Andre Miller

[mook]

In January over 5 games he's averaging:
39 mpg
8.2 assists
18 ppg
5 rebs
.471 fg

The team over that span is 2-3, not a great winning percentage. But we played:
GS - W
@LAC - L
MEM - L
LAL - W
CLE - L

The first two of those games we basically played without Aldridge. Another two of those Aldridge really wasn't playing at full speed.

You'd like to win that Memphis game, but they have won 8 of their last 11, and with Aldridge hobbled and Randolph in peak form, it was pretty understandable. And completely redeemed by beating the Lakers next game.

Meanwhile, Brandon Roy over that same stretch is averaging 27 ppg, 5.8 assists, and shooting .588. Those are all the highest averages of any month this year.

I'd say the question of whether Andre Miller can play with Brandon Roy has been answered.

 

[axs88]

I'd say the question of whether Andre Miller can play with Brandon Roy has been answered.

Bingo.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Andre Miller does not play the way Nate wants.


Keep that quote in mind when you see a PG averaging 18/8/5 and shooting close to 50% from the floor.

 

[andalusian]

Since the start of the year, Andre Miller had 6 games with a game-score of 15 and higher (Game-score is the single-game formula Hollinger uses for the base of his PER calculation). 10 is an average game for a starter, 15 is a good game for a starter.

During these 6 games we went .500

Since the start of the year, Bayless has gone 15 or higher 3 times, we won each time he did it. Blake went twice, we won them both. Surprisingly, when Miller goes for a game-score of 10-15, we win more than we lose.

So, the conclusion, as have been my opinion since the start of the year, is that Miller is valuable for this team as an average starter. Any time you feature him more than that - and his effectiveness is at his 3 years and running win% of .500.

The solution to this team, going forward, is to give as much time as possible to Bayless, to develop - because when he plays well, we win. It's as simple as that. One of Miller or Blake has to be traded, and Bayless needs all the minutes we can give him to help him become more consistent.

Here is the bad news - Rudy had a game score of 15 or higher 3 times this year. We lost all of them. The situation was a lot better last year for him (Rudy) - so, who knows at this point. I guess with him playing injured - you have to wonder how valid these results are... It will be interesting to see it going forward.

 

[axs88]

you have to wonder how valid these results are...

Right on.

 

[yakbladder]

Meanwhile, Brandon Roy over that same stretch is averaging 27 ppg, 5.8 assists, and shooting .588. Those are all the highest averages of any month this year.

Meanwhile, as the team implodes from injuries of historic proportions, Roy is counted on to do more and more scoring. If Oden and Outlaw and Rudy were all back and Blake was playing like last year and LMA was 100%, do you honestly believe Roy would be scoring as much simply because he plays alongside Miller?

 

[andalusian]

Roy and Miller are both very smart players. It was obvious that they will find a way to co-exist sooner or later. The real issue is, however, that Miller is just a role-player. People get the hot for playing Blake (a role player) over Miller, or not featuring Miller, which is just puzzling, because in the grand scheme of things - Miller is just a role player on this team as well. Featuring him does not make this team better, and quite frankly, as we have seen from his long time statistical evidence - never really made his previous team (the sixers) a real elite team. He is just not that good, nor that important.

One of Blake and Miller needs to be moved to open up playing time to Bayless. Who it is, does not matter, I suspect that the one that brings you the better return is the one that needs to be moved. But, at the end of the day, Miller is just one of the guys we have on this team to support Roy and hopefully LMA for the rest of the year.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The real issue is, however, that Miller is just a role-player. People get the hot for playing Blake (a role player) over Miller

Miller is a role player with a PER of 15.9 and Blake is a role player with a PER of 9.8.

or not featuring Miller, which is just puzzling, because in the grand scheme of things - Miller is just a role player on this team as well. Featuring him does not make this team better

Nice strawman. I don't recall a single poster in this forum saying the Blazers should "feature" Andre Miller. I know I never made any such statement. My contention is, and was, that Miller should start and play more minutes than Steve Blake, because he's a more productive player.

and quite frankly, as we have seen from his long time statistical evidence - never really made his previous team (the sixers) a real elite team. He is just not that good, nor that important.

Quite frankly, this argument is ridiculous. You continue to ignore the FACT that the 76ers were a 0.240 immediately before Miller arrived and a 0.294 team immediately after he left - with NO other changes to their top 8 rotation players. So, the 0.500 record and back-to-back play-off appearances while Miller was there many not have made the 76ers an "elite" team, but it sure made them a hell of a lot better than they were before he arrived and after he left.

BNM

 

[axs88]

we have seen from his long time statistical evidence - never really made his previous team (the sixers) a real elite team.

And that is a slight on Miller how exactly?

 

[ABM]

Naturally, when the sampling size becomes relevant, I'll be waiting on the pre-fight vs, post-fight comparisons.

 

[andalusian]

And that is a slight on Miller how exactly?

It is not. It is a slight on the people that are upset he does not start, he does not play more, he does not get featured more.

 

[Boob-No-More]

And that is a slight on Miller how exactly?

He wasn't able to get the 0.240 76ers to the finals. He only managed to get them to 0.500 and into the play-offs two years in a row. So, he's obviously not a very good player and his contributions not important.

He really let down the fans in Philadelphia. I'm sure they were all counting on Andre Miller to take them to the promised land when, at 5-19, they traded their best player and league's second leading scorer for him.

That he failed to win a ring in Philadelphia is a permanent stain on the career of Andre Miller. He should be ashamed. That team was stacked - way more talented than the Celtics and Lakers teams that won the titles those years. That 76ers roster had "elite" written all over it - if only Miller would have done his part they could have won back-to-back rings. What a bum.

BNM

 

[illmatic99]

He wasn't able to get the 0.240 76ers to the finals. He only managed to get them to 0.500 and into the play-offs two years in a row. So, he's obviously not a very good player and his contributions not important.

He really let down the fans in Philadelphia. I'm sure they were all counting on Andre Miller to take them to the promised land when, at 5-19, they traded their best player and league's second leading scorer for him.

That he failed to win a ring in Philadelphia is a permanent stain on the career of Andre Miller. He should be ashamed. That team was stacked - way more talented than the Celtics and Lakers teams that won the titles those years. That 76ers roster had "elite" written all over it - if only Miller would have done his part they could have won back-to-back rings. What a bum.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

It is a slight on the people that are upset he... does not get featured more.

Who exactly are these "people"? You seem to be the only one that uses "Andre Miller" and "featured" in the same paragraph.

BNM

 

[andalusian]

Miller is a role player with a PER of 15.9 and Blake is a role player with a PER of 9.8.

And yet the team wins more with Blake or Bayless. Again, what is the goal of the exercise - to play the guys with the highest PER or to win more games?

Nice strawman. I don't recall a single poster in this forum saying the Blazers should "feature" Andre Miller.

Really? You do not recall anyone saying that Nate needs to change his system to fit Miller, you do not recall anyone that called Roy a primadona because he wants to play the way he is comfortable?

I know I never made any such statement.

Did I ever accuse you? This seems like a straw-man argument to me...

My contention is, and was, that Miller should start and play more minutes than Steve Blake, because he's a more productive player.

Define productive. Individually, or from a team perspective?

Quite frankly, this argument is ridiculous. You continue to ignore the FACT that the 76ers were a 0.240 immediately before Miller arrived and a 0.294 team immediately after he left - with NO other changes to their top 8 rotation players.

I do not ignore it. I just do not think it is relevant to the situation, since Miller's arrival here did not bring the same change, nor did it do so elsewhere. His only winning years were in Denver (and they have been winning after he left), and here (and we have been winning before he came).

So, the 0.500 record and back-to-back play-off appearances while Miller was there many not have made the 76ers an "elite" team, but it sure made them a hell of a lot better than they were before he arrived and after he left.

Good for the 76ers. When you have a garbage team, another good player is clearly important. Of course, the Blazers were not a garbage team before Miller, and his arrival has not taken them higher, so far, given the data we have.

It amazes me that you continue to call me out for noticing a long-term pattern with Miller's results, from a team perspective, while berating me for ignoring his long-term pattern of being a good player, individually. Andre Miller does not provide a skill that is that important to this team. He is a bad perimeter defender, he is an effective scorer with the ball in his hand (something we already have with Roy and one that seems like a more explosive version in the making in Bayless) and he does not play well spacing the floor with shooting.

I have not ignored his higher PER, nor have I ever said he is not as good a player than Blake. What I have said, repeatedly, which you choose to ignore, is that the data does not prove he is a big upgrade (or any, at all), from a team fit perspective.

What I have also said, which again, you seem to ignore - is that I think that the real key for long-term success to this team is Jerryd Bayless's progress at the "other" guard spot, and I think we need to trade one of Miller or Blake to further this development.

 

[mook]

If Oden and Outlaw and Rudy were all back and Blake was playing like last year and LMA was 100%, do you honestly believe Roy would be scoring as much simply because he plays alongside Miller?

No. But it's not just the scoring. Roy's shooting percentage has actually risen over this stretch as his scoring increased. So have his assist numbers. Now that's something you don't expect to see on a team with fewer scoring options and a PG who (allegedly) has to have the ball to be effective.

Don't get me wrong. I think Roy has been fantastic because he's a fantastic player, not because Miller somehow is turning him into something he isn't. But it's pretty hard to argue that Miller has somehow impeded him, or that a Blake/Roy starting back court would put up as good or better numbers as a Miller/Roy back court.

 

[STOMP]

Andre Miller does not provide a skill that is that important to this team.

beating his man off the dribble to draw fouls on opposing Bigs isn't important? He is by far the best drive and dish/assist man on the club and gets Portland's many shooters wide open looks... I'd say thats a pretty important skill too. The ball movement is appreciably better when he's in.

Dude has his shortcomings, but he's a solid player overall.

STOMP

 

[Nikolokolus]

Since the start of the year, Andre Miller had 6 games with a game-score of 15 and higher (Game-score is the single-game formula Hollinger uses for the base of his PER calculation). 10 is an average game for a starter, 15 is a good game for a starter.

During these 6 games we went .500

Since the start of the year, Bayless has gone 15 or higher 3 times, we won each time he did it. Blake went twice, we won them both. Surprisingly, when Miller goes for a game-score of 10-15, we win more than we lose.

So, the conclusion, as have been my opinion since the start of the year, is that Miller is valuable for this team as an average starter. Any time you feature him more than that - and his effectiveness is at his 3 years and running win% of .500.

The solution to this team, going forward, is to give as much time as possible to Bayless, to develop - because when he plays well, we win. It's as simple as that. One of Miller or Blake has to be traded, and Bayless needs all the minutes we can give him to help him become more consistent.

Here is the bad news - Rudy had a game score of 15 or higher 3 times this year. We lost all of them. The situation was a lot better last year for him (Rudy) - so, who knows at this point. I guess with him playing injured - you have to wonder how valid these results are... It will be interesting to see it going forward.

If you are drawing these conclusions based on the given sample size, I'd be more inclined to conclude a confirmation bias than any kind of academically rigorous statistical anaylysis.

 

[andalusian]

beating his man off the dribble to draw fouls on opposing Bigs isn't important? He is by far the best drive and dish/assist man on the club and gets Portland's many shooters wide open looks... I'd say thats a pretty important skill too. The ball movement is appreciably better when he's in.

Definitely not as important given that Jerryd can do it as well, if not better (Attacking the rim from the dribble and getting to the FT line). You might have a point about the ball movement, but again, if it does not translate to more wins, or more assists (we had a little more assists per game, as a team, last year) how important is it, really?

Dude has his shortcomings, but he's a solid player overall.

Absolutely agree. Solid. Not a star. But there is a ton of chatter here how great he is, how he is the missing piece, how much better we are because he starts. Data does not support this.

He is a role player on this team, a very nice one, but far from irreplaceable, and far from being worthy of the angst displayed when he is pulled out of a game or does not start etc...

 

[andalusian]

If you are drawing these conclusions based on the given sample size, I'd be more inclined to conclude a confirmation bias than any kind of academically rigorous statistical anaylysis.

No, it is just another data point in addition to the other data points I already presented, that adds to my belief, that overall, he is not the difference maker I am told he is.

 

[mook]

Andre Miller does not provide a skill that is that important to this team. He is a bad perimeter defender, he is an effective scorer with the ball in his hand (something we already have with Roy and one that seems like a more explosive version in the making in Bayless) and he does not play well spacing the floor with shooting.

You honestly think we'd have done just as well over these past 5 games with Blake in there instead of Miller? I think you're crazy. Miller was the second best player on the team over this stretch.

I also think too much has been made of Blake's ability to spread the floor, and too little of Miller's ability to create for teammates.

When Blake starts, you basically just have to tell your guard to stay close enough to him to bother three pointers. Otherwise, ignore him. Do everything you can to contain Roy. Everything runs through Roy. Contain Roy and you contain the offense.

When Miller starts, Portland is a much more difficult team to game plan. Contain Roy, but don't ignore Miller because he'll score in the post, drive for a foul or make a smart cut to the hoop for an easy pass. But don't focus too much on Miller, because Roy will kill you from pretty much anywhere.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Roy's shooting percentage has actually risen. He's getting better shots because Miller has made the offense much less predictable.

 

[andalusian]

You honestly think we'd have done just as well over these past 5 games with Blake in there instead of Miller? I think you're crazy. Miller was the second best player on the team over this stretch.

Given our dearth of offensive players, no. Blake is a system player, Miller is a better player individually, and given that we are so short, Miller is better than Blake right now, But I think it would be just as well with Bayless over Miller - he would not be as consistent as Miller is, but when he is good - we win at a higher clip.

At the start of the year, when we did have all the offensive players - yes, I think Blake would have been just as well playing over Miller.

My argument is that Bayless is the guy I want to concentrate on, as the 2nd guard next to Roy, not Miller.

 

[mook]

we had a little more assists per game, as a team, last year

That's just an absurd point. I'm sure you realized it as you typed it. That we're even close to having as many assist/game this year is amazing, given the roster.

But there is a ton of chatter here how great he is, how he is the missing piece, how much better we are because he starts. Data does not support this.

He is a role player on this team, a very nice one, but far from irreplaceable, and far from being worthy of the angst displayed when he is pulled out of a game or does not start etc...

Who said he's irreplaceable? Who said he's great? Who said he's the missing piece?

 

[STOMP]

Definitely not as important given that Jerryd can do it as well, if not better (Attacking the rim from the dribble and getting to the FT line). You might have a point about the ball movement, but again, if it does not translate to more wins, or more assists (we had a little more assists per game, as a team, last year) how important is it, really?

Absolutely agree. Solid. Not a star. But there is a ton of chatter here how great he is, how he is the missing piece, how much better we are because he starts. Data does not support this.

He is a role player on this team, a very nice one, but far from irreplaceable, and far from being worthy of the angst displayed when he is pulled out of a game or does not start etc...

my contention was with your claim that "he doesn't provide a skill that is important to this team." That is considerably overstating matters and it seems you're backing off that claim without acknowledging that you are doing so.

He is far better then Blake which the statistical data reflects and my eyes confirm. I'm with BNM on this one

STOMP

 

[Masbee]

Since the start of the year, Andre Miller had 6 games with a game-score of 15 and higher (Game-score is the single-game formula Hollinger uses for the base of his PER calculation). 10 is an average game for a starter, 15 is a good game for a starter.

During these 6 games we went .500

Since the start of the year, Bayless has gone 15 or higher 3 times, we won each time he did it. Blake went twice, we won them both. Surprisingly, when Miller goes for a game-score of 10-15, we win more than we lose.

So, the conclusion, as have been my opinion since the start of the year, is that Miller is valuable for this team as an average starter. Any time you feature him more than that - and his effectiveness is at his 3 years and running win% of .500.

The solution to this team, going forward, is to give as much time as possible to Bayless, to develop - because when he plays well, we win. It's as simple as that. One of Miller or Blake has to be traded, and Bayless needs all the minutes we can give him to help him become more consistent.

Here is the bad news - Rudy had a game score of 15 or higher 3 times this year. We lost all of them. The situation was a lot better last year for him (Rudy) - so, who knows at this point. I guess with him playing injured - you have to wonder how valid these results are... It will be interesting to see it going forward.

I am late to this thread - and as others have already mentioned - but, as soon as I read this post above this thought jumps to front and center:

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.

Your ability to draw definitive conclusions about roster composition moving forward based on results from such a small sample size are magical.

Don't kid yourself into thinking you have legit evidence to support your positions. You don't. Just say it: I want to feature Bayless moving forward. He is the future, Miller is not. The rest is made up at this point.

 

[Minstrel]

And that is a slight on Miller how exactly?

andalusian has nicely proven that Andre Miller is a bad GM, who cannot build winning teams with his abilities to draft, trade for and sign players. This is clearly andalusian's aim, since we know he's logical enough to understand that team success is a silly measure of a single player.

So I agree with andalusian...let's not make Andre Miller the team's GM. Let's just give him the vast majority of the point guard minutes.

 

[mook]

Given our dearth of offensive players, no. Blake is a system player, Miller is a better player individually, and given that we are so short, Miller is better than Blake right now, But I think it would be just as well with Bayless over Miller - he would not be as consistent as Miller is, but when he is good - we win at a higher clip.

At the start of the year, when we did have all the offensive players - yes, I think Blake would have been just as well playing over Miller.

My argument is that Bayless is the guy I want to concentrate on, as the 2nd guard next to Roy, not Miller.

I'm much more torn on Bayless than I was a few weeks ago. Back then I wanted him to get all the minutes possible. Maybe even start him.

But a couple of things have changed:

-Roy's improving performance/FG% over the five game stretch

-Martell averaging 18 ppg on 48% shooting over the same span

-That recent end of game situation where we ran the same isolation play over and over for Roy and Bayless and squandered a win while Miller rotted on the bench.

I'm just not sure we'd have been as good a team over this period with Bayless starting instead of Miller. I could live with a small dropoff for the sake of player development, but I think it might be more of a risk than that, and I don't want to risk missing the playoffs.

Especially while we're already making huge strides with another youngster in Webster. Webster just looks so much more confident out there. I wonder if Miller is giving him some pointers or something out on the floor. For the first time ever, he just looks like a guy who knows what he's doing out there. It could be pure coincidence that he's playing this way as Miller plays a more lead role, but maybe not.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Definitely not as important given that Jerryd can do it as well, if not better (Attacking the rim from the dribble and getting to the FT line). You might have a point about the ball movement, but again, if it does not translate to more wins, or more assists (we had a little more assists per game, as a team, last year) how important is it, really?



Absolutely agree. Solid. Not a star. But there is a ton of chatter here how great he is, how he is the missing piece, how much better we are because he starts. Data does not support this.

He is a role player on this team, a very nice one, but far from irreplaceable, and far from being worthy of the angst displayed when he is pulled out of a game or does not start etc...

I've honestly never once heard anybody call Miller a star or "the missing piece" (here or anywhere else) ... what he is however, is much better point guard than Steve Blake as far as facilitating offense and getting the team going and his on-court/off-court numbers suggest the team scores more and gives up fewer points when he's on the floor than Steve. So for now and the next year I guess I'd rather see him getting comfortable with his teammates, starting and have a guy like Bayless backing him up and improving his ability to play the position, versus trading him and trying to make it work with Steve and Jerryd.

Another issue for me goes beyond Andre's floor contributions; assuming Jerryd is the heir apparent (?) to take over the starting point guard spot in a year or two, I think Andre just has more to teach a somewhat raw Jerryd than Steve does, just because both players seem to be at their best when they attack off the dribble versus spotting up and shooting -- and that doesn't mean Andre is going to take Jerryd under his wing and mentor him, but there is something to be learned just by watching and playing off of somebody.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I'd say the question of whether Andre Miller can play with Brandon Roy has been answered.

Word.

Next step: Aldridge. We start clicking with our new "big three" and we'll be hard to stop.

 

[mook]

The way Webster has been balling lately, I'm not sure Aldridge is a lock for the "Big Three" label. Man, I had completely given up on Martell.

Just occurred to me that our only consistent low post player is our PG.