A word of praise for Blake

[Rastapopoulos]

It is sadly true that Blake is our best defender at guard. That is indeed a stinging indictment of the other guards. If we DO trade Blake, we damn well better be getting a lockdown perimeter defender back. Blake even handled Westbrook pretty well (at least, while I was watching) despite the fact that Westbrook is bigger, stronger, faster and far more athletic. Bayless always makes me laugh on defense: he's like someone who's seen films of how you're supposed to act as a defender, but he has total tunnel vision. He's just locked on his guy and has no idea of what else is happening on the floor. And of course he can't get steals because of his B-Rex arms.

What's up with Rudy, though? His shooting has stunk all year, but at the beginning of the year he was getting a ton of steals (not the same as being a good defender, but still good to have). Last night he was just a total non-factor on either end.

You people who respond to the claim that Blake was a difference maker last night either by pointing to his PER or even his boxscore, once again fail to remember that Basketball is a team game. Too much fantasy basketball.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Well at least you acknowledge that Blake did something last night that he usually doesn't do. At first you were wondering why Blake is getting an appreciation thread when all he did was not suck as much as others. I think you even mocked this idea (This thread exists because, for one night, Blake was less bad than the guys who were truly horrible WHOOO FUCKING HOOOO!!!! Way to not totally suck Blakey!!!


I understand that you think bringing more energy than usual doesn't deserve an appreciation thread, but at least you get now why there is an appreciation thead. Blake coming out and showing a lot of energy and in game like last night . . . many appreciate a player who comes out with more energy than they usually do. Especially for a player whose energy level is rarely questioned.

Yeah, that's nice.

But, all the energy in the world doesn't mean shit if it doesn't impact the results (in a positive way). In spite of all his new found energy, the fact remains Steve Blake is exceptionally bad at creating scoring opportunities for his teammates and for himself. Last night was no exception. That's a serious deficiency in a PG, IMHO.

So sure, I'll praise him for his energy, but I won't go overboard and praise him for the results - which, as usual, were less than spectacular.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

You people who respond to the claim that Blake was a difference maker last night either by pointing to his PER or even his boxscore, once again fail to remember that Basketball is a team game. Too much fantasy basketball.

So, what exactly did Blake do to help his TEAM win last night? I watched the game, and while he didn't stand out in a bad way (other than the shotting, but he was not alone), He also didn't stand out in a good way. He did apply modest resistance to Westbrook that delayed OKC getting into their offense by a couple seconds, but since THEIR offense doesn't rely on milking the shot clock to the final seconds, it didn't really make a difference.

He obviously didn't create any offense for himself (ZERO points), and very little for his teammates.

So, yeah, I agree there is more to basketball than stats, but after watching the game last night, I fail to see exactly what Blake did to help his team win.

BNM

 

[LittleAlex]

So, what exactly did Blake do to help his TEAM win last night? I watched the game, and while he didn't stand out in a bad way (other than the shotting, but he was not alone), He also didn't stand out in a good way. He did apply modest resistance to Westbrook that delayed OKC getting into their offense by a couple seconds, but since THEIR offense doesn't rely on milking the shot clock to the final seconds, it didn't really make a difference.

He obviously didn't create any offense for himself (ZERO points), and very little for his teammates.

So, yeah, I agree there is more to basketball than stats, but after watching the game last night, I fail to see exactly what Blake did to help his team win.

BNM

Due to the strange alchemy of basketball the team played better with Blake on the floor then it did with him on the bench. By a pretty large margin it seemed to me.

Who knows what he did? Maybe he set good picks that freed other guys up. Maybe he had several good hockey assists. It could be his energy and effort on defense brought his teamates out of their funk for a short period of time. Perhaps he bothered guys enough that they made a bad pass that became a steal for someone else.

It's really, really hard to measure a players impact via their stat line. There is a reason that coming up with quantifiable analysis of basketball is so damn difficult.


I don't mean to say that Blake is even a good point guard. But last night his impact on the game appeared to be mostly positive when all of the other guards effected the game in a negative way.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Due to the strange alchemy of basketball the team played better with Blake on the floor then it did with him on the bench. By a pretty large margin it seemed to me.

Who knows what he did? Maybe he set good picks that freed other guys up. Maybe he had several good hockey assists. It could be his energy and effort on defense brought his teamates out of their funk for a short period of time. Perhaps he bothered guys enough that they made a bad pass that became a steal for someone else.

It's really, really hard to measure a players impact via their stat line. There is a reason that coming up with quantifiable analysis of basketball is so damn difficult.


I don't mean to say that Blake is even a good point guard. But last night his impact on the game appeared to be mostly positive when all of the other guards effected the game in a negative way.

I know that you are not the biggest Blake fan (to say the lest) . . . so I appreciate the honest analysis.

I agree, sometimes (many times) stats don't show the real impact of a player.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I know that you are not the biggest Blake fan (to say the lest) . . . so I appreciate the honest analysis.

I agree, sometimes (many times) stats don't show the real impact of a player.

What I noticed was that he slowed down Westbrook (a little) by playing him 94 feet; he started on him at full court, and hounded him as best he could through the entire play. Maybe that helped.

 

[Minstrel]

Due to the strange alchemy of basketball the team played better with Blake on the floor then it did with him on the bench. By a pretty large margin it seemed to me.

Who knows what he did?

When it's not clear what a player did to get a good +/- in a single game, I think the best default hypothesis is that +/- is so noisy as to mean nothing in a single game.

Maybe he didn't do anything at all, and was just lucky to be on the floor when the team happened to be playing well. That's very likely in a single game, which is why +/- (and related concepts of team performance when a player is on the floor) are not single-game measures.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

When it's not clear what a player did to get a good +/- in a single game, I think the best default hypothesis is that +/- is so noisy as to mean nothing in a single game.

Maybe he didn't do anything at all, and was just lucky to be on the floor when the team happened to be playing well. That's very likely in a single game, which is why +/- (and related concepts of team performance when a player is on the floor) are not single-game measures.

I agree +/- is crappy/noisy especially in a single game. I didn't even look at it, but it looked like they were playing better when he came in...I'm more of an "eyeball" test guy myself...

 

[craigehlo]

I get frustrated seeing guys pass the ball ahead to Blake on the break. All he does is stop at the 3 point line and pull the ball back. He's a big culprit when it comes to the question of why we don't get quality scores early in the clock. He did that several times last night, taking all the pressure away fom the Thunder an letting them get their D set.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I thought you were joking....You are actually serious?

Sorry, but running around out there and providing NOTHING...is not an "upgrade" over the other guards Rudy\Bayless\Martell who were stinking the joint up....

Blake has been HORRIBLE this year...not bad...HORRIBLE....

I mean did you watch him play last night? The guy is afraid to shoot the ball....and when he does, he is missing badly...I mean BADLY...Now maybe it was hard to see last night because he was FAR from alone in that aspect...but you cannot have a guy in the lineup who WON'T shoot the ball and whose ONLY ability is to hit an outside jumper, which he seems incapable of doing currently......

A couple bad turnovers, again he wasn't the only one, but if Nate's reason for having him in there is that he is so fundamentely solid, then he certainly wasn't helping that cause last night....

POR needs scoring....BADLY...and give OKC credit they partially took Aldridge out of the equation (LaMarcus' passivity on offense certainly didn't help)...Leaving who? exactly to score?

Right now, whenever Blake is in the game it is like the team is playing 4 on 5 offensively...you can't have that and expect to succeed...

nothing = zero
less than nothing < zero

Last night Steve was providing around nothing which is more than the net negative Jerryd, Rudy and Martell were providing.

 

[Blaze01]

Rudy,Martell & Jerryd provided nothing last night....as did Blake....

But at least they ATTEMPTED to provide something...they succeeded in clanking shots and turning the ball over...and surprise...so did Steve Blake...

 

[Boob-No-More]

Due to the strange alchemy of basketball the team played better with Blake on the floor then it did with him on the bench. By a pretty large margin it seemed to me.

Who knows what he did? Maybe he set good picks that freed other guys up. Maybe he had several good hockey assists. It could be his energy and effort on defense brought his teamates out of their funk for a short period of time. Perhaps he bothered guys enough that they made a bad pass that became a steal for someone else.

It's really, really hard to measure a players impact via their stat line. There is a reason that coming up with quantifiable analysis of basketball is so damn difficult.


I don't mean to say that Blake is even a good point guard. But last night his impact on the game appeared to be mostly positive when all of the other guards effected the game in a negative way.

In addition to the stat lines, I also watched the game. Blake did nothing exceptional - in either a positive, or negative sense.

The use single game +/- stats is meaningless. There are just too many variables. Perhaps, Blake just happended to be on the floor when Durant was on the bench. That would have a bigger impact on Blake's +/- than anything he personally did.

As someone who watched the game, I can tell you without looking at a single stat, that Andre Miller had a bigger positive impact on his team's chances of winning than Blake did. Other than one or two late Bayless drives, the only easy scores the Blazers got were generated by Andre Miller - either lay-ups for himself, or lay-ups/dunks for his teammates. Blake didn't create easy scoring opportunites for anyone - himself included.

So, if you want to ignore quantitaive stats that's fine (although I prefer to consider the stats AND personal observations), Blake had less of a positive impact than Miller (and Batum and Aldrridge and Cunningham - where's the Dante Appreciation Thread?).

BNM

 

[LittleAlex]

When it's not clear what a player did to get a good +/- in a single game, I think the best default hypothesis is that +/- is so noisy as to mean nothing in a single game.

Maybe he didn't do anything at all, and was just lucky to be on the floor when the team happened to be playing well. That's very likely in a single game, which is why +/- (and related concepts of team performance when a player is on the floor) are not single-game measures.

I don't even pay attension to +/- since I believe to be a mostly worthless stat. Even adjusted +/- isn't all that great.

Anyway, I was just refering to how the team appeared to play on the floor. They played better when Blake was on then when he wasn't.

As stated, I haven't the slightest idea what he might have done that helped.

 

[LittleAlex]

In addition to the stat lines, I also watched the game. Blake did nothing exceptional - in either a positive, or negative sense.

The use single game +/- stats is meaningless. There are just too many variables. Perhaps, Blake just happended to be on the floor when Durant was on the bench. That would have a bigger impact on Blake's +/- than anything he personally did.

As someone who watched the game, I can tell you without looking at a single stat, that Andre Miller had a bigger positive impact on his team's chances of winning than Blake did. Other than one or two late Bayless drives, the only easy scores the Blazers got were generated by Andre Miller - either lay-ups for himself, or lay-ups/dunks for his teammates. Blake didn't create easy scoring opportunites for anyone - himself included.

So, if you want to ignore quantitaive stats that's fine (although I prefer to consider the stats AND personal observations), Blake had less of a positive impact than Miller (and Batum and Aldrridge and Cunningham - where's the Dante Appreciation Thread?).

BNM

We will have to agree to disagree about Miller's performance. I felt most of his stats came at the expense of the team and his turnovers far over shadowed his assists.

I don't pay any attention to +/-. Any stat that shows that Dirk Nowitzki was a more valuable player then Shaq when Shaq was winning titles is a stat that deserves to be ignored.

 

[WillG]

Blake should be shipped out and all of that time given to Bayless for experience/development.

 

[Boob-No-More]

We will have to agree to disagree about Miller's performance. I felt most of his stats came at the expense of the team and his turnovers far over shadowed his assists.

Really? On a night when many of his teammates were shooting 0.000, you think Miller's 0.500 shooting came at the expense of the team? Yeah, Miller's 4 TOVs hurt, but his 6 AST lead to some very easy baskets (lay-ups and dunks) for his teammates.

BNM

 

[LittleAlex]

Really? On a night when many of his teammates were shooting 0.000, you think Miller's 0.500 shooting came at the expense of the team? Yeah, Miller's 4 TOVs hurt, but his 6 AST lead to some very easy baskets (lay-ups and dunks) for his teammates.

BNM

Yes really.

I did not like what I saw from Miller one bit. Every score came out of the same bullshit offense I have hated for two years now. No passing, no ball movement. It sucked to watch and in the end failed miserably.

It seemed like he got tired of trying to pass the ball to guys and decided he was going to get his. Which is lucky since his passes kept getting stolen outright or deflected.

Also, I don't want to sound like I am pimping Blake's play. He sucked to. Just less or as bad as all of the other guards that played.

After a game like last night the best you can say about any player is that they sucked the least. Blake, Batum and DC are the winners of the coveted "We didn't suck as bad as everyone else" award. LMA is not in the running due to expectations and his failure to meet them.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Yes really.

I did not like what I saw from Miller one bit. Every score came out of the same bullshit offense I have hated for two years now. No passing, no ball movement. It sucked to watch and in the end failed miserably.

It seemed like he got tired of trying to pass the ball to guys and decided he was going to get his.

That's how you want to characterize his play? Seriously? He stopped passing because guys were settling for contested three pointers or off balance jumpers which were absolutely not going in. If the result had been a win or if this had been Brandon we'd be lauding him for trying to make something happen or taking over for his inept/cold/mediocre teammates.

I had zero issue with Miller's game last night, besides Nic (early), Dante and LMA to a degree he was the only guy who had anything going

 

[Boob-No-More]

I did not like what I saw from Miller one bit. Every score came out of the same bullshit offense I have hated for two years now.

You blame that on Miller? He wasn't here last year. If you've hated the offense for two years, it seems like Andre Miller should be the last person you should be blaming for that.

No passing, no ball movement. It sucked to watch and in the end failed miserably.

But, that's our offense no matter what the situation, no matter who's in the game, no matter who the opponent is, etc.

It seemed like he got tired of trying to pass the ball to guys and decided he was going to get his. Which is lucky since his passes kept getting stolen outright or deflected.

Or, maybe he got tired of passing to guys who were 0-5, 0-6, and couldn't hit a shot to save their lives. With the way his teammates were shooting the ball, I don't blame Miller for looking for his own shot - especially when he was the only one in the game who was making anything.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

He obviously didn't create any offense for himself (ZERO points), and very little for his teammates.

So it was by some AMAZING COINCIDENCE that the runs the Blazers went on in the first, second and third quarters (I didn't watch much of the fourth - when I did watch Blake wasn't playing and OKC killed the Blazers) were while Blake was on the floor? And, correct me if this is wildly off the mark, it's pretty hard for a team to "go on a run" without scoring any points.

So, yeah, I agree there is more to basketball than stats, but after watching the game last night, I fail to see exactly what Blake did to help his team win.

Okay, I can believe that.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Blake-haters and Nate-haters (the overlap is large) should love this:

steve's the latest blazer to enter the revolving door of starters. Haha. He'll be starting tonight.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So it was by some AMAZING COINCIDENCE that the runs the Blazers went on in the first, second and third quarters (I didn't watch much of the fourth - when I did watch Blake wasn't playing and OKC killed the Blazers) were while Blake was on the floor? And, correct me if this is wildly off the mark, it's pretty hard for a team to "go on a run" without scoring any points.

The only "run" the Blazers went on with Blake in the game was in the 2nd quarter when they outscored the Thunder 10-3 - with Durant and Westbrook on the bench.

In the first quarter, the Blazers matched the Thunder 13-13 when Blake was in the game. In the 3rd quarter, the Thunder outscored the Blazers 16-14 with Blake in the game and were outscored 7-5 in the 4th with Blake in the game.

So, the only big run the Blazers went on while Blake was in the game happened to coincide with OKC's two best players being on the bench.

I already said Blake did some good things last night, in spite of the 0-5 shooting, but it's not like he was some great catalyst that propeled his team to victory. His play only "stood out" because it was slightly less bad than Webster's, Rudy's and Bayless'.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Blake-haters and Nate-haters (the overlap is large) should love this:

Doesn't surprise me one bit. In fact, it's just too predictable.

BNM

 

[Blaze01]

Nate is a fucking joke

 

[BGrantFan]

Nate is a fucking joke

Blake didn't play bad tonight, did he? One could even say he was the difference in the game, couldn't they?

 

[BGrantFan]

Doesn't surprise me one bit. In fact, it's just too predictable.

BNM

Were the results "predictable"?

 

[Boob-No-More]

Were the results "predictable"?

Nope, definitely not. After the season Blake has been having, I would never expected him to play one of the best games of his career tonight.

BNM

 

[andalusian]

The result were not out of left field as some would like to tell you. Blake has been the highest guard in win% we have had all season - and has been over 60% in win% for 4 years running. Some people just choose to ignore this.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The result were not out of left field as some would like to tell you. Blake has been the highest guard in win% we have had all season - and has been over 60% in win% for 4 years running. Some people just choose to ignore this.

There's a difference between ignoring something and understanding what it means.

Steve Blake has benefited from playing the majority of his minutes over the last three years with Brandon Roy. It's called the coattail effect.

BNM

 

[Blaze01]

Blake didn't play bad tonight, did he? One could even say he was the difference in the game, couldn't they?

Or one could say that Aldridge was...but that wouldn't support your point now would it?

Congratulations to Blake I guess, he played one of his best games ever....I guess that justifies a season of REALLY poor play, yet heavy starters minutes that he has been getting.....


Kind of like getting beat by 50 points and then puffing your chest because you took 40 shots and scored 20 points....


Yeeeaahh...OK.