Does Andre Miller Actually Improve His Bigs?

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 3:23 PM PDT Comment 56 comments

Conventional wisdom and Wendell Maxey would have us believe that Andre Miller is the bee's knees when it comes to making life easier on his big men on the offensive end.

There's no doubt that Miller is a slick passer, and his 351 combined "dunk" and "close" assists ranked third in the NBA last year, trailing only Steve Nash and Deron Williams.

But does the conventional wisdom hold up when we examine the stats of the primary big men on Miller's teams throughout his career? Check it out after the jump.

METHODOLOGY:

My methodology was straightforward: first, I selected the two most pivotal (pardon the pun) big men from each one of Miller's teams based on playing time. If two power forwards/centers played a similar number of minutes per game, then I selected the one who averaged more points per 36 minutes. Using points per 36 minutes holds playing time steady -- if you just look at points per game, then you could see a "Miller effect" when you're actually just seeing a playing time effect.

I then compared their last seasons before playing with Miller to their first seasons playing with him, and looked at what change -- if any -- we could see in their true shooting percentage (TS%) and points per 36 minutes (PP/36). If Miller is the top-flight setup point guard we hope he is, then it stands to reason that his primary big men's TS% (more dunks, layups, and FT attempts) and PP/36 (same) would be higher from playing with him.

Cavaliers 1998-1999 (22-28, 25th in pace)

Shawn Kemp and Andrew DeClerq were the featured big men for the Cavs during the '98-'99 lockout-shortened season. For every single entry, PP/36 will be the first number and TS% the second number.

Kemp: 21.0; .578

DeClerq: 12.6; .552

Cavaliers 1999-2000 (32-50, 3rd in pace)

Kemp: 21.1; .530

DeClerq: 10.7; .508

We see precipitous declines in TS% for both players during Miller's rookie campaign, though this can hardly be attributed solely to him: the Cavs underwent a coaching change that swapped Mike Fratello's methodical style for Randy Whitman's running and gunning, which would have an obvious impact on shooting percentages. As a side note, Miller split time at the point all year with Brevin Knight.

Cavaliers 2000-2001 (30-52, 17th in pace)

The Cavs picked up two new big men in the offseason before the 2000-2001 season, adding Chris Gatling and Clarence Weatherspoon. Ilgauskas was limited to 24 games this season because he was in the midst of his foot problems, so I excluded him.

Gatling: 20.2; .466 (1999-2000, Orlando and Denver). 18.2; .468 (2000-2001, with Miller).

Weatherspoon: 12.6; .566 (1999-2000, Miami); 12.0; .563 (2000-2001, with Miller).

No real change in either player's statistics occurred during Miller's first season as the full-time starting point guard. The dip in Gatling's PP/36 can be attributed to Cleveland's slower pace compared to Orlando and Denver the year prior.

Cavaliers 2001-2002 (29-53, 15th in pace)

Another season, another group of big men for young Miller. Ilgauskas and Chris Mihm each average about 22 minutes a game as new head coach John Lucas does his best to assemble patchwork lineups.

Ilgauskas: 16.4; .524 (in 24 games in 2000-2001, shortened by injury); 18.7, .501

Mihm: 13.8; .500 (2000-2001, Cleveland). 12.3; .470

Ilgauskas' TS% of .501 is the lowest of his 11-year career, though his PP/36 takes a nice jump. Take these numbers with a grain of salt because Ilgauskas is still racked by foot problems at this point in his career, which likely has a far greater effect on his statistics than the play of his point guard. Both Mihm's PP/36 and his TS% declined during his second season playing with Miller.

Clippers 2002-2003 (27-55, 14th in pace)

Miller is dealt during the offseason to the Clippers for Darius Miles. Head-bopping fans everywhere are devastated that the duo of Miles and Quentin Richardson has been cruelly separated.

Brand: 17.3; .586 (2001-2002, Clippers). 16.8; .543.

Olowokandi: 12.4; .457 (2001-2002, Clippers). 11.7; .457.

Here's the first major strike against the Legend of Andre: Olowokandi's PP/36 was actually better the season before Miller arrived, and his TS% stayed exactly the same. While the Kandi Man did average a career-high 12.3 PPG playing with Miller, he also played -- unbelievably -- 38.0 MPG that year. His PP/36 averages were remarkably consistent in their mediocrity, ranging between 10.8 and 12.4 for the first seven years of his career. Miller's arrival coincided with ridiculous amount of PT for Olowokandi -- nothing more.

Brand's PP/36 and TS% both drop with Miller's arrival.

Nuggets 2003-2004 (43-39, 1st in pace)

Miller arrives to the go-go-go Nuggets and plays with a competent pair of big men for the first time in his NBA career. In what is likely related news, it is also the first time Miller plays on a team that finishes the season above .500.

Nene: 13.4; .545 (2002-2003, Nuggets). 13.1; .578

Camby: 12.9; .444 (2002-2003, Nuggets, injury-shortened season). 10.4; .511

Not much to see here. Nene's PP/36 stays virtually the same and his TS% takes a nice jump, but 2003-2004 is also his second year -- one would hope that he'd have improved his shot selection as a second-year player. Camby's TS% takes a giant leap, but the .444 he posted in the year prior to Miller's arrival was the worst of his career. Camby's career TS% is .510, exactly in line with his percentage during his first year playing with Miller.

Nuggets 2004-2005 (49-33, 4th in pace)

Nene begins his fight against injuries; enter Kenyon Martin from the Nets.

Martin: 17.4; .528 (2003-2004, Nets). 17.2; .521.

Camby: 10.4; .511 (2003-2004, Nuggets). 12.2; .505.

Camby's PP/36 bump up slightly from his first season playing with Miller to his second, but otherwise we see no change in either of the players' numbers. In the case of Martin, you could look at this as a good thing, though -- he experienced no drop in PP/36 or TS% when he left Jason Kidd and started playing with Miller.

Nuggets 2005-2006 (44-38, 2nd in pace)

Nene continues to struggle with injuries; Martin and Camby hold down the fort in the paint for the Nuggets.

Martin: 17.2; .521 (2004-2005, Nuggets). 16.8; .533

Camby: 12.2; .505 (2004-2005, Nuggets). 13.9; .499

Martin and Camby provide similar production to the 2004-2005 campaign. No significant changes in TS% or PP/36 for either player.

Nuggets 2006-2007 (45-37, 2nd in pace)

Miller is dealt midway through the season in the trade that sends Allen Iverson to the Nuggets. Nene returns to play 63 games; Kenyon Martin suffers a season-ending knee injury just two games into the season.

I'm not going to list Camby or Nene's stats this time -- you guys get the idea, plus Miller was only in Denver for 30 games. It's worth mentioning that Nene bounces back with a huge .611 TS% this year.

Philadelphia 2006-2007 (35-47, 23rd in pace)

Dalembert: 9.9; .568 (2005-2006, Philadelphia). 12.5; .581.

Smith: 15.4; .533 (2006-2007, Denver). 13.2; .510 (2006-2007, Philadelphia).

Dalembert improves his PP/36 by more than 25% with Miller's arrival, and his TS% jumps up a point and a half. Smith was essentially a benchwarmer for the Nuggets and thrust into a featured role when he joined the 76ers with Miller in the trade that sent Iverson to the Mile-High City.

Philadelphia 2007-2008 (40-42, 20th in pace)

Reggie Evans sees significant minutes for the Sixers at the 4-spot this year as the organization grooms Thaddeus Young. This is not a good thing for the Sixers.

Dalembert: 12.5; .581 (2006-2007, Philadelphia). 11.4; .556.

Evans: 10.4; .544 (2006-2007, Denver and Philadelphia). 8.1; .441.

Dalembert's numbers dip slightly in his first full season with Miller, though the 11.4 is still significantly better than the 9.9 he posted in his last full season *without* Miller. I don't know what the heck happened to Evans' TS%, but I don't think you can blame Miller for it, because Evans was part of the Miller/Smith package and played with Miller in Denver prior to being traded.

Philadelphia 2008-2009 (41-41, 21st in pace)

Evans is rightfully relegated to the scrap heap as Young flourishes in his second season. Dalembert resumes his pre-Miller suckiness.

Dalembert: 11.4; .556 (2007-2008, Philadelphia). 9.2; .535.

Young: 14.1; .570 (2007-2008, Philadelphia). 16.0; .549.

Dalembert's performance actually falls below pre-Miller levels in his second full season with the point guard. It's difficult to know how much of Young's maturation can be assigned to Miller's veteran influence, so I won't attempt to quantify that here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

Frankly, there's not a whole lot of evidence to suggest that Andre Miller significantly improves the offense of his big men. The only player whose performance significantly jumped with Miller's arrival was Sam Dalembert, and he tailed off so badly in the next two seasons that the Sixers would trade him for a used jockstrap right now.

Miller has bounced around a lot, and he's played with some truly terrible bigs (Chris Gatling and Clarence Weatherspoon? Are you kidding me?) And the quality bigs with whom he's played have been badly bitten by the injury bug: Camby, Martin, Nene, and Ilgauskas have all missed huges chunks of seasons during their time with Miller. As an aside, if he brings that mojo anywhere near Greg, he'll be sleeping with the fishes in the Willamette.

There are obviously a TON of extraneous circumstances that I didn't consider here, because they're beyond the scope of my ability to comment intelligently about them. In addition, it could very well be that choosing TS% and PP/36 weren't good measurements of Miller's ability to improve the offensive looks that his big men get. But if operationalizing the variable that way was valid, then it's possible that Miller's reputation exceeds his actual performance in terms of setting the table for his big men.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUALITY BIGS: CAREER NUMBERS WITH AND WITHOUT MILLER

I took the four "quality" bigs with whom Miller played at least two full seasons: Camby, Nene, Martin, and Dalembert. Ilgauskas and Brand didn't make the cut because of injury; the former with his foot problems, the latter with the torn ACL.

I averaged their PER, TS%, and PP/36 during the time they spent with Miller and compared it to their career averages during the time they played with other point guards. To account for the trade during the 2006-2007 season, I kept Martin/Nene/Camby's numbers for the whole year even though Miller was dealt in the middle, and likewise for Dalembert. I had no way to get pre- and post-trade numbers for those guys so this seemed like the best option.

Dalembert (w/Miller): PER: 14.96 TS%: .557 PP/36: 11.03

(w/o Miller): PER: 14.45 TS%: .527 PP/36: 10.7

Camby (w/Miller): PER: 18.75 TS%: .509 PP/36: 12.1

(w/o Miller): PER: 17.75 TS% .510 PP/36: 12.85

Nene (w/Miller): PER: 16.06 TS%: .580 PP/36: 15.83

(w/o Miller): PER: 15.78 TS%: .565 PP/36: 14.35 (these numbers are skewed majorly downward by Nene's injury-plagued 2007-2008 season, in which he appeared in only 16 games, and which I included for the sake of fairness).

Martin (w/Miller): PER: 17.1 TS%: .527 PP/36: 17.0

(w/o Miller): PER: 15.3 TS%: .515 PP/36 15.2

These numbers are eye-opening. The *only* big man who Miller made significantly better offensively, at least by these measurements, was Martin. Dalembert was marginally better with Miller than without him (but still not good enough for Philly to want to keep him), Camby was essentially the same player, and Nene would actually appear significantly better *without* Miller if you removed his 16-game '07-'08 season from the averages.

Injuries and the regular development of young bigs (i.e., Nene continued to improve after Miller left) obviously make it difficult to state with confidence how much impact Miller has, compared to the dozens of extraneous variables also influencing how his big men play. But it's my opinion that these numbers indicate that Miller's reputation for improving the offensive opportunities of his big men might outstrip his actual history doing so.

24 recs | Comment 56 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

For the subject alone, Rec

by GBear on Jul 29, 2009 3:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

For the incredibly detailed work it took to come up with this

rec

(I’d bet several more reasons will be found to rec it, this really is an interesting piece)

by lurtsman on Jul 29, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greatest FanPost Ever

BOB or Die

Go Blazers!!!!!!!!!! Wooooooooooot Wooooooooooooot!!!!!!!!!

by broyposse on Jul 29, 2009 3:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One thing to consider is who is Andre Miller replacing? Is he taking over from an equally good passer/distributor?

I do tend to agree that Miller probably won’t greatly improve our bigs, but properly running a pick and roll will make me more relaxed this season.

Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin

by Zaron5551 on Jul 29, 2009 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

also, rec'd

Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin

by Zaron5551 on Jul 29, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who he is replacing --

as well as how his bigs perform after he leaves — both would have been very good variables to include. I agree with you that our P&R is going to be vastly improved this year…I can’t wait to see Miller get on the court, actually. I think he’s going to be much better than the results of this post would indicate I think.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting look

I noticed the PER of the player improved with Miller based on your end numbers.

I would also be interested on his effect on the entire team, not just the bigs. I shrugged my shoulders at the “he makes bigs better” because I didn’t observe that. I did, however, observe that the teams he went to became better. The raised PER suggests this as well because if an individual player is raising .25 to 1.0 then what about the rest of the team? how much are they improving? Are they improving?

I liked that you questioned and then sought to answer. very cool.

"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

by ratbastird on Jul 29, 2009 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I noticed that also

It might not have been a big difference but the fact that every single PER was better is good to see. In a league where the smallest of margins can separate loosing in the first round and a trip to the finals, every bit helps!

by twggyy on Jul 29, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is certainly true

championships have undoubtedly been won and lost on margins slimmer than what that PER difference represents. I didn’t want to run any tests of statistical significance, because this post took long enough as it was, but it would be my guess that the only statistically significant difference is that of Martin. Considering how many other variables there are influencing PER beyond Miller, though, any statistical significance wouldn’t actually matter, so your point about all the PERs being better is well-taken.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great Post BlazersOrBust!

REC for sure. I thought maybe you should include the stats from the year after Miller left to see if any of the bigs got better after Miller wasnt playing with them. That might be a telling sign as well. I still think Miller makes players around him better, but you make a strong case and a good point. Alot of hard work went into that post. PROPS!

The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!

by cavejunctionblazer on Jul 29, 2009 3:44 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

agreed

thank you, i’d forgotten that point too.

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

by ratbastird on Jul 29, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that definitely would have been a good thing to include

I just kind of started out from a very basic, “What offensive measurements could I look at to see Miller’s effects?” POV. The more I got into the information, the more I realized that even this post was barely scratching the surface of those effects. Another thing I’d really like to include, if I had the time to do something like this, would be eFG% on inside shots and dunks while playing with Miller/playing without Miller, plus the percentage of shots each player took from those ranges. 82games has that information easy-peezy, it would just be a matter of compiling it. Thanks for the positive feedback!

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

82games has great player-pair data you could use as well.

For the past year, Miller’s assist numbers were higher than his average when playing with Dalembert, the same when playing with Evans, and lower than his overall average when playing with Brand, Speights, and Ratliff.

Looking at the bigs points, fga and fg% for their time playing with Miller this past year compared to their overall averages (82games uses per40 numbers for all of these):

Evans +.4pts, +.3fga, +.003fg%

Brand +1pts, +.6fga, +.006fg%

Speights -.6pts, -1fga, +.023fg%

Ratliff +.4pts, -.3fga, +.04fg%

Dalembert -.1pts, -.1fga, +.003fg%

There are big problems, of course, with drawing too much of a conclusion from player-pair numbers. Dalmbert, Ratliff, and Brand played almost all of their minutes with Miller, while Speights and Evans played roughly half – so there are familiarity implications as well as issues with the quality of competition on the floor. Also, it compares their production playing with a starting PG versus a backup. On the positive side, it’s from the same season so you don’t have as many issues with different coaches, systems, other teammates, schedule, etc.

All that said, I was a little surprised to find there wasn’t more of a difference in the bigs’ stats playing with Andre. Speights and Ratliff had nice fg% bumps, but all-in-all the numbers were pretty similar.

It certainly fits with your conclusions comparing bigs before and after adding Miller to a team, that Miller’s rep is better than reality.

In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!

by wjb1492 on Jul 30, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Interesting stuff

thanks for the additional information, and rec.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the post, brings up some good info.

I am not sure though if it makes a ton of sense. There are a ton of other variables that need to be corrected for like: injuries, previous PG, coach, system… etc. Good post though.

by Escrote on Jul 29, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Definitely I agree

I wanted to bring some sort of statistical perspective to this idea that Miller has a uniformly positive effect on the bigs with whom he plays. There are honestly dozens of other variables besides a) Miller; and b) Post Player X, and the deeper I got into making this post the more I understood that.

I do think it’s interesting that you don’t see much of a difference in the statistical areas that I looked at….but if you have thirty other variables that combine to reduce a player’s effectiveness in a given season by -5%, and Miller himself brings +5% effectiveness, then you’re seeing a wash when in reality it’s not. And there’s not really any way to figure that out besides running a majorly complicated regression analysis for which I have neither the training nor the free time. I wish I could have incorporated more variables though.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good work

any post that uses the phrase “operationalizing the variable” wins points with me.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to do “within season” comparisons. Basketball reference has game logs and all of the numbers in your comparison can be created in excel: http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pgl.cgi?player=hilarne01&year=2007

I appreciate that you pointed out that there are other factors to consider… but I still think the results are interesting and probably reason enough to keep expectations in check.

by PoliSam on Jul 29, 2009 4:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

oops, I posted that link as an example of what I would use

by PoliSam on Jul 29, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That game log is neat -- I didn't know basketball-reference did that

If I had seen more of a “Miller effect” before getting to the comparing quality bigs section, I probably would have tried harder to break down the players’ performance into pre- and post-trade numbers. I got lazy because I hadn’t seen the effect to that point (and I readily acknowledge that there are literally dozens of other variables that could be hiding a Miller effect). No small praise coming from the resident stat expert at BE. :-)

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think what you did is basically sound...

or perhaps clever is the better word. You are never going to get perfect empirical evidence making observation comparisons, but at least you took the time to compare players before and after and were aware of the threats to the validity of drawing causal inferences.

In my opinion, within season comparisons have fewer threats to validity than between season comparisons, but it gives you fewer observations, so there’s a trade-off.

by PoliSam on Jul 29, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When people write a half-paragraph of conjecture and call it a fanpost..

and someone tells them that the bar is higher than that, this would make a fine argument-ender. Nice job.

Peep the sig.

by 12sharks on Jul 29, 2009 4:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice post.

To address the more general question of “does Andre make an entire offense better” we should just look at offensive efficiency (and also look at who he’s replacing).

In any case, most players don’t vary their production much even if those around them change, so this doesn’t surprise me.

Thanks for the thorough research!

by austinpwnz on Jul 29, 2009 4:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Offensive efficiency

would be yet another good variable to include if one were interested in expanding the question to “does Andre make an entire offense better”. That was a lot more complicated, though, because you’re not just getting one new player (Miller) in and one old player (Point Guard X) out — you’re turning over three or four players at a time per season, minimum, and I wouldn’t have the statistical knowledge of how to sort out Miller’s effects on efficiency from that of the other three new guys. You’re right that it would be valuable to include though.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good post

I doubt Dre[going with that for now cause its so easy to type] has ever played with guys as talented and likely to benifit from his fast break passing skills as LMA,Nic and Rudy who have be happier about him as a teamate than Hedo

by southern oregon on Jul 29, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting post

I’m inclined to believe the conventional wisdom based on the fact that Miller is the #20 all-time assist guy and that the 76ers led the league in alley-oops last season. Seeing as the Blazer point guards have been uncommonly POOR at penetrating/ dishing and at alley-oop passing, one would think Miller would HAVE to help GO next season.

But kudos for doing the research and thanks for sharing it. Conventional wisdom is often wrong…

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Jul 29, 2009 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm inclined to believe that my research doesn't mean anything, in all honesty

I think Miller is absolutely going to get Greg, LMA and company more open, easy looks this season — partially cuz I’ve watched him a fair amount and mostly because I’m a big fan of the signing and am hoping it works out best-case scenario. I didn’t know that the Sixers led the league in alley-oops…that’s another good piece of information to stow away.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wish I could remember where I heard that...but I believe it was on two separate occasions

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Jul 29, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't it possible that this group of bigs who played with Andre

…are unusually sucky, as a group?

I see a lot of Mihms, Dalamberts, and Gatlings in that group.

by chnews on Jul 29, 2009 6:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah, this is what occured to me

Miller hasn’t exactly played with (healthy) All Star big men. Aldridge is probably the most (offensively) skilled big that Miller has been teamed up with. Add a healthy Oden who could benefit hugely from a point guard who knows where to hit him with passes and we could see some good stuff.

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Jul 29, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They are totally sucky

there is no doubt about it. You still don’t see the improvement from pre-Miller to with-Miller that I would have expected, even given their suckiness. But like I mentioned above, that improvement could be there and masked by twenty different things hiding it.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He had some pretty good guys as well

Shawn Kemp, 99-00
Donyell Marshall when he was still more athletic
Z in a decent year
Elton Brand and Lamar Odom 2002-03, as well as Chris Wilcox as a rookie
Marcus Camby, young Andersen and Nene

by Norsktroll on Jul 30, 2009 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very good post...

You’ve done alot of good work here to make your point. I’m too hot and tired right now to research but, I think the final measure is; did the team(s) win more games with Andre Miller or not. I think that number generally takes out the variables by averaging them across the league. There is always a team with a Walton like injury effect, but generally it ought to even out against all of the teams. However, I am now starting to think about additional variables and my mind is spinning on the numbers. I’d go look but my ice cubes might melt before I find the numbers. You did the work, a job well done – thanks.

by Rick C in Tigard on Jul 29, 2009 6:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Statistics...

are manipulable and can frequently be used to make any point the someone wants to make with them. What I’ve actually seen on the court is, when Andre steps on the court, there’s an immediate boost of energy, and the team is more together instantly. Would the 76’ers have made the playoffs the past 2 years w/o Andre? To my observation-no! They didn’t even have a PG who could actually rum the offense w/o Andre on the floor. Same w/ Denver when he was PG. We have just signed one of the really good PG’s in the NBA. Period-the end. To even hint otherwise is foolish. Does running the offense and involving the whole team, while accentuating their strengths count for something? Of course-that’s what a good PG does! Andre does that, and more. Your post is clever, but you can tell alot more by watching the players in real time.

by jamesjmh on Jul 29, 2009 6:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I love the Miller signing

don’t get me wrong. He was absolutely the best FA left on the market and he fills a position of need, and I couldn’t be happier that the Blazers signed him. Wendell Maxey’s post got me thinking about whether or not this, “Greg and LMA are going to have it way easier next year!” idea that is commonly held in these parts (heck, I hold it) has any bearing on reality.

This post was nothing more than an effort to superficially examine those statistical effects, and I’m sure if you dug deeper, you could find lots of information that totally runs in the face of what I found. I just didn’t happen to be looking at those variables is all.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 29, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You deserve props for not accepting conventional wisdom

And for putting in the work. You’ve generated interesting discussion and, likely, more statistical digging. What more could we ask for in a Fanpost? Except maybe some Mortimer-esque humor…

We’ve truly entered the dog days of the Blazers’ calendar now. I’m grateful for any diversions between now and the far-away Blazers training camp.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Jul 29, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Defying conventional wisdom often leads to a greater understanding. IMO this was the best post of the week. No offense to other posters, because there have been some great ones. If I were voting for one though, I’d pick this one. I think Andre fill fit great, however to ignore ideas that are contradictory would make me ill informed. Big thank you for the post, and the excellent conversation in the thread it started.

by lurtsman on Jul 29, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I so much appereciate the amount of work your post had to entail.

I also think the results of your research could be a positive in that it might temper the high expectations (and likely resultant disappointments) that so many seem to be placing on Miller. These often seemingly unrealistic expectations of Miller seem to be shadowing those which occurred with Oden and Bayless (albeit to a lessor degree).

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Jul 29, 2009 6:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

how about littles

It’s a great post, I do how ever believe that the most important part of this is pace. Obviously Miller pushes more which leaves the bigs trailing. A lot of his lobs are to guards and small forwards since they are the ones out filling the lanes. In a half court his IQ will establish his value especially with Brandon which I think will also cause the appearance that he is not helping his bigs. I don’t think that he is Steve Nash or Jason Kidd with big men. I do think that he is an upgrade on what we have and more of a band aid till we groom our current pg or acquire another true point guard I still don’t know if he will help us like Steve Blake without great outside shooting. I’m very weary of letting go of either Rudy or Outlaw since they will benefit the most from Miller. Thats a lot of offense from our core 8 guys.

Inallthetime

by inallthetime on Jul 29, 2009 7:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's also not just about bigs.

It’s about getting easy buckets in general. Andre Iguodala recently said (maybe on twitter) that with Miller he felt he scored more points on fewer shots with Andre Miller. I would look for Miller to make our best people in particular, better.

We have a lot of guys who would presumably score more if they could run more who just haven’t had the chance really to this point. People like Webster, Batum, Aldridge, Bayless should really flourish. Oden might take a while to get to the point where he could keep up enough to actually get more easies.

I’m pretty sure the main reason Roy gets the knock of not running is that when he brings the ball up, he’s slow about it. Well, that doesn’t mean he can’t run when someone else is pushing it. I think Miller could get Roy a lot of easies as well that he could get just by filling the lane. Roy is smart enough to figure that out and do it.

by ranma on Jul 29, 2009 8:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Flagged for skipping work to do this.

by prezofdeath on Jul 29, 2009 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

LOL

I can’t say you didn’t warn me.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oden/Aldridge will be by far the best bigs he's worked with

So their numbers next year will be extremely telling in the context of this info

Dictated, not read. The management.

by Samsara on Jul 29, 2009 8:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Best pairing of bigs, I should say

Dictated, not read. The management.

by Samsara on Jul 29, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aldridge and Oden

are also the most improvable bigs. I think it’s important to note that while Miller has always been on bad teams, his bigs have always put up respectable numbers. I’m in the proccess of comparing Andre’s big mens career averages vs. their with miller averages. Casual observation so far shows me that mediocre big men kandi man and tyronne hill have more servicible numbers under Miller. I’ll post my results here when I’m done.

by Millz on Jul 29, 2009 10:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

rec

Probably the most useful stats are the career w/ Miller vs. w/o Miller. In all cases, PER goes up, and in all except Camby (unchanged), TS% goes up.

That makes me encouraged, even if it is small increments. Small increments can go a long way.

I was curious, you said that the numbers for Nene were badly skewed by his injury season. Does that mean you averaged all seasons together with equal weighting by season? It seems like if you weighted by games played you wouldn’t have any skewing.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jul 29, 2009 11:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What I ought to have done

is figured out what percentage of overall games played occurred in which season and weighted the stats accordingly. But at that point, my eyeballs were just about bleeding because I’d been working on the post for five hours, plus my girlfriend had just gotten home from work and was irritated that my Andre Miller statistical analysis was getting significantly more attention than she was. I am guilty of taking the easy was out and averaging all seasons together with equal weighting by season.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post

Well done. Rec.

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Jul 30, 2009 12:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i don't know if I have time to do this

but as i was reading your post, I thought to myself, I wonder if these same players got easier shots when playing with Miller than without him. And by easy I mean, “close and dunk” type shots, which can be found online somewhere, I just can’t find it right now easily and quickly. If i get time this afternoon at work, I will search harder because it seems to me that just pts/36 and TS% isn’t enough to see Miller’s impact on his teams bigs.

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

by usmcr3049 on Jul 30, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

if you go to 82games.com

they have all of that information under the individual players’ profiles. You couldn’t see “percentage of close shots/dunks while playing with Miller” versus “percentage of close shots/dunks while playing without Miller”, but you COULD compare their close shots/dunks percentage prior to Miller’s arrival to the percentage playing with Miller to the percentage after Miller left. That would be an interesting follow-up.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks,

I’ll try to find it later if i got time.

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

by usmcr3049 on Jul 30, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

here are my results

I used 82games.com for all the stats, they only go back to 02-03 so that is as far back as I went. I looked at the “inside” scoring I will list the players who played with Miller during a year, then list their stats from either the prior year where they didn’t play with him, or the following year where they didn’t play with him. Sometimes both Miller and the player changed teams so those numbers are also effected by their change in teams.

The correct way to read this stats would be, % attempted, (att) inside, FG% on those attempts, %assisted on those attempts, ppg from those attempts.

Years played with Miller are Bolded
Brand
02-03 47% Att, 64%FG, 55% Ast, 8.9pts
03-04 42% Att, 64%FG, 54% Ast, 7.6pts

Olowokandi
02-03 43%att, 59%FG, 70%ast, 6.1pts
03-04 29%att, 54%FG, 71%ast, 2.1pts
(of note: the kandiman changed teams from the clippers to the t-wolves)

Nene
02-03 71%att, 63%FG, 61%ast, 6.9pts
03-04 65%att, 66%FG, 72%ast, 7.1pts

Martin
04-05 53%att, 61%FG, 64%Ast, 8.4pts
05-06 46%att, 63%FG, 69%ast, 6.1pts
07-08 57%att, 67%FG, 74%ast, 7.6pts
08-09 51%att, 63%FG, 67%Ast, 6.2pts

Camby
02-03 41%att, 54%FG, 56%Ast, 3.4pts
03-04 46%att, 61%FG, 62%Ast, 4.6pts
04-05 41%att, 61%FG, 62%Ast, 4.5pts
05-06 37%att, 65%FG, 59%Ast, 5.6pts
07-08 43%att, 56%FG, 66%Ast, 3.9pts

Smith
05-06 39%att, 55%FG, 66%Ast, 3.0pts
06-07 36%att, 60%FG, 67%ast, 3.4pts

Dalembert
05-06 59%att, 63%FG, 72%Ast, 4.1pts
06-07 54%att, 64%FG, 69%Ast, 5.5pts
07-08 58%att, 63%FG, 69%Ast, 5.9pts
08-09 60%att, 57%FG, 63%Ast, 3.6pts

Young
There was not enough info out there to do a good comparison for Young as all of his years in the league have been with Miller.

My conclusions
The two most dramatic cases are Dalembert and Camby, playing with Miller they both scored more points inside, then playing without him. But everyone one of these 7 players listed scored more inside with Miller as their poing guard, than with the other point guards they played with, some more than others, but they all increased their inside scoring with Miller. While their overall per36 scoring numbers might have have increased, they did increase the amount of those points they scored closed to the hoop. What this tells me is that Miller’s game gets his bigs involved at the rim, his well known ability to throw the lob, and score at the rim no doubt helps him do this.
The other issue I can think of, which would take even more time to research, is pace. Miller is known as a guard who wants to push the tempo, which can lead to more points scored. But i am tired, maybe someone else can look that up.

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

by usmcr3049 on Jul 30, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

you should fanpost this

great work. Very telling.

The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.

by BlazersOrBust on Jul 31, 2009 5:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

man,

I love that this is such a nerd site.
kudos and thanks for the insights.

by Falcao on Jul 30, 2009 11:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Compare Kidd, Nash, Paul and their Bigs

Then we will have a truer evaluation. There are so many variables to be even remotely accurate though; the quality of the competition a particular year, other scorers on the team, etc. Nice effort however. I have faith MIller will bring enthusiasm and BBIQ to the forefront and when combined with his skills it will make the Blazers better.

by KA-Oregon on Jul 30, 2009 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

clarence weatherspoons was no patty

My mom babysat Paul Allen

by shwa on Jul 31, 2009 4:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of how well Miller sets bigs up...

…he should improve their opportunities, because he is a inside scorer, and sucks in defenses, and creates easy opportunities off of his short range misses. I would think this would account for an increase in the numbers of the bigs, over playing with PGs who score at the rim less often. One thing we do know about Miller, is that he can score. Taking this into account and the data of this fanpost, it seems like what Miller does for bigs might be more of a side effect of his offense than him being a particularly great set up man. Still, we also know he’s a good passer, and better than average lob thrower. As a legit scoring threat with high assist numbers, he’s very likely to have a positive effect on the team overall. If Oden still has trouble catching the ball this year as he did last year, we may still see him increase his scoring due to cleaning up close in misses from Andre. If Oden has improved his hands, and dosn’t show the ball when he has it, he may score a lot, no matter who is getting him the ball. Lamarcus just has to push himself to improve his game as he did at the end of the regular season.

by wingzeta on Jul 31, 2009 9:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs