec 14, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

Actually, how you get to the numbers means a lot

we “stat junkies” aren’t arguing because we disagree with Dave’s point (though we may), the issue at hand is that the methodology is at least debatable. “Garbage in, garbage out” so they say. It just so happens that I was talking to a world renown statistician last night about basketball statistics and he was discussing the difficulties of getting a handle on something when you cannot control the input. Basketball is too infinitely subtle to ever really nail down in one number, however, his take was simply “Figure out whatever has the most predictive power, and go with that.”
Now I am not certain which metric that is (but I know it’s not WoW…lol), but I will use a quote from

Outside the Box

Turns out a player’s scoring average isn’t the big key to a win
By Jason Friedman
http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-11-01/news/outside-the-box/full

If you’re still judging teams and players by what you see in a box score, chances are a large part of what you think you know is wrong. You might as well crack open a 19th-century textbook and proclaim that you’ve got this whole science thing figured out. If you really want to know basketball, put aside your prehistoric notions of a player’s scoring average and check your ego at the door. Professor Daryl Morey is about to teach Basketball 101. Class is in session.

“The big thing is rigorously tying every decision back to wins,” says Morey, “since winning is obviously most important.”

Then it’s all about breaking things down to the four components which create wins. They are as follows:

• Effective field goal percentage, which is far and away the most important factor in determining wins. “Basically, it’s the percentage you’ve made on your shots if everything was a two-point shot,” explains Morey. “The easiest way I describe it is: two for six from three-point land is equivalent to three for six from two, because in both instances, you get six points.”

• Turnovers

• Rebounding

• Free throws

Those are the elements involved in winning basketball games. From there, Morey and his staff break things down even further, asking questions like, “How did the rebound happen? Was it good positioning? Was it because we have a scheme that doesn’t take us back in transition? You’re isolating down each level on all the types because it all ties back to wins and what things have predictive power going forward. Because even if you perfectly figure out who helped you win in the past, it doesn’t mean that’s going to help you predict who will in the future, and that’s really the goal.”

Which is pretty much Dean Oliver’s “four factors.”

Bayless has great eFG% and he gets to the line very well. He is better about turnovers, and I wish he rebounded like Westbrook, but by these metrics, Blake should be benched.

Man, I wonder if KP2 would run an analysis of what metric had the most predictive power for us…

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs

Tim, this is not valid use of numbers

Sorry, it just isn’t. Plus/minus on a quarter of a season even when a player is playing 25-30 mpg isn’t worth much. When the player only gets 10 mpg, it’s worthless, especially when the players being compared don’t have comparable PT — one with the scrubs, another with the starters.

The rest of Dave’s analysis is worth discussing, but the plus/minus, the net PER, etc., just doesn’t hold water.

And you know I like Steve Blake, but to say that those numbers indicate the team is better with him than with Jerryd is just not sound. They indicate nothing at all.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions

I'm not arguing Dave's numbers at all, either way.

I generally don’t put a lot of faith into numbers unless someone has taken the time to convince me they understand the subject well enough to use numbers correctly and also to explain exactly how the numbers being used correlate to the points they are trying to make.

But then I also don’t see the point in trying to run the team from the stands. I’m fine with watch my team play basketball and to see how they are going to react to the situation they are in. I think fan’s would be well served if they stopped and realized that the team is what it is. It’s basically the same starting unit from last season. The biggest difference is they are lacking last season’s bench. No Travis or Rudy or Greg. No Channing Fry either. For me, that means Miller is likely to see a lot of time as a 2nd unit guy, if for no other reason than that unit needs someone who can score, It also means that both Bayless and Cunningham are going to see their minutes increase. And whether you like the numbers Dave uses or not, I believe he has fairly accurately touched on why Bayless’ minutes may still not reach “starter” level.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions

Nobody could convince you of anything unless they were an authority figure, so no point in trying.

That aside, though, it’s interesting watching you and jscot on other sides of the fence, for that rarely happens.

Dear Paul Allen:

Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.

Sincerely,
AK1984

by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions

I enjoyed that also.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions

You left out ...

… attractive females.

They can convince me of almost anything.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions

So you are admitting to a lack of intellectual integrity?

When it comes to:

1) Authority figures/opinion leaders?
2) Attractive females?
3) Getting Attention?

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions

He'll certainly take #2

but I’m guessing he must not think Sophia is attractive, as often as he disagrees with her. Maybe they have to be more up close and personal to convince him.

#52

by jscot on Dec 15, 2009 12:28 AM PST up reply actions

LOL

You guys are forgetting that timg56 went to Maryland, and Steve Blake took Maryland to a championship.

Any stats that put Blake in a positive light are NOT TO BE QUESTIONED!!!!

#52

by jscot on Dec 15, 2009 12:27 AM PST up reply actions

Okay, let's start with PER. Since so much of this case is made on the basis of PER and the PER of opponents, please start by showing your math with the formula and explaining why Hollinger's weighting in of assists is relevant...

Provide an analysis that reaches conclusions that people don’t like and they find fault with it.

Use numbers to back up a point and the numbers junkies trash the choices you make.

Just because a case is make on pretty NUMBERS doesn’t mean the case isn’t erroneous.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Dec 14, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions

This a reply to TimG56, the bugle boy for Team Blake.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Dec 14, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions

I'm a lousy musician ...

… and I happen to root for Team Portland.

Is Andre Miller a “better” PG than Steve Blake? – I don’t need a bunch of statistical analysis to answer that one – yes.

Who is a better fit along side Roy? – I don’t think that’s the correct question to be asking. Based on the three guard lineup, both can fit in along side Brandon and if McMillan wanted Andre as his starting PG, then it would be up to Miller & Roy to figure out how to play together, with some help from the coaching staff.

Is Bayless better than either of the guys ahead of him? – Maybe. But the burden of proof is on him to show that (to the staff, not the fans, btw).

Do I want to see Bayless getting increased minutes? – Yes. From what I’ve seen he is showing he can contribute.

Do I think I am a better judge of who should be playing and who shouldn’t than the Blazer coaches? – Nope.

As I stated above, I don’t put much stock in anyone’s numbers arguments here at BE, Dave’s included. What I was questioning was how much of the initial commenting was more on the order of “How can you say such things, Dave?” or Why in the world are you using those numbers? They suck." rather than making a cognitive argument against the points Dave raised.

There must be a reason (or reasons) that guard minutes are being distributed as they are. All we really know is the distribution and usage. They rest is conjecture. One can use statistics and formulas in an attempt to deduce the reasoning behind the distribution, but it is still going to be a guessing. And if one’s conclusions based on the statistics and formulas used poinyt to a conclusion different than what we are actually seeing, then we can reach one of two basic conclusions
- the coaching staff doesn’t know what it is doing

- there is more to the game than what gets boiled down by statistics and formulas.

As I think is clear to all by now, I am firmly in the latter camp.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions

Click here for the formula to see it bigger (from Hollinger’s book Pro Basketball Forecast)

Once it is calculated, it gets adjusted for team pace and league PER (average is set to 15, qualifying an average player)

He once outlined a more vague scale but still one that helps to assess a bit what a PER of 10, 15, 20 or 30 means:

*A Year For the Ages: 35.0
*Runaway MVP Candidate: 30.0
*Strong MVP Candidate: 27.5
*Weak MVP Candidate: 25.0
*Bona fide All-Star: 22.5
*Borderline All-Star: 20.0
*Solid 2nd option: 18.0
*3rd Banana: 16.5
*Pretty good player: 15.0
*In the rotation: 13.0
*Scrounging for minutes: 11.0
*Definitely renting: 9.0
*The Next Stop: DLeague 5.0

Wasn’t there a post about some basic and more advanced stats on SSR? Maybe we need one about PER ;)

Miller - Roy - Webster - Aldridge - Przybilla. Is that so hard?

by Norsktroll on Dec 14, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions

To support the validity of this...

Brandon’s PER last year was around 24 – close to a weak MVP candidate, which is what he was.

Lamarcus and Greg’s PER was around 18 – solid second option, which is what they were (Greg’s foul trouble notwithstanding).

Blake, Trout, Rudy, and Przy were all around 15 – pretty good players.

This year, Greg was a bona fide all star before going down, Brandon is down to a borderline all-star, and Lamarcus has been more of a third banana most games inching back up to a second option lately. Travis, Andre, and Rudy have all been “pretty good” when they played.

Doesn’t all of that ring true?

Well, Blake’s PER puts him in the definitely renting category, and Jerryd is between a 3rd banana and a second option. Er go, B-Rex must play, and Steve must sit.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions

have you ever seen me use any of the numbers Dave used?

I have made quite a few stat posts and never used raw plus/minus, net PER, hands rating or passing rating.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 9:21 AM PST up reply actions

The arguments in the post seem contradictory to me.

Either Bayless can replace Steve Blake along-side of Roy and be affective as you say he can, or he’s going to continue sitting behind Roy and Miller because he’s not as reliable compared to Blake as you say he is.

The second point you made may have been meant as a concession to the “Steve Blake Sucks” crowd, but really I think it effectively erased the clarity and argument of the first half of this post entirely.

"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."

by Seijeff on Dec 14, 2009 7:58 AM PST reply actions

Why in the world did you use +/- ?

Bayless hasn’t played enough minutes for it to be of any value and a large portion of the minutes he has played has come in garbage time.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 8:04 AM PST reply actions

What's that old saying?

“Numbers do lie?” But people do!

We have always got to look at the numbers with a good deal of suspicion. I learned that basic principle in a second year statistics course. It is like saying, “The approval rating for Tiger Woods is 95 percent among group X.”

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:13 AM PST up reply actions

Ooops, "don't lie"

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:14 AM PST up reply actions

Be careful Dave.

People may start to blame you for the Blazer’s woe, and start calling for your head along with Nate and Blake.

"CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN." CONAN

by SELFDESTRUCTABLE on Dec 14, 2009 8:18 AM PST reply actions

I don't think so.

Dave gave this post a good effort and deserves respect for that. The fact that some people disagree with him is sparking some good discussion, that is, if we will behave ourselves and act like grown ups.

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions

absolutely

bravo for venturing in to this minefield Dave, you’re a brave man.

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 8:36 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah Dave,

And doon’t be sayin in your pre game posts how bad teams are at things ,and then we recome the rebounding or shooting fairies.So, lie please in your pre game posts so that this will not happeen again.Thanx,Dave.

by DowntownVinnie on Dec 14, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions

It’s tough to say why things are happening on the court. For instance, why is Blake starting and playing 40 minutes and Miller 25? Is it because the coaches want Brandon to realize the better winning option on his own? Maybe the coaches have looked at their favored set of numbers and they are deciding before hand how many minutes they want each player to get and then their focus is achieving those numbers and not game situations. Maybe the coaches really think this minutes structure puts the team in the best position to win and their being consistent with this structure and waiting for the players to get comfortable with it.

Personally, I don’t like these posts about numbers used to justify playing time. The only number that says anything useful is 14-11. All these other numbers are just how it happened. They don’t say anything about what could have been, they only give the appearance of it if you try to extrapolate the numbers. Not only that but if player x played half the time and player y played double the time we all know the outcome would be different (of all these other numbers, not necessarily wins and losses).

It’s too bad we don’t know more of the coaching philosophy this team uses. Until we know that we can’t say why it appears inflexible. Maybe there’s a master plan for player development, maybe not.

by gooddebate on Dec 14, 2009 8:25 AM PST reply actions

Is this Jermaine O'neal all over again?

Maybe we can trade Bayless for Ridnour, really get a sense of deja vu.

by hellablazed on Dec 14, 2009 8:27 AM PST reply actions

I'd love to see Bayless get more time with the starters and see what

his stats look like. But that’s not going to happen, and this post seems to support that Bayless shouldn’t get more time. You can’t improve your stats without more playing time but you shouldn’t get more playing time because of the stats. Talk about a catch-22…

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 14, 2009 8:32 AM PST reply actions

Isn't the better story...

from these numbers how high Miller is? Despite not playing with the starters for major periods of time.

by gooddebate on Dec 14, 2009 8:36 AM PST reply actions

I noticed that as well

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 8:37 AM PST up reply actions

that IS part of dave's point, blake has to beat out miller, not binky

i think he’s trying to see it from the blazers perspective, miller is clearly a good influence out there, blake obviously gets the benefit of playing with aldridge and roy, I think you have to look at running bayless at the 2 and 3 a little bit more and keeping binky in to take care of the ball, unfortunatley…

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions

That made me think...

I wonder if the coaches are just hiding Blake with the starters knowing that any effectiveness he might have would be with them and that he’s be even less effective (um less?) playing with the second group?

by gooddebate on Dec 14, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions

he may of had a carrer year last year

and like the tax man, his minutes are determined from last years play with brandon, which seems to go against nate’s philosophy of the best players earning the most minutes, and you’d think that compounded with his unclutchness in the playoffs would make nate change his tune, but nope.

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions

Blazers are losing...

might as well play him extended minutes and see what he does with them. I don’t think he’s any worse than Blake. I seriously don’t know what’s going on with Steve Blake. Every time he takes a shot I’m thinking in my head ’He’s not going to make that’ and I’m usually right. Even B-Roy is taking more shots now (and missing the majority of them) because he knows Blake isn’t hitting many. This season is going down the drain and fast. SOMEONE needs to start being consistent on this team. Brandon Roy was something like 9/25 in Cleveland and 8/26 in Milwaukee. Numbers like that make me want to throw-up.

by jenstcy on Dec 14, 2009 8:39 AM PST reply actions

remember that one time when bayless guarded dirk in the post?

and got a stop, that was cool. Take that ASSAULT dave! muuhahaahaa I’ve got plenty of youtube videos of rex where that came from that will surely change your mind, why argue when you can just send links to the youtubes?

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 8:43 AM PST reply actions

The sample size is tiny...

but what I’ve seen lately, and by that I mean just the last half dozen to ten games, is Bayless able to create for both himself and others in his limited time. Whether that would continue to be the case over time, I don’t know. But what I’ve seen recently runs contrary to what those numbers show.

For a long time, when Bayless decided to score, you could almost see a flashing icon of a hoop appear over his head. There was no way anything else good was going to happen once he began his march to the basket. If he did get in trouble, he would look up and try to see the court in the blink of an eye, and usually make a bad pass as a result. Lately, he seems comfortable enough to allow himself multiple options on the drive. Because of the scoring threat he presents, that newfound ability is very useful.

Blake, on the other hand, is no threat to score AT ALL when he is driving. None. Every defender in the league knows it, and they concentrate on depriving him of passing lanes when he drives. Not being a particularly daring or clever passer, Blake is seemingly content to dribble back out. More often than not, having done this, he’s going to dump it into L.A. or give it to Roy and let him do his thing. Both of those players being good one on one players, sometimes good things happen. And Blake’s oncourt effect seems positive. But I would argue that he didn’t really do anything that anybody else couldn’t have done. Bayless adds a completely new dimension, one the jump shooting, low movement Blazer offense desperately needs.

by Corwin71 on Dec 14, 2009 8:58 AM PST reply actions

TYPO, READ:

Andre Miller should start, Rex should captain the 2nd team, and Blake should be inserted situationally for 5 minutes a night when the Blazers need to buy a 3 point bucket because — visually and STATISTICALLY — that is ALL he can do at an NBA level. Blake is, after all — visually and statistically — the worst starting PG in the NBA.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Dec 14, 2009 9:05 AM PST reply actions

I think Miller gets way too much love

I’d love to see Bayless start

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions

there has to be a heirarchy

right now it looks like favortism to the fans, starting bayless may not help that, starting miller makes the most sense, he’s one of the few guys cutting to the basket, finding guys on the pick and roll, getting steals, trapping weak ball handlers on D, setting a good example for this team, he should be starting. If brandon has to grow up and learn to play off the ball more, he should do this.

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions

but Miller's 3 point shooting!!!!!

(recent results notwithstanding).

More ugly: transition turnovers.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions

live by the die by the _

you don’t have to take a lot of threes

14736251

by appel82 on Dec 14, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions

nope

which is why the TO’s, especially in transition, are the bigger problem.

If Miller does start missing 3’s again, I certainly hope he backs off shooting them. This offense really favors the 3-ball however, which is why Miller has been jacking so many up, lately.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions

He's only shooting three's because the coaching staff lets him.

He didn’t shoot three’s with the Sixers because he said Maurice Cheeks told him not to.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions

Andre is a career 21% 3-point shooter

bolstered considerably by his 28% rate last year, and his 25% rate this year.

Cheeks was on to something, I think.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions

No joke.

Maybe Nate thought he could improve like Jason Kidd, just by only shooting super open shots.

More likely it’s just a byproduct of an overly ridged system and a poor fit.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions

rec

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions

As I said up farther in the post,

Blake is a crutch for the Roy iso offense – of course Roy wants him in there. But when Blake doesn’t hit, the iso offense doesn’t work. There’s not enough ball movement or player movement.

We have two choices: wait for Blake to come out of his slump, or change the offense to add more ball movement and player movement, and the easiest way to do that is to simply change to a PG that can read defenses & call plays, i.e. Miller.

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 14, 2009 9:25 AM PST reply actions

This whole argument is irrelevant

As soon as Patty Mills comes off the inactive list, he’s gonna become the starter—and in one of the most stunning upsets in the history of the NBA, snag ROY after only a half-seasons of work.

You just watch. :)

I am Spartacus and I approved this message

by EngineerScotty on Dec 14, 2009 9:41 AM PST reply actions

Ahhh.

A wisp of hope!

"CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN." CONAN

by SELFDESTRUCTABLE on Dec 14, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions

I think that's more like a wisp of smoke.

As in Scotty’s been hitting the medical marijuana again.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions

if that kind of vision is pharmaceutically-inspired

it would probably take something acid-based to achieve that level of inspiration

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions

Since the question has come up

and with…shall we say…vigor?

The point here was not to make a comprehensive argument for or against any player. The approach was simple. We already know the individual numbers. We know what our eyes have been telling us. What else might play in to the decision whether or not to play Jerryd?

Personally I was going to do this piece without stats but I decided to look at them first to get an overview. The commonality between many of the plus-minus stats struck me as interesting, perhaps signifcant despite their shortcomings…not so much for the specific numbers but in terms of the players’ ordinal relationship to each other. Thus far in the year, whatever X might quantify here, other guys have had more of X than Jerryd. Significant? Maybe. Interesting? Something to watch anyway. We know some of what Jerryd can do. How well can he play with others, namely the specific others on this team?

The key here is the Roy-Miller-Bayless relationship, which is discussed in the second half of the post. Jerryd will need to be able to play with at least one of them successfully. He’ll need to be able to do it without disappearing. The danger is that the combination of players is not additive and those vaunted individual stats of his start to go down. Even if that happens a little it could be alleviated by some of the above-mentioned categories improving.

For now, anyway, it’s a real possibility that combinations of players are impeding Jerryd’s progress as much as the individual talents he possesses. Acknowledging that possibility and finding ways around it are the point of the post.

—Dave

by Dave on Dec 14, 2009 9:59 AM PST reply actions

One clearly established cause and effect of your post, Dave

is that my work PER just took a major hit.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

AGREE!

But it’s kind of exciting.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Dec 14, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions

Would something like this make more sense for a comparison?

What is the +/- stat for bayless & blake for them playing with a common set of players. I’m sure the sample size is super small, but it may be worth a look.

I think when something isn’t working, we would all like to see option B. And big issue here is that the coaching staff is so slow in making any adjustments (to the point where it’s not good coaching).

by BarelyLegal on Dec 14, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions

Hmmm...

I see where you were going, but I don’t like the vehicle you used to get there.

Really what you’re saying with the “Roy-Miller-Bayless” relationship is that Bayless is not a PG. This is something that, I think, a consensus of BEdge would agree with.

However, there is a similar chorus that suggests that Roy doesn’t need to play with a PG—and I think the lack of ability in playing with Miller is enough proof to settle that point.

But the vehicle. That “Whatever X might quantify here, other guys have had more X than Jerryd” assumes that X had some descriptive quality to begin with. My opinion is that it doesn’t. (See above arguments of sample size, etc.) Better to have left that stuff out.

The real crux of your discussion is “a real possibility that combinations of players are impeding Jerryd’s progress as much as the individual talents he possesses.” This IS a real issue. No argument there. But that’s the reason to look to statistics in the first place. Do the statistics betray any sense about what MIGHT happen if Bayless were to play more minutes? This is where I think a look at the well-documented individual statistics that have also already been discussed are worthwhile.

In short, there’s nothing—anywhere—in the individual statistics that suggest that feeding Bayless more minutes would be a bad gamble. He is outperforming Blake in all of these measures. There may be something else going on but understanding that playing him more is—and always will be—an educated gamble, the easy conclusion is to feed him more minutes.

Your foray into the value of X has, I think, erroneously led you to an incorrect conclusion. IMO, it’s a kind of confirmation bias. We want the coaching and the management to know what they’re doing and are looking for stats that would tend to argue for their past decisions. What is more likely, I think, is that they are emotionally tangled in the situation or there are some social dynamics in the team going on (something wholly unrelated to statistics) that justifes their decisions. The numbers certainly do not support them.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Dec 14, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions

On point with the "Bayless is not a PG" discussion, I've been saying for about a year now

That the real debate over our young guards is going to boil down to Bayless vs. Rudy. It’s hard to imagine they both have a place here in the medium to long term. Assuming Roy goes back to playing all his minutes at the two, and that we will always have someone playing 25-30 minutes a game as a “true PG”, then there is really only room for either Bayless or Rudy to be the 3rd guard, but not both. Bayless might be better suited for it, since he is closer to being able to play stretches of the game at the “1” (thus getting him on the court with Roy), but Rudy is probably a more gifted player overall, and certainly has some “clutch” abilities, which we don’t know whether or not Jerryd possesses yet.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions

I don't think see why we couldn't have Roy, Bayless and Rudy as our top 3 guards someday

Jerryd can play the same starters minutes alongside Roy as Blake has the last couple years, if he proves he’s good enough. Rudy can be a combo guard off the bench.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions

and you could play all 3 at crunch time with Roy at SF if the matchups made sense.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

the question is, of course, is Jerryd good enough? We have no idea.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions

if he is drawing fouls at an insane enough rate to have >60 TS%, then yes.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

that would be the ideal

but at this point, it’s hard to see Rudy developing the ball handling skills or defensive quickness to be able to play 12-16 minutes per game with a Roy/Rudy backcourt. And is Jerryd going to be a good enough setup man to play 32+ minutes a night as our point guard? We can already see he is at his best playing more of a 2-guard role. It’s hard to see a 3-guard rotation of Roy/Rudy/Bayless working out, but I suppose we can hope.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

Jerryd is a PG on defense and a scoring guard on offense.

I don’t see how that makes him a worse fit than Steve, who is a PG/SG on defense and an off guard on offense.

#52

by jksnake99 on Dec 14, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions

good point.

I’d still be concerned about the lack of a true playmaker anywhere in our guard rotation, though Rudy at least WANTS to be one. But maybe I’m too caught up in that.

The prospects for that 3-guard rotation are certainly intriguing, and I’d love to see it happen. Bayless/Roy start, Rudy comes in for Rex about 6 minutes in, who then re-subs for Brandon at the start of the 2nd. 5 minutes later, Roy is back in for Rudy, we then go the last 3 minutes with whichever of Bayless or Rudy has the hot hand and/or matchup advantage, or we use both if our small forward (Batum) is not needed for defense and/or is not playing well.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions

True playmakers are overrated

if you have an offense that doesn’t rely on one, and you have lots of playmakers.

Roy is a playmaker, Rudy is, Nic is probably going to be, Jerryd is going to be. None of them are what you would call a true playmaker, but basically we would almost always be playing with two combo guards and a playmaking SF. There should be lots of passing to go around.

To say nothing of the fact that Greg, all going well, is going to be the best passing big center in the league.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions

Money Quote

If you have an offense that doesn’t rely on one

Does anyone believe that this point that our offense could get a single quality shot without a superlative 1 on 1 player on the floor right now? Comparing us to the Rockets, who have at most one above average playmaker on the floor at any given time (Brooks, Landry is more of a rich man’s Leon Powe) and I can’t imagine they’d have an offensive rating north of 100 running our system.

Indeed, pretty much throughout his coaching career, Nate has been blessed with one or two eexcellent offensive players on each of his teams. Starting with GP, Barry (laugh all you want, but he was good), and Shard, then swapping GP for Ray Allen, then jumping ship to Z-Bo (although we had the worst offense in the league that year) and adding Roy (where we had an average offense until we added Rudy and Greg). He really has yet to develop a team into a good offense without having a collection of guys who were already great offensive players to do it with.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions

Yes, our offense relies on great one on one players

And right now, we’re not even utilizing that very well. See my Natives are Getting Restless fanpost….

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions

Brent Barry was a shockingly efficient player on offense, yes.

Dear Paul Allen:

Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.

Sincerely,
AK1984

by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions

Between him and Desmond Mason

The Sonics had a lock on obscure dunk contest winners (I know Barry’s came as a Ckpper).

Also, he happened to have one of my all-time favorite random nicknames: “Bones”.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions

Putting the cart before the horse...

One thing I just don’t understand is people saying something along the lines of “BRoy is kind of a point guard, and he drives the lane, so we really don’t need a ‘pure’ point guard…”

I’m sorry, did I miss the championship that BRoy and Nate’s fame offense won?

My point is this: basketball is a TEAM sport. One on one players, in a one-on-one based offense, do NOT win championships! Player and ball movement that creates easy shots has always been a successful formula (along with good D).

So why do so many take it as a given that the Blazers “offense” doesn’t need a “true” point guard?? Yes, the offense last year (with Blake and Pryz and perhaps Travis having career years) was efficient. But, as many have pointed out, playing at such a slow pace, with such a low-risk offense, will be more “efficient” – but will it be more effective??
Houston says no…

IMO, the Blazers desperately need a new offensive scheme, and they desperately need a “pure”, “true” point guard to run it. I believe they have a true point guard, and Nate gets major fails for not starting Dre immediately from Day 1, IMO.

BRoy needs to work on his game. We get it, he likes being the man, and likes it when the offense “goes through him”… But that offense is NOT going to win us any championships! Shouldn’t Houston last year have proven to everybody that 1:5 iso’s can be stopped pretty easily?

Isn’t our main problem when Roy holds the ball is that no other players move? Isn’t that a problem with the offensive set, and by design? (stay out of the lane so BRoy can penetrate… well, if you can’t go into the lane, then yes, the players only place to be is standing out by the 3 point line, “doing a Portland”…)

The alternative is letting a true point guard let the offense, and instill constant movement, run the break, feed the post, pick and roll, move your feet and move the ball…. This type of offense for this team could
be so superior to Nate’s high school sets, it really bugs me more and more to watch “the Portland”… Huge waste of talent…

I would also take issue with the list of ‘playmakers’ jscot states that Portland has. Rudy and Dre are. Other than that? Haven’t seen it.

Roy gets virtually all his assists off an aborted iso play. Not really seeing him have the true playmakers mentality where his first and second thoughts are to “set up his teammates”… Roy clearly thinks that everybody else needs to set HIM up, and can feed off the FBP scraps he sends to 3-point shooters. Ugh…

Bayless? I hope you’re right, that he is “going to be” a playmaker, but he certainly is not now. How is he going to be a playmaker, a true playmaker, that sets up his teammates first, if he watches Roy running the Portland? He’s not. He needs to pattern his game after Dre, but he can’t do that either because Nate’s playing freaking Steve Blake! Arrggg!

And Nic? Puh-leeze… Oden’s a better playmaker than Nic… (And to your final point, I agree, Oden should be the best passing big man in the league… But not if he’s out setting picks at the foul line all day so Roy can ignore him rolling to the hoop…. Nope, you need a true point guard, again, to get Greg involved…

In short: Trade Blake! (His expiring contract reprresents the most value he will ever provide to any team… He’s done…) Start Miller! Give Bayless some run!

by Visionary2 on Dec 14, 2009 12:08 PM PST up reply actions

assists only off aborted isos?

Not so. Three ways to set up a teammate with an assist:

1) Draw the defense and kick to the open guy (primary benefit of the iso)
2) pass to a guy off a cut or a screen
3) find the open guy on a fast break

Roy does each of these, but 3) least of all. Roy is fourth among SG’s in assists because he can and will pass the ball.

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

Here we go again

I’m going to make this a fanpost, so I don’t have to keep re-typing it again.

MJ won championships without a playmaker PG. LA last year won championships without a playmaker PG. Portland won a championship without relying on a playmaker PG.

As Royster said, here’s the money quote:

if you have an offense that doesn’t rely on one, and you have lots of playmakers.

Your comment was based on a straw man — that I was saying our kind of offense is what is needed. That isn’t what I’m saying at all.

I’m saying that there is more than one way to run an offense.

Your definition of “playmaker” (“that sets up his teammates first”) is not one I accept. My definition of playmaker is one who is able, either individually or within the flow of an offense, to break down the defense and then make good reads as to whether, given the circumstance, he should drive, shoot, or pass. We have lots of guys who can do that, if we had an offense that utilized their abilities.

That may mean setting your teammates up first. But since Andre is your playmaker, let’s look at him. For his career, he averages 7.3 assists and 14.5 points. That means he scores himself as much as he sets up others.

The problem is not that we have to have a particular kind of PG, but that we need an offensive scheme that utilizes the players that we have well.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions

The problem is not that we have to have a particular kind of PG, but that we need an offensive scheme that utilizes the players that we have well.

I’ve been saying this as long or longer than anyone around here (and taking considerable heat for it all last season when we had “the most efficient offense in the league”). But you are exactly right. As I am also fond of saying – we fail to play to the strengths of our players, and instead seem intent on stuffing square pegs into round holes. It’s like KP and Nate have completely different visions for the team…

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions

Roy is not a good playmaker, at least not good enough

I have to disagree with you, jscot. I’ve advocated bringing a new playmaking PG in last offseason because of a fact: “Roy is not a competent playmaker”.

He failed as a playmaker at two specific areas:

1. Roy doesn’t push the ball. I am not asking him to run coast-to-coast fastbreak consistently. I am just asking him to push the ball, create pressure on defense, exploit the potential mismatch, force issues BEFORE the defense is set in half-court.

People always say playing slow, in-control is his style and I am fine with that. But the problem is Blazers as a team need more dimension offensively. Roy controls Blazers’ offense so much, therefore if Roy only does one thing – half-court offense – then the whole team will do only one thing.

A good PG doesn’t always push the ball but he ALWAYS knows when to push and when to stop. Blake is incapable of doing it and Roy is somehow unwilling to step out of his comfort zone to do it. So that makes our offense one-dimensional because our PGs can only play that way.

2. Roy is not good at feeding big guys, either off drive-and-kick or P&R plays.

Again, similar argument can be applied here: Roy functions well in a perimeter-oriented offense. It was good enough to get us to 54 wins but that’s not enough. The whole team’s offense becomes one-dimensional (perimeter only, no inside game) because Roy don’t know how to utilize big guys well enough.

To put it simply, Roy is a fantastic player. But if we run most the offense thru him then the team offense will be limited. That’s why I was happy we landed Andre Miller as a true playmaker.

So far I’ve seen numerous cases where Miller does the two things I mentioned above extremely well and that helped the team a lot. That’s a fresh ingredient to our offense and I really hope Roy can pick those up while watching and playing alongside Miller.

To me Miller is like a stopgap as he is the only competent playmaker on our team right now. And when/if Roy, or both Roy AND Bayless, gradually grows into a competent playmaker, then Miller’s mission is accomplished and Roy/Bayless backcourt duo will be very very effective and one of the best in the league.

As for your MJ example, I just want to say this: watching the game against Miami a few weeks ago, it struck me how much better Wade is as a playmaker than Roy. He was aggressive at pushing the ball and creating havoc, in half court he played P&R effectively and set up big guys with ease. While in the other end Roy was playing slow and hesistantly. I am not saying this one game means everything, but it just solidify my belief.

Let’s wait for Roy to get to at least Wade’s level. Until that happens, we need Miller to help Roy and our team.

by iverigma2 on Dec 14, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions

Excellent points (OK, probably because we agree ;-)

And jscot, I don’t think we’re too far apart… If we take your definition of playmaker – that the job is to break down the D (usually with a drive), and either pass or shoot, I’m OK with that.

I’d like to add iverigma’s qualities of being able to run a fast break, and perhaps run an effective P+R more than once a blue moon…. I prefer point guards who think pass first (like a Bob Cousy), but I realize that in today’s NBA, many excellent point guards can both pass very effectively and shoot very effectively.

But I disagree, jscot, that we “have many” of those guys…

BRoy fits your definition… (But he’s not a point guard – which is really the main problem – he’s not, but acts like, a point guard).

Blake? Sorry, no. Doesn’t drive, can’t pass to the low post, all he can do is shoot. Not a playmaker.

Bayless? He can drive and score, he may be among the best in the NBA if that’s all it took to be a point guard… But I haven’t seen him look for a guy to pass too often, never mind actually make that pass…

Dre? Absolutely, despite his terrible early season shooting, he can absolutely drive, and make (typically, not this year, IMO due to poor utilization of his skills) great decisions about whether to score or pass… Our best playmaker, IMO…

Rudy? Fantastic court vision, and one of the best passers on the team. OK on the drive, except his only scoring option off of it seems to be the floater. (If you could combine Rudy and Bayless, NOW you’ve got something…)

So, in short, our playmakers are Roy, Miller, and 1/2 of Rudy and 1/2 of Bayless…

Now, and this is critical, we both agree that

we need an offensive scheme that utilizes the players that we have

Bingo. Huge, epic fail by Nate.

iverigma, I couldn’t have said it better myself…. Roy is allergic to running the fast break, and he stifles any chance at this club using its tremendously young and athletic squad to the fullest…

Roy also has not clue one about how to position and space yourself to be able to feed a low post player. He almost never hits the guy rolling off a pick with a pass… drives me crazy.,,.

In fact, he doesn’t even seem to know HOW to use a pick – doesn’t wait for the pick to get set (causing numerous Oden and Pryz fouls), never gets his guy close enough to the pick to brush him off the pick (he dribbles too far away from the pick, meaning it was a waste of the big man’s time), and then never hits the roller!

Basic basketball fundamentals, and our superstar doesn’t grasp the nuances of any of the aspects of the P+R, except that he still has the ball after it… And he’s our second best playmaker?? Hmm…

by Visionary2 on Dec 14, 2009 4:19 PM PST up reply actions

A few comments

As I answered to iverigma2, you can work with flawed playmakers as long as they don’t all have the same flaw. And I agree that Roy is hopeless on the pick and roll, and that needs to be addressed. I’ve said it repeatedly.

I never said Blake is a playmaker, did I?

Bayless has been making excellent decisions, for the most part. The “never looks to pass, always shoots” meme is so last year. On the road trip, he had 6 assists in 48 minutes, which works out to 4.5 per 36. That isn’t going to lead the league, but the “never looks to pass” idea doesn’t fit. Nor has he been gunning up a lot of shots. He only shot once against Cleveland in 9 minutes.

#52

by jscot on Dec 15, 2009 12:55 AM PST up reply actions

Good post

Missed my point, though. You have accurately labeled two of Roy’s failures as a playmaker (ones I’ve mentioned myself on multiple occasions). I have banged on and on about needing to push the ball. I have banged on and on about Roy’s failure to run a single decent p’n’r with the big guys, ever.

I even suggested hiring a designated pick and roll coach to teach him. I know that the coaches we have can teach the pick and roll, but if KP and Nate were to have a meeting with Brandon and say, “We’re bringing in John Stockton to teach you the pick and roll, because you just aren’t running it worth anything, and you need to,” he’d wake up and decide it is important to learn how to do it.

But my point is simply this — if you have the right kind of offense, and you have multiple playmakers, none of them have to be good at everything. Teach Jerryd to run the fastbreak, and Brandon’s deficiencies in that don’t matter.

I know Brandon isn’t the playmaker that Wade is or MJ was. Doesn’t invalidate my point.

If we have off the ball movement and quick passing, the defense will break down somewhere. It always does. Then, you need guys to exploit the breakdown and make good decisions.

If we are simply going to have stand around offense, then yes, a PG like Miller can help because he has the ability to make something happen on his own. But that is still poor offense. Sometimes, Brandon’s one on one ability masks poor team offense. If we put the ball in Andre’s hands, it will just mask poor team offense another way, as things stand right now.

#52

by jscot on Dec 15, 2009 12:43 AM PST up reply actions

understood

I agree with you that we’ve got to improve the offense. But to me we seem to have different takes on “personnel vs. scheme”. You seem to place more responsibility on coaches to improve their schemes, while I still believe we need better personnel to expedite the offensive evolution.

By “better personnel” I mean:
1. not only start Miller but give him more room to play freely in his style.
2. play more Bayless, less Blake
3. other players – especially Rudy and Nic – grow into more competent playmakers.
4. Roy finally wakes up and decides to step out of his comfort zone to play in a way that benefit all other teammates the most.

I believe these improvement/addition of players will transform our stand-around, jumper-heavy offense to more versatile, aggressive one.

by iverigma2 on Dec 15, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions

Precisely

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions

the main issue I have with the post is the use of pretty obscure stats – net PER isn’t even acknowledged by Hollinger, hands rating doesn’t weight by usage, and Jerryd hasn’t even played enough minutes for basketball value to calculate an adjusted +/-.

Bayless uses 23% of possessions. Blake uses 13%. Blake has fewer turnovers per team possession but Bayless has fewer turnovers per possession used. That’s a big problem with “hands rating.”

Also, Jerryd’s outside shooting looks quite a bit better. In fact, John Townsend has said that he is one of the better practice shooters on the team. I feel like it’s a big assumption that a kid who has been a deadly outside shooter for all of his life and struggled in limited minutes last season is a poor shooter. He had no confidence to do anything last year – drive to the rim, assert himself in the flow of the offense, shoot…. we’re seeing this year that he’s more comfortable and his shot is more fluid. Give him a shot to make a few shots.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions

Who said he was a poor shooter?

This is one of the frustrations I have with the way people read posts like this. People seem to want to identify a camp and/or side you’re taking up with and the attribute everything you said to that viewpoint. Here are the direct quotes from the piece addressing the issue you’ve just brought up:

Jerryd’s outside shot has looked better this year. He’s understanding more when and where he can get it in the offense.

And…

But he’s earned the chance to see whether he can fill some of the roles that the other guards are filling less successfully.

The only thing that could be remotely construed as negative about his shot is saying that if he can’t hit it he’s not going to be able to play with Miller and Roy but that’s hardly an indictment…or if it is, it’s of all three of them in that vein. The critique is not that they’re bad, but similar.

—Dave

by Dave on Dec 14, 2009 10:54 AM PST up reply actions

I admit, I read the post at 3 in the morning while studying for exams. I probably need to reread the post.

I haven’t identified you as belonging to either Team Bayless or the I Hate Bayless Give Me Back Jarrett groups. From Day 1, you’ve been a bit skeptical with Bayless but have always given him a pretty fair chance.

I would submit that the mass frustration surrounding Bayless’ playing time actually stems from the disappointment that the team has been in general. It’s been so ugly and depressing that we want something that makes us excited to watch.

In the end, what does playing Blake do for us this year? We aren’t winning a title, and Blake isn’t playing very well. What is the downside of giving Bayless a legitimate shot in somewhat of a “lost year” to finally see if it will work?

I suspect that the determining factor, long-term, will be if Bayless can hit 37%+ from distance.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions

In the end, what does playing Blake do for us this year? We aren’t winning a title, and Blake isn’t playing very well. What is the downside of giving Bayless a legitimate shot in somewhat of a "lost year" to finally see if it will work?

I should be careful here to note that I am not trying to imply that you are against Bayless getting a chance. I’m merely speaking to the situation itself, and wondering about your perspective on the topic.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions

Woo I'm starting a Facebook group called "IHBGMBJ and you should too club"

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 11:29 AM PST up reply actions

Well, I hate the characterization

of “Team Bayless” vs. “Bayless Sucks”, as if there are these two monotlihic camps out there. I’d certainly like to see Bayless get more time at this point, but I’m hardly of the same mind as some posters who think he’s set to break out and take the league by storm once he gets a chance. I don’t agree with the validity of a lot of the numbers Dave’s used here, but I appreciate him trying to take rational, even-handed approach to this rather than declaring himself a member of “team Bayless”, “Team Blake”, or “Team Miller”.

#52

by Royster on Dec 14, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Booooo

One of my frustrations is one people poorly organize a post so that it’s logic is difficult to discern and then complain about people’s reading comprehension.

by PoliSam on Dec 14, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions

Are the Blazers the best team for Bayless to maximize his potential?
Debatable. But I don’t believe that’s the pertinent question as a Blazer fan.

Is Bayless a better fit for this team right now than Blake?
Yes, without question, at least until Blake finds his shot.

by zbrum on Dec 14, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions

My biggest reason for wanting Bayless to play more is cuz I am tired of watching Blake bring the ball down and dribble around like he’s lost cuz Roy and Adridge are covered and then ditching the ball to another teammate who has to fling up a crap shot before the shot clock expires. I also don’t understand why Blake is in at the end of a game. Can anyone name a game where Blake won it for us? I am having a hard time but I can think of quite a few that he has helped us lose. I wouldn’t blame the loss solely on him but stepping out of bounds on key possessions at the end of game just can’t happen and it’s happened more then once by him.

by beckyatthebeach on Dec 14, 2009 10:42 AM PST reply actions

This is Dave's equivalent of going 1 for 7 from 3

…but unlike Blake, Dave will bounce back. :)

by jamon51 on Dec 14, 2009 10:51 AM PST reply actions 7 recs

LOL and rec

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions

I'll join the party. Rec'd

by upper left corner on Dec 14, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

spot on, jamon51

this is dave’s worst piece i’ve ever read. totally misses and ignores contexts for these numbers.

by travis13 on Dec 14, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions

the audience is at least as guilty of these sins

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

rec

Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash

by HurraKane212 on Dec 14, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions

You are missing the fact that he gathered 8 rebounds, 3 steals to go with his 9 assists ...

… as well as getting the ball to Joel for the game winning slam.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions

Seriously

One of the weakest efforts I’ve ever seen by Dave. I think the primary problem is the way the post is organized. It makes understanding the logic of his argument very difficult.

I think there is a kernel of wisdom in there about Bayless evolving into a Blake-like role, but the idea is completely obscured by the discussion of the statistics and the claim that Bayless is competing with Roy and Miller for playing time. Towards the end, Dave implies (and I agree) that as Bayless develops as an outside threat he’s competing with Blake… but this idea isn’t taken to its logical conclusion: Bayless is playing nearly as well in Blake’s old role as Blake is right now—going by all of the information that Ben posted on this very same blog just a few days ago!

by PoliSam on Dec 14, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions

I hate Bayless more than I hate Miller or Blake

I just wish he would get traded away, so fans can find a real player worth all this hubbub. I’d trade Bayless for Sergio or Jack in a New York minute. I don’t care about his stats, I don’t care that he shows he has heart by yelling obscenities when he misses shots, I don’t care that he shows he’s a rebel by writing a blog about dead girls. He needs to get off my favorite team.

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 11:16 AM PST reply actions

I am totally going to rec this.

Good post. You’ve got some really valid points there.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 14, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

You haven't answered the important question

Do you hate Bayless more than Batum?

I realize it’s a tough call, but we really want to know.

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

I'm building a list of Hate, it goes in this order

Bayless
Miller
Batum
jscot
Mortimer
Mills
Schonely
Wheeler
Jensen
Demopoulos
92wastheyear

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions

Woohoo!!!!

I’m ahead of Morty at something!!!!

And I just wasted 92wastheyear. What a pathetic performance he put in!

Since Nic is French, and Miller is old, I’m going to be up to second on the list in no time!

#52

by jscot on Dec 14, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions

Hey dude...that is an inverse list

Like David Lettermans Top Ten list

I’m most hated!!!!

" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous

by 92wastheyear on Dec 14, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions

In your dreams

#52

by jscot on Dec 15, 2009 12:57 AM PST up reply actions

I'm waiting on the list of love.

I can imagine few things more powerful than the Love of Tom.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions

I already know what's on that list

tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
tominhawaii
92wastheyear

#52

by jscot on Dec 15, 2009 12:58 AM PST up reply actions

Now I'm wondering if 92's last name may be Salishas (sp?)

He keeps showing up where he’s not wanted or invited.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 15, 2009 7:00 AM PST up reply actions

the unedited list has someone else at the top

tominhawaii
Bayless
Miller
Batum
jscot
Mortimer
Mills
Schonely
Wheeler
Jensen
Demopoulos
92wastheyear

by blacknoiseNW on Dec 14, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

How dare you not put my name in bold!

Looks like I need to squeeze you in above Demopoulos. I mostly hate him for that stupid “U” in his name.

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions

wow

you sure know a lot about basketball, tom. great thoughts. keep it up!

by travis13 on Dec 14, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

Bayless is going bald too

I don’t like bald people. Yet another reason for me to not like Bayless.

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions

Jerryd Bayless is no Granville Waiters.

Dear Paul Allen:

Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.

Sincerely,
AK1984

by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions

Nice

It’s too bad the only similarity Bayless has to Ginobili is their bald spots. Manu is 10 times better than Bayless.

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions

You roped in one, good job...

RUDY > MJ
#52

by Rudiculous on Dec 14, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions

It's harder and harder to do these days

Luckily with Miller starting and Bayless getting more minutes, fans will see more of their mistakes and jump on my bandwagon and hate those two with me.

by tominhawaii on Dec 14, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions

Why not play Rex and Rudy together in the backcourt?

Rex can drive and dish (or drive and finish) and Rudy can drain 3’s or cut to the hoop for an alley oop. Maybe when Rudy returns they should try this out…

"My shoulder is OK. And away we go." -- Nic Batum
"wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow" -- Dave

by DonkeyShins on Dec 14, 2009 11:23 AM PST reply actions

one problem is that neither of them has a Grade A handle.

get well soon, big guy.

#52

by Cablinasian on Dec 14, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions

As evidenced by the first OT in Milwaukee

Neither does ’Dre.

"My shoulder is OK. And away we go." -- Nic Batum
"wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow" -- Dave

by DonkeyShins on Dec 14, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions

Dave, I'm sorry, but

This is the first time I’ve ever really disagreed with your analysis, your take on a situation with this team.

I don’t have time to go into it right now, and much of it is addressed by other people here already. But clearly you’ve failed to acknowledge a lot of factors contributing to the numbers you use. You should know better.

by travis13 on Dec 14, 2009 12:16 PM PST reply actions

#25

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Dec 14, 2009 12:39 PM PST reply actions

Next up ....

Dave posts why trading Sergio to grab Pendergraph was the correct move over taking Blair, using as a statisitical basis BMPW and DNP-CD.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Dec 14, 2009 12:56 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Nice

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Dec 14, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions

Quick reporting Bayless to get a bump in PT starting tomorrow

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Dec 14, 2009 1:12 PM PST reply actions

YES I am thrilled!!!

by iverigma2 on Dec 14, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions

Isn't it too late for that?

He is losing his hair already!

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions

Maybe this all points to a bad offensive scheme

Okay, we can’t put our most dynamic players on the floor because we need Blake on the wing to make 3 pointers and if Bayless does want to play he needs to be Blake.

What is our offensive scheme anyway? I don’t think I get it. Maybe it’s time for the dreaded triangle.

by Tim Tim on Dec 14, 2009 2:31 PM PST reply actions

another thing

When I see our guards allowing the ball to roll slowly up the court before they pick it up and dribble, I could scream. How many times to we burn 16 seconds before we even start to develop a play?

by Tim Tim on Dec 14, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions

The shot clock doesn't start until the ball is touched by a player

by Corvid on Dec 14, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions

you are right

but I swear I’ve seen the clock running while they let the ball roll. I’ll watch more closely, but I think they do this w/the clock running.

by Tim Tim on Dec 14, 2009 4:23 PM PST up reply actions

http://www.akcoach.com/hilo.htm

Dear Paul Allen:

Fire Kevin Pritchard & hire Dennis Lindsey.
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.

Sincerely,
AK1984

by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions

Dave, I just don't think stats ( especially such a flawed stat as +/-, given the tiny sample size ) are what is required to make a judgement on Bayless' play this season and whether he deserves more minutes.

For me it is all about what I see. I see Bayless come in the game, make some shots, draw some fouls, and put pressure on the defense. I see his man defense improved from last year, I see him hitting his open shots, I see him being more comfortable, I see him making better decisions, and I see him growing every game it seems as a player.

On the flip side I see Steve Blake consistently bog the offense down by over-dribbling and thereby forcing a late in the shot clock desperation attempt by Brandon or Lamarcus, I see him missing his open 3’s, I see the defense defending us 5 on 4 by not respecting Blake ( I wouldn’t either right now ), I see his confidence low, I see him making bad decisions.

This is not a snap judgement we have come to. Blake was a fan favorite last year, and at the beginning of the season. This “Blake sucks, play Bayless more” argument has been growing for some time now, and is just coming to a head with his abysmal play on this road trip, and Bayless’ steady play as of late.

Oden fan for life

by dario argento on Dec 14, 2009 5:52 PM PST reply actions

Dave, THANK YOU!

This post generated quite a bit of good discussion and I thank you for that. People may have been a little rough on you, but there is no doubt that you got a lot of people thinking about some issues they may not have considered before. And actually I’ll bet a lot of people enjoyed being smarter than you at least this one time. I hope you are also glad that so many posters are using their heads and not just going along with a company line. I applaud you for your work here at BE. Again, THANK YOU!

#52

by KINGofMACct on Dec 14, 2009 11:01 PM PST reply actions