Andre Miller

[Nikolokolus]

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.

This team is in real trouble if Martell is the 3rd leg to this stool

 

[mook]

This team is in real trouble if Martell is the 3rd leg to this stool

I would've agreed with you as recently as maybe two weeks ago. Now I'm not so sure.

We all just have to keep repeating to ourselves: He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23.

Raw high schoolers often take longer to emerge. 5 years is on the very slow side of it, especially for a wing. But if we'd drafted him this year instead of 5 years ago, I think a lot of us would be more excited about this kid.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

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 hear what you're saying, but I wonder if the correlation between his individual success and the lack of team success is both more situational and evolutionary. Situational because of the injuries and introduction to a new team. Evolutionary because of how his role has developed over the season. With more time with this team and some stability, it makes sense that Miller will play even more in tune with the team while playing at a high level closer to the Playoffs and next season. McMillan's teams have a way of bringing out the best in his players.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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?

Of course the goal is to win more games. You continue to misuse a single stat to "prove" Miller doesn't help his teams win. I really don't feel like typing it all up again and updating it for the two games since (split with Lakers and Cavs). So, here again is the more comprehensive data (not just a single misused stat) to show that Miller is better statistically AND helps the team more than Blake:

If you look at several additional stats, you start to see the whole picture:

PER (from basketball-refernce.com):
Blake = 9.9
Miller = 15.7
Bayless = 14.7
Advantage Miller

Production vs. Opponents (from 82games.com):
Blake: OWN = 11.0, OPP = 14.2, NET = -3.2
Miller: OWN = 16.4, OPP = 14.8, NET = +1.6
Bayless: OWN = 16.4, OPP = 16.2, NET = +0.2
Advantage Miller

Win Shares (from basketball-refernce.com):
Blake = 1.5
Miller = 2.4
Bayless = 1.3
Advantage Miller

Net Points Per 100 Possessions (from 82games.com):
Blake: On Court +4.8, Off Court +5.8, Net -1.5
Miller: On Court +6.9, Off Court +2.3, Net +4.7
Bayless: On Court +7.5, Off Court +3.9, Net +3.6
Advantage Miller

Even though Blake has played more minutes than Miller (59% vs. 57%), the team has outscored their opponents by more (+107 points vs. +72 points) when Miller is on the floor than when Blake is. For the sake of completeness, Bayless has played less than half as many minutes as Blake or Miller (27%) and the team net scoring is +50 points when he's in the game (comparable to Miller's +107 points in 57% of the team's minutes).

Also, the team record with Miller starting is 15-6 (now 16-7). With him not starting, it's 7-9. This may be the most important stat of all in Miller's favor - and the ONE stat you think Nate would care most about.

I could continue to site many more stats that show Miller produces more individually than Bayless (slightly) and Blake (greatly) AND that the team does better with Miller on the court, but hopefully this will be enough to get a general overall view of individual and team production for the three players in question.

I really don't think you need all these fancy stats to see that Miller is a better player than Steve Blake. The comparison between Bayless and Miller is much closer, but still slightly in Miller's favor.

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?

A good coach WILL adapt his syetem to the strengths of his personel. There is a difference between fitting in and being "featured". Joel "fits in" but he's hardly "featured " in the Blazers offense (when healthy, of course). Miller and Roy seem to be fitting quite well in the backcourt now that they are finally starting togther at their best natural positions. Too bad we had to loose half the team to injury before Nate would even TRY starting them togther in the backcourt.

Define productive. Individually, or from a team perspective?

Both, and it's not even close. There is no disputing that Miller's individual stats are much better than Blake's. There is also no disputing that the team scores more and gives up fewer points when Miller is on the court than when Blake is. Miller's WinScore also trumps Blakes by a wide margin.

You have also compared Andre Miler to Zach Randolph as a player who puts up good stats, but doesn't help his team win. If Andre Miller is such a team wrecking cancer, how does he have, by a substantial margin, the highest assist rate on the team? His AST% is 29.0 compared to Blake's 18.9. Why are both Roy AND Webster shooting the ball MUCH better now that they are starting with Miller at PG? Could it possibly be that he does a good job setting up his teammates and geting them good, open looks that they can knock down at a high percentage?

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).

I've already mentioned Miller's impact on the 76ers (0.240 before he arrives, 0.500 while he was there and 0.294 after he left with no other significant roster changes). So, you want to talk about his impact in Denver? Sure, why not. The season before he arrived in Denver they won 17 games. In addition to Miller, they also added Carmelo Anthony and proceeded to win 43 games - a 26-game improvement. Sure a lot of credit goes to Carmelo, but there is no way the rookie Carmelo all by himself takes a team from 17 wins to 43. Hell the Cavs added LeBron that same year and they only went from 17 wins to 35 and the year the Blazers added Brondon Roy AND LaMarcus Aldridge, they only improved from 21 wins to 32. So, Andre Miller should get some credit for Denver's 26-game improvement.

The next year, the Nuggets further improved to win 49 games. The following year, the team has some injuries and regressed to 44 wins. The following December the Nuggets traded Miller to Philadelphia for Allen Iverson. I've already mentioned Miller's impact on the 76ers (from 0.240 to 0.510 that season). What about the Nuggets? They were 11-7 when they traded Miller. That's a 50-win pace. They ended up winning 45 games after adding Allen Iversoon AND Steve Blake.

In Cleveland, the Cavs won 22 games the year before drafting Miller. They won 32 games his rookie season. A 10 game improvement.

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.

And this is somehow Miller's fault? He was not allowed to start in the backcourt with Roy until very recently - and only then after half the team was lost to injuries. I have never claimed Miller was our savior, and quite frankly, I have never read anyone else say so in this forum. He's not a superstar. Nobody is claiming he is. What he is is an above average starting PG, which makes him much, much better than this year's version fo Steve Blake. You seem obsessed with "people" claiming Miller is better than he is. I just haven't seen those posts.

It amazes me that you continue to call me out for noticing a long-term pattern with Miller's results, from a team perspective

The problem is your long term pattern shows that Miller has a carfeer won/loss percentage of around 0.500. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is you continuing to ignore how bad those teams were before Miller arrived. When a single player turns a 0.240 team into a 0.510 team, that's a significant impact. Yes, that's still barely a 0.500 team, but the results are far, far better than before Miller arrived.

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.

Really??? He has a team leading AST% of 29%. How does that not help this team - especially now that we are missing so many key offenseive players (Oden, Outlaw, Rudy, etc.)? Since when is creating easy scoring opportunites for your teammates NOT a skill that is important to this team?

BNM

 

[LameR]

In before kingspeed's win/loss comment. It sucks that we can't realistically compare numbers from early in the season to now due to the ever-changing team dynamics due to injuries.

As far as Roy and Miller goes, I definitely agree with the OP.

 

[RR7]

Of course the goal is to win more games. You continue to misuse a single stat to "prove" Miller doesn't help his teams win. I really don't feel like typing it all up again and updating it for the two games since (split with Lakers and Cavs). So, here again is the more comprehensive data (not just a single misused stat) to show that Miller is better statistically AND helps the team more than Blake:

If you look at several additional stats, you start to see the whole picture:

PER (from basketball-refernce.com):
Blake = 9.9
Miller = 15.7
Bayless = 14.7
Advantage Miller

Production vs. Opponents (from 82games.com):
Blake: OWN = 11.0, OPP = 14.2, NET = -3.2
Miller: OWN = 16.4, OPP = 14.8, NET = +1.6
Bayless: OWN = 16.4, OPP = 16.2, NET = +0.2
Advantage Miller

Win Shares (from basketball-refernce.com):
Blake = 1.5
Miller = 2.4
Bayless = 1.3
Advantage Miller

Net Points Per 100 Possessions (from 82games.com):
Blake: On Court +4.8, Off Court +5.8, Net -1.5
Miller: On Court +6.9, Off Court +2.3, Net +4.7
Bayless: On Court +7.5, Off Court +3.9, Net +3.6
Advantage Miller

Even though Blake has played more minutes than Miller (59% vs. 57%), the team has outscored their opponents by more (+107 points vs. +72 points) when Miller is on the floor than when Blake is. For the sake of completeness, Bayless has played less than half as many minutes as Blake or Miller (27%) and the team net scoring is +50 points when he's in the game (comparable to Miller's +107 points in 57% of the team's minutes).

Also, the team record with Miller starting is 15-6 (now 16-7). With him not starting, it's 7-9. This may be the most important stat of all in Miller's favor - and the ONE stat you think Nate would care most about.

I could continue to site many more stats that show Miller produces more individually than Bayless (slightly) and Blake (greatly) AND that the team does better with Miller on the court, but hopefully this will be enough to get a general overall view of individual and team production for the three players in question.

I really don't think you need all these fancy stats to see that Miller is a better player than Steve Blake. The comparison between Bayless and Miller is much closer, but still slightly in Miller's favor.



A good coach WILL adapt his syetem to the strengths of his personel. There is a difference between fitting in and being "featured". Joel "fits in" but he's hardly "featured " in the Blazers offense (when healthy, of course). Miller and Roy seem to be fitting quite well in the backcourt now that they are finally starting togther at their best natural positions. Too bad we had to loose half the team to injury before Nate would even TRY starting them togther in the backcourt.



Both, and it's not even close. There is no disputing that Miller's individual stats are much better than Blake's. There is also no disputing that the team scores more and gives up fewer points when Miller is on the court than when Blake is. Miller's WinScore also trumps Blakes by a wide margin.

You have also compared Andre Miler to Zach Randolph as a player who puts up good stats, but doesn't help his team win. If Andre Miller is such a team wrecking cancer, how does he have, by a substantial margin, the highest assist rate on the team? His AST% is 29.0 compared to Blake's 18.9. Why are both Roy AND Webster shooting the ball MUCH better now that they are starting with Miller at PG? Could it possibly be that he does a good job setting up his teammates and geting them good, open looks that they can knock down at a high percentage?



I've already mentioned Miller's impact on the 76ers (0.240 before he arrives, 0.500 while he was there and 0.294 after he left with no other significant roster changes). So, you want to talk about his impact in Denver? Sure, why not. The season before he arrived in Denver they won 17 games. In addition to Miller, they also added Carmelo Anthony and proceeded to win 43 games - a 26-game improvement. Sure a lot of credit goes to Carmelo, but there is no way the rookie Carmelo all by himself takes a team from 17 wins to 43. Hell the Cavs added LeBron that same year and they only went from 17 wins to 35 and the year the Blazers added Brondon Roy AND LaMarcus Aldridge, they only improved from 21 wins to 32. So, Andre Miller should get some credit for Denver's 26-game improvement.

The next year, the Nuggets further improved to win 49 games. The following year, the team has some injuries and regressed to 44 wins. The following December the Nuggets traded Miller to Philadelphia for Allen Iverson. I've already mentioned Miller's impact on the 76ers (from 0.240 to 0.510 that season). What about the Nuggets? They were 11-7 when they traded Miller. That's a 50-win pace. They ended up winning 45 games after adding Allen Iversoon AND Steve Blake.

In Cleveland, the Cavs won 22 games the year before drafting Miller. They won 32 games his rookie season. A 10 game improvement.



And this is somehow Miller's fault? He was not allowed to start in the backcourt with Roy until very recently - and only then after half the team was lost to injuries. I have never claimed Miller was our savior, and quite frankly, I have never read anyone else say so in this forum. He's not a superstar. Nobody is claiming he is. What he is is an above average starting PG, which makes him much, much better than this year's version fo Steve Blake. You seem obsessed with "people" claiming Miller is better than he is. I just haven't seen those posts.



The problem is your long term pattern shows that Miller has a carfeer won/loss percentage of around 0.500. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is you continuing to ignore how bad those teams were before Miller arrived. When a single player turns a 0.240 team into a 0.510 team, that's a significant impact. Yes, that's still barely a 0.500 team, but the results are far, far better than before Miller arrived.



Really??? He has a team leading AST% of 29%. How does that not help this team - especially now that we are missing so many key offenseive players (Oden, Outlaw, Rudy, etc.)? Since when is creating easy scoring opportunites for your teammates NOT a skill that is important to this team?

BNM

Nice post. I believe it was at around this point in the last thread you posted this in where he bailed on the discussion, as opposed to choosing to dispute any stat you listed.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nice post. I believe it was at around this point in the last thread you posted this in where he bailed on the discussion, as opposed to choosing to dispute any stat you listed.

Thanks. And for all his talk about Miller not making the team better, they are winning games with Miller starting and playing big minutes in spite of the team being decimated by injuries. Since Miller was promoted to starting PG, the Blazers are 9-5, despite a extremely tough schedule - and the previously mentioned depleted line-up. During those 14 games, he is 2nd or 3rd in minutes played (running neck and neck with Martell), leads the team in assists and is second in total points scored.

Roy deserves the lion's share of the credit, but without Andre Miller, who has been our second best player over those 14 games, the Blazers would not have won 9 of 14. Anyone who thinks the team is underachieving, in spite of the injuries, and that Miller is not helping them win, needs to look at the reality of the situation.

Considering were are missing Batum, Outlaw, Oden, Przybilla and Rudy for all of those games, Roy and Aldridge both missed a game (almost two in Aldridge's case) and Blake was also out for multiple games, and we had an extremely tough road trip, and played the two best teams in the league over the weekend, it's a damn miracle that the team has won 9 of those 14 games. Does Andre Miller not deserve ANY credit for his part in those wins?

For those bashing Andre's defense, name one time in the last 14 games the Blazers have been killed by an opposing PG. Miller has been holding some of the best PGs in the game at, or below their scoring averages. In fact, unless you consider Monta Ellis a PG (he's really a SG), there hasn't been a single opposing PG score more than 17 points agianst the Blazers in the last 14 games. Steve Nash (16), Jason Kidd (3), Tony Parker (16), Chauncy Billups (10), Lois Williams (9), Baron Davis (15, 12), Mike Conley (7) and Mo Williams (16) all scored below their season scoring averages against the Blazers.

So Miller scores more than Blake, gets more assists, holds his opponent to fewer points AND the team is winning in spite of a decimated roster and a very tough schedule. How anyone can claim Andre Miller is a poor fit and doesn't help this team win is beyond me. Perhaps some posters had unrealistic expectations. Perhaps they expected Andre Miller to be a superstar. He's not, but he's producing and the team is winning. Given the injury situation and schedule, I'll take that gladly.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

I don't mean this as a slam on andalusian, as I've been guilty of this myself in the past, but I think he's arguing from an emotional standpoint. I think he just really likes and respects Blake (which I can understand), thinks Blake gets short shrift and is therefore going a bit overboard in defense of Blake.

I normally try not to dabble in pop-psychology, but I am trying to reconcile andalusian's normally very well-reasoned positions with this somewhat baffling refusal, against the vast majority of evidence, to agree that Miller does more for the Blazers than Blake.

 

[hasoos]

It is very simple. Look at the player, and ask yourself if you see that player being a starter on a championship caliber team down the line, which is the goal, is it not? If the answer is no, then that is all you need to know.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It is very simple. Look at the player, and ask yourself if you see that player being a starter on a championship caliber team down the line, which is the goal, is it not? If the answer is no, then that is all you need to know.

With our current active roster, the ONLY player that meets that criteria, without a doubt, is Brandon Roy. You could make an argument for, or against Aldridge.

The fact is, you have to do your best with what you are given, and right now, that's not much compared to what it was a couple months ago. You just have to try to keep winning with the guys who are healthy and hope you can hold out until some of the injured players get back. Winning the title this season is not realistic. Making the play-offs is. Getting past the first round without a center is unlikely, but it's not impossible and should be this season's adjusted goal.

Next year, when the team is hopefully healthy, we can revist the "is he a starter on a championship team" question.

I never viewed Miller as the long term solution at PG, just an upgrade that could hold down the spot for a season until Bayless is more ready, slide into the back-up role when Bayless has proven he is ready to be a full time starter, and then either excercise or decline his team option accordingly. Given the structure of his contract, that seems like it was KP's intent as well when he signed Miller.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Miller is currently the caliber of player who could certainly be a starter on a championship-caliber team. Not one of the main driving forces, but certainly a starter for that level of team.

I'd also say Aldridge is that level...we hope that Aldridge will reach the level of the sort of player who can be a prime reason for championship contention.

 

[hasoos]

With our current active roster, the ONLY player that meets that criteria, without a doubt, is Brandon Roy. You could make an argument for, or against Aldridge.

The fact is, you have to do your best with what you are given, and right now, that's not much compared to what it was a couple months ago. You just have to try to keep winning with the guys who are healthy and hope you can hold out until some of the injured players get back. Winning the title this season is not realistic. Making the play-offs is. Getting past the first round without a center is unlikely, but it's not impossible and should be this season's adjusted goal.

Next year, when the team is hopefully healthy, we can revist the "is he a starter on a championship team" question.

I never viewed Miller as the long term solution at PG, just an upgrade that could hold down the spot for a season until Bayless is more ready, slide into the back-up role when Bayless has proven he is ready to be a full time starter, and then either excercise or decline his team option accordingly. Given the structure of his contract, that seems like it was KP's intent as well when he signed Miller.

BNM

I disagree with Roy being the only player who could be on a contending roster. Most of the players have to be role players. The problem is, I don't view many of our role players as up to snuff. Rudy could be. Bayless could be. Lots of upside there. Howard could be a nice role player, and Aldridge could be a good #3 scorer.

My point being, that all that means is that the GM has work to do down the road. The other point being, is that the team could be much stronger by end of season if they would play Rudy and Bayless with Roy to jel before end of season, instead of continuing to burn more time on Blake and Miller. Find out what we have, make decisions and move forward. Quit burning my time on Blake and Miller. I know they aren't going to take us anywhere. Develope the guards that matter, and find out if they can play.

 

[craigehlo]

I never viewed Miller as the long term solution at PG, just an upgrade that could hold down the spot for a season until Bayless is more ready, slide into the back-up role when Bayless has proven he is ready to be a full time starter, and then either excercise or decline his team option accordingly.

That's how I view Andre as well, but I just wish they would fully commit to Bayless if they aren't trading him. He should be playing 100% of the backup PG minutes from now on.

Miller was a solid signing. He flat out keeps us in games with his ability to get to the FT line when nothing is falling for the rest of the team. If Bayless is ready to start next season, the expiring contracts from both Miller and Joel could net us a nice piece to contend for a championship.

 

[Boob-No-More]

That's how I view Andre as well, but I just wish they would fully commit to Bayless if they aren't trading him. He should be playing 100% of the backup PG minutes from now on.

With our current active roster, Bayless should be getting plenty of minutes backing up both guard spots, as well as playing in a 3-guard line-up with both Miller and Roy.

I also view Bayless as a long term piece of this team. I'm not 100% sold on him being THE starting PG, but even if he's just an instant offense guy (like Manu) off the bench that can play either guard position, I'm OK with that. In an eventual 3-guard rotation of Roy, ????? and Bayless, he should be able to get 30MPG whether he starts or comes off the bench.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

I disagree with Roy being the only player who could be on a contending roster. Most of the players have to be role players. The problem is, I don't view many of our role players as up to snuff. Rudy could be. Bayless could be. Lots of upside there. Howard could be a nice role player, and Aldridge could be a good #3 scorer.

You just changed your own criteria. In your original post you said "ask yourself if you see that player being a starter on a championship caliber team". Unless you actually think Juwan Howard will be a starter on a championship caliber team. And, as long as Brandon Roy is here, I don't see Rudy being a full time starter, either.

My point being, that all that means is that the GM has work to do down the road. The other point being, is that the team could be much stronger by end of season if they would play Rudy and Bayless with Roy to jel before end of season, instead of continuing to burn more time on Blake and Miller. Find out what we have, make decisions and move forward. Quit burning my time on Blake and Miller. I know they aren't going to take us anywhere. Develope the guards that matter, and find out if they can play.

With all the injuries, Bayless should get plenty of minutes backing up both guard spots and playing in the 3-guard line-ups. If you throw him in as the starting PG now, you risk missing the play-offs. I'd rather keep starting Miller, play Bayless 25 - 30 MPG off the bench, and make the play-offs. In order for this team to grow they need more play-off experience. Missing the play-offs would be a huge step backwards for the whole team - including Bayless.

If it becomes obvious at some point we aren't making the play-offs, then I'd be fine with starting Bayless, but until we reach that point, I think we should start the players that give us the best chance to make the play-offs this season, to gain valuable play-off experience for all of our young players, and right now I think that's Andre Miller at PG.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Miller is currently the caliber of player who could certainly be a starter on a championship-caliber team. Not one of the main driving forces, but certainly a starter for that level of team.

Agreed, but he's not likely to be a starter when THIS team is contending for a title.

Still, in order for this team to take the next step we need to get our young guys valuable post season experience, and I think Andre Miller can help get us to the play-offs THIS year, and that alone justifies having him on the roster and starting THIS season.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

BTW, I also picture Greg Oden as a starter on this team when they are contending for a championship. I didn't mention him previously, because I was only discussing players on the active roster who should be getting PT right now. I also picture Batum as a starter when this team is contending for a championship. I left him off for the same reason.

BNM

 

[BrianFromWA]

sorry, BNM...I have to spread rep around, it seems.

As for the Win% thing....I did some tracking on this. Earlier in the year, when we moved to the 3-guard lineup and were talking about sitting one of the guards again (turned out to be Miller), Blake's 92% Win% was touted as a main reason why he should be in the lineup. Now it's 61%. I'm not positive on the math to do to figure out how bad you have to play to get from 92% to 61% in 15 games, but it can't be good. And yet, he was starting until the Sacramento game.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

sorry, BNM...I have to spread rep around, it seems.

As for the Win% thing....I did some tracking on this. Earlier in the year, when we moved to the 3-guard lineup and were talking about sitting one of the guards again (turned out to be Miller), Blake's 92% Win% was touted as a main reason why he should be in the lineup. Now it's 61%. I'm not positive on the math to do to figure out how bad you have to play to get from 92% to 61% in 15 games, but it can't be good. And yet, he was starting until the Sacramento game.

What's Millers win percentage as a starter prior to these last five games compared to these last five games?

 

[BrianFromWA]

No idea. I know that right it shows it at 44.7, which kind of sucks. If I knew what that stat meant, since the team has a +5 efficiency edge when he's in the game.

 

[Boob-No-More]

No idea. I know that right it shows it at 44.7, which kind of sucks. If I knew what that stat meant, since the team has a +5 efficiency edge when he's in the game.

It's a TEAM stat. Of course Miller's is low. Earlier in the season he rarely got to play with Oden, only played with Roy when 40% of our starters were forced to play out of position and now that he's starting and playing big minutes, it's with Juwan Howard at center and a much tougher schedule.

BNM

 

[The_Lillard_King]

No idea. I know that right it shows it at 44.7, which kind of sucks. If I knew what that stat meant, since the team has a +5 efficiency edge when he's in the game.

I guess my point is you were wondering how bad Blake must have been to drop so dramatically in win percentage. I'm guessing Miller has dropped dramtically in win percentage when starting . . . but I don't think it is a question of how bad you must be playing when you drop in win percentage . . . there are other circumstances that need to be considered.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I've said that personally I have no idea how the stat is calculated or weighted, and have received no response from 82games.com. Personally. I don't like using stats that don't seem to match up (for instance, if you're scoring 112 per 100 poss and giving up 107, you're probably winning more than 44.7% of your games, but whatever). But if one was to hang their hat on Win% as a statistic for who should be starting, my question would be how you go from 92% to 61% in the span of 15 games or so if you're playing well enough that still should be starting.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I've said that personally I have no idea how the stat is calculated or weighted, and have received no response from 82games.com. Personally. I don't like using stats that don't seem to match up (for instance, if you're scoring 112 per 100 poss and giving up 107, you're probably winning more than 44.7% of your games, but whatever). But if one was to hang their hat on Win% as a statistic for who should be starting, my question would be how you go from 92% to 61% in the span of 15 games or so if you're playing well enough that still should be starting.

Well it doesn't sound like you like the stat that much, which is my answer. Just like asking how does Miller go from 9-3 winning percentage (or whatever it is) to 44% in the span of 5 games if he is playing well enough that he should be starting.

I just don't think it is a fair question for either of them.

But whatever, we are in agreement taht Miller should be starting (until he is traded )

 

[Boob-No-More]

Don't get sucked into misusing win% as an individual stat. There are ten variables involved - and nine of them AREN'T the player in question.

Brandon Roy has been playing like a legitimate MVP candidate lately, easily his best ball of the season, and the team is winning games they probably shouldn't be winning. Yet, his win% has dropped to a season low 52.6%. Why? Simple - he's playing with a severely depleted roster AND he's been playing against the toughest competition the team has faced all year. That's the nine other variables I was referring to - his four teammates and five opponents.

BNM

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Don't get sucked into misusing win% as an individual stat. There are ten variables involved - and nine of them AREN'T the player in question.

Brandon Roy has been playing like a legitimate MVP candidate lately, easily his best ball of the season, and the team is winning games they probably shouldn't be winning. Yet, his win% has dropped to a season low 52.6%. Why? Simple - he's playing with a severely depleted roster AND he's been playing against the toughest competition the team has faced all year. That's the nine other variables I was referring to - his four teammates and five opponents.

BNM

I agree. There have been several threads posting Miller's record as a starter talking about his winning percentage as a starter and that is why he should be starting. I always thought what you just said above.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

Excuses, excuses...

Andre is getting his stats as he always does and always has, and his team gets mediocre results as his teams always do.

2-3 is a lottery %.

 

[Nikolokolus]

sorry, BNM...I have to spread rep around, it seems.

As for the Win% thing....I did some tracking on this. Earlier in the year, when we moved to the 3-guard lineup and were talking about sitting one of the guards again (turned out to be Miller), Blake's 92% Win% was touted as a main reason why he should be in the lineup. Now it's 61%. I'm not positive on the math to do to figure out how bad you have to play to get from 92% to 61% in 15 games, but it can't be good. And yet, he was starting until the Sacramento game.

Somebody can (and no doubt will) correct me if I'm wrong, but the win% stat (not win shares at basketball reference) refers to the raw number of "won" playing shifts. For instance if you are involved in three substitutions/shifts and in the first series you outscore your opponent by 3 points, in the second you are outscored by 10 and then in the third you "win" by 5, you'd have a net +/- of -2 and a win percentage of 66%.

Admittedly my understanding could be flawed, since I was only able to glean this from a conversation I read at APBR metrics, but in any case I'm not sure how much I would weight this particular data point given all of the other advanced metrics out there that seem to suggest Miller is outplaying Steve and by a pretty wide margin. But maybe more importantly, lately it seems like Brandon has been on one of the best runs of his career while paired up with Miller in the backcourt and though correlation isn't causation it's encouraging.

 

[STOMP]

I would've agreed with you as recently as maybe two weeks ago. Now I'm not so sure.

We all just have to keep repeating to ourselves: He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23. He's only 23.

yet you're questioning Aldridge who is only 24 and has shown a whole lot more game on both ends. These last two weeks LA has been hobbled/playing through injuries while Martell has produced stats well above his career averages. I wouldn't guess that either situation is likely to continue.

STOMP

 

[Minstrel]

Somebody can (and no doubt will) correct me if I'm wrong, but the win% stat (not win shares at basketball reference) refers to the raw number of "won" playing shifts. For instance if you are involved in three substitutions/shifts and in the first series you outscore your opponent by 3 points, in the second you are outscored by 10 and then in the third you "win" by 5, you'd have a net +/- of -2 and a win percentage of 66%.

Admittedly my understanding could be flawed, since I was only able to glean this from a conversation I read at APBR metrics, but in any case I'm not sure how much I would weight this particular data point given all of the other advanced metrics out there that seem to suggest Miller is outplaying Steve and by a pretty wide margin. But maybe more importantly, lately it seems like Brandon has been on one of the best runs of his career while paired up with Miller in the backcourt and though correlation isn't causation it's encouraging.

I'm pretty sure your understanding of it is correct. It's basically +/- without the magnitude. Just up or down, with no recording of "by how much." +/- is already very flawed over small (i.e. less than a few seasons) sample size...removing even more information from it strikes me as reducing it to almost pure noise.