Blake's 71.4 win percentage leads team.

[KingSpeed]

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910POR1.HTM

Not exactly sure what this stat means(can someone explain? not sure why his record only adds up to 21 games) but it favors Blake.

I believe Blake is like Battier in that he is an no-stats All Star in this league. What I mean is that while his numbers aren't impressive, his team plays much better when he's in the game compared to when he is not.

Perhaps our coaching staff knows our team and the intricacies of the game more than most of the fans in this forum.

 

[Blazed Mania 52]

Remember when Z-Bo was leading the team wit points and rebounds, and we played like shit, yea kind of the same thing.

 

[KingSpeed]

Remember when Z-Bo was leading the team wit points and rebounds, and we played like shit, yea kind of the same thing.

Huh?? What Blake is doing is the OPPOSITE of that. He ISN'T leading us in points or rebounds or even assists but we are WINNING when he is on the floor.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I wrote to 82games asking for the explanation when his win percentage was at 92%. They didn't answer.

 

[KingSpeed]

I wrote to 82games asking for the explanation when his win percentage was at 92%. They didn't answer.

Blake is a glue on this team. Players (esp Roy) play better when he is on the floor and that is all that matters. Look beyond Blake's personal stats.

 

[Minstrel]

Win percentage is the number of segments of play that the player was on the court in which the team outscored their opponent. It's basically like +/-, except removing the magnitude...just keeping the sign (positive or negative) and adding up those.

So if a player had on-court +/- segments of -3, 4, 5, 10, -10000, 4...his win % would be 4/6 or 66%. The idea is to encapsulate how often the team "wins" the periods of time the player is on the floor.

 

[KingSpeed]

Win percentage is the number of segments of play that the player was on the court in which the team outscored their opponent. It's basically like +/-, except removing the magnitude...just keeping the sign (positive or negative) and adding up those.

So if a player had on-court +/- segments of -3, 4, 5, 10, -10000, 4...his win % would be 4/6 or 66%. The idea is to encapsulate how often the team "wins" the periods of time the player is on the floor.

Thanks. It certainly explains why our coaching staff likes to have Blake on the floor as much as possible.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Thanks. It certainly explains why our coaching staff likes to have Blake on the floor as much as possible.

Blake is normally on the floor with a top 10 player in the league as well. I think that helps his numbers.

 

[KingSpeed]

Blake is normally on the floor with a top 10 player in the league as well. I think that helps his numbers.

It goes both ways. Roy plays his best ball when Blake is on the floor.

 

[Mediocre Man]

It goes both ways. Roy plays his best ball when Blake is on the floor.

Roy is more comfortable with Blake on the floor. That is different than playing better.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Win percentage is the number of segments of play that the player was on the court in which the team outscored their opponent. It's basically like +/-, except removing the magnitude...just keeping the sign (positive or negative) and adding up those.

So if a player had on-court +/- segments of -3, 4, 5, 10, -10000, 4...his win % would be 4/6 or 66%. The idea is to encapsulate how often the team "wins" the periods of time the player is on the floor.

So if you're playing offense/defense at the end of the game:

Player A comes in for defense. Player B gets beaten off the dribble and fouls the shooter, who gets two free throws. The first one is made. Player A is taken out. His "segment" is -1, so he loses that segment? Second one is missed.

A three point shot is then made by Player C, and the opposition calls a timeout. Player C is taken out for player A again.

Player B then fouls the shooter again, causing two free throws. After the first FT is made, A is subbed out for C again. -1 again.

So our stud defender is 0-2 in "segments" at -2, our 3pt maker is 1-0 at +3, and Player C who's done nothing but foul twice is 1-0 as well +1?

Did I get that right?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Lol @ this thread

 

[Minstrel]

So if you're playing offense/defense at the end of the game:

Player A comes in for defense. Player B gets beaten off the dribble and fouls the shooter, who gets two free throws. The first one is made. Player A is taken out. His "segment" is -1, so he loses that segment? Second one is missed.

A three point shot is then made by Player C, and the opposition calls a timeout. Player C is taken out for player A again.

Player B then fouls the shooter again, causing two free throws. After the first FT is made, A is subbed out for C again. -1 again.

So our stud defender is 0-2 in "segments" at -2, our 3pt maker is 1-0 at +3, and Player C who's done nothing but foul twice is 1-0 as well +1?

Did I get that right?

Yup. Player A has a win percentage of 0%, players B and C have a win percentage of 100%.

Win percentage has the same drawbacks as +/-, IMO, which is that it is useless in small sample sizes. I think it's actually even weaker than +/- because it drops the magnitude. A player who "loses" three segments by 1 point each and then has a segment where he's +20 ends up at 25% win percentage, for example.

 

[PHXBlazer1]

Blake still sucks...

 

[WillG]

Loada minutes??
This is why:

 

[blue32]

Lol I love how you constantly defend (w/skewed reasoning and stats) the crappiest players on our team....

Last year and this year ('till injury) it was Outlaw

This year, Blake....

What gives man? Outlaw (while being alright) isn't what you make him out to be (your messiah, or maybe just fantasy) and Blake (this year),he sucks, hes useless out on the court. The only reason why he gets any positive ratings is because he's playing with the starters.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Roy is more comfortable with Blake on the floor. That is different than playing better.

OK--but if Blake's win % is attributable to playing often with Roy, but Blake's win % is also better than Roy's, then it stands to reason that Roy's win % with Blake is better than his win % without Blake. And, since win % is a team-performance-based stat, that means that the team plays better with Roy-Blake than with Roy-(other).

I hate defending Blake (I dislike his game, think his stroke looks hideous, and want him traded), but simply dismissing this win % thing by saying "He plays with Roy" seems a little simplistic and ignorant to me.

 

[Mediocre Man]

OK--but if Blake's win % is attributable to playing often with Roy, but Blake's win % is also better than Roy's, then it stands to reason that Roy's win % with Blake is better than his win % without Blake. And, since win % is a team-performance-based stat, that means that the team plays better with Roy-Blake than with Roy-(other).

I hate defending Blake (I dislike his game, think his stroke looks hideous, and want him traded), but simply dismissing this win % thing by saying "He plays with Roy" seems a little simplistic and ignorant to me.

I guess my point is that if you played Miller there, or Bayless for thast matter, over time their win % would go up as well. I feel Blake benefits from the team more than the team benefits from Blake

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I guess my point is that if you played Miller there, or Bayless for thast matter, over time their win % would go up as well. I feel Blake benefits from the team more than the team benefits from Blake

I see what you're saying, but I think that would be more relevant if we were just comparing Blake's win % to Miller and Bayless. But Blake's win% is even better than Roy's, which suggests that Blake has some sort of positive intangible impact on the team. Also, we can't ignore what BlazersEdge Ben pointed out in his recent pro-Bayless column--that Blake has been our best defender from the PG spot this year.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I see what you're saying, but I think that would be more relevant if we were just comparing Blake's win % to Miller and Bayless. But Blake's win% is even better than Roy's, which suggests that Blake has some sort of positive intangible impact on the team. Also, we can't ignore what BlazersEdge Ben pointed out in his recent pro-Bayless column--that Blake has been our best defender from the PG spot this year.

Based on the Synergy analyses, it's certainly possible Blake is this lockdown point guard defender (actually he's probably more good than great) where Miller and Bayless have been merely average, but the trouble with all of this Blake love over some of his advanced statistics is that it's very difficult to weed out the noise in the data. Just like +/- isn't particularly relevant in small sample sizes, so too is win % not a particularly useful tool for making declarations about a player's impact on the court for only 22 games, and this is a deviation from his norm which makes it tougher to imagine that he's all of sudden having a breakout year at age 30.

Overall, I think Blake has always been a pretty good team defender and a pretty average defender in man to man situations, and nothing I've seen on the court has moved me much from that position. The real trouble I see with Steve is that he's one of those guys that no matter how many minutes he seems to play over 25, his offensive production seems to flat-line (ie. his scoring and other contributions on offense do not scale linearly with increased PT) and he's been so mediocre at that end of the court that it seems hard to justify playing him for so many minutes ... especially for a team that seems starved for scoring.

If this team was whole and intact and had its full compliment of scorers I think it would be much easier to justify his "glue guy" role, but this 40 minutes a night stuff (in the past two games) is kind of head scratching.

 

[RR7]

I think it's primarily because he is so mediocre that he leads the team. I don't think it has as much to do with making a positive impact, as it is NOT making a negative impact. If he comes in, adn doesn't run a fast break, doesn't take chances with penetration, etc. usually, we aren't going to turn the ball over, will run slow and deliberate, and have a better chance in that small sample of "winning" those possesions. He's basically low risk, low reward. I'll get the ball up the court, give it to others, and basically just not screw things up.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I think it's primarily because he is so mediocre that he leads the team. I don't think it has as much to do with making a positive impact, as it is NOT making a negative impact. If he comes in, adn doesn't run a fast break, doesn't take chances with penetration, etc. usually, we aren't going to turn the ball over, will run slow and deliberate, and have a better chance in that small sample of "winning" those possesions. He's basically low risk, low reward. I'll get the ball up the court, give it to others, and basically just not screw things up.

Actually, you just gave a good argument for playing him the full 48.

 

[RR7]

Well that's the thing, if you get great play out of your other 4 guys, then by all means, play him the fuill 48. Blake isn't as bad as he is made out to be. Also not as good as he is made out to be by some. But he's not AS bad. The problem is, he isn't playing with 4 great guys. Blake would be perfect for the Lakers. Woudl fit well in the triangle, good shooter to spread the floor, and with Bynum, Gasol, Artest and Kobe, he wouldn't be needed for anything mroe than hitting open jumpers, and playing decent defense. The problem on our team is, we need somethign else out of that position. We get very little out of the C position, and very little out of the SF position. If we had a consistent scoring threat at SF, and a healthy Oden who was integrated well, Blake woudl be fine. As it is, we struggle for baskets, and when that happens, someone like Miller or Bayless is much better on the floor, as a 3rd scorer.

 

[RR7]

For whatever reason, looking through game logs from last season, with guys actually healthy, Blake seems to perform well when others are performing well. That might seem like a dumb statement, but basically, when his role is to do nothing but sit and hit open jumpers, he is good at it. So he would generally have his games of 15+ points when Outlaw was also hitting. Or Rudy, or both. Or Greg or Joel got over 10. There were few games where he was the only scorer outside of Roy and Aldridge. I know that isn't his role, and I do not expect him to be something he's not. Just saying, it's almost like, he's there when you don't need him, or don't need him as much. No, that's not right. I don't mean to say you don't need him in those games. But, if our offense gets stagnant, having someone that can do something about it is beneficial, and he's not that player. And he can not play that role for us.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well that's the thing, if you get great play out of your other 4 guys, then by all means, play him the fuill 48. Blake isn't as bad as he is made out to be. Also not as good as he is made out to be by some. But he's not AS bad. The problem is, he isn't playing with 4 great guys. Blake would be perfect for the Lakers. Woudl fit well in the triangle, good shooter to spread the floor, and with Bynum, Gasol, Artest and Kobe, he wouldn't be needed for anything mroe than hitting open jumpers, and playing decent defense. The problem on our team is, we need somethign else out of that position. We get very little out of the C position, and very little out of the SF position. If we had a consistent scoring threat at SF, and a healthy Oden who was integrated well, Blake woudl be fine. As it is, we struggle for baskets, and when that happens, someone like Miller or Bayless is much better on the floor, as a 3rd scorer.

This is where my head is at. Blake on a team full of scorers and threats is probably perfecct, in that he's unselfish, and when nobody's pressing him he's actually pretty good at hitting the outlet 3. This year, I've noticed that teams have been paying a lot more attention to him when he catches on the perimeter and with that added defensive pressure he's forced to do things that don't play to his strengths (having to step inside the arc and shoot off the dribble for instance).

One of the reasons I think the 3 guard lineup was successful is because Roy and Miller are both threats to score off the dribble and even though we gave up inches defensively with Roy covering 3s and Miller gaurding 2s, the mismatches worked the other way in that having 3 defacto point guards on the floor made it tough for guys to recover out to the three point line to cover Blake on kickouts from Miller or Roy.

The real travesty here is that Martell has been so bad, that they are probably better off with Blake, Miller, and Roy in the backcourt, instead of playing Martell as the starting 3.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't even see the point of debating this ridiculous Blake sucks topic anymore. There are some who will defend him to the death, there's no convincing them, and I'm done trying.

[video=youtube;iCaLjttPxVk]

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't even see the point of debating this ridiculous Blake sucks topic anymore. There are some who will defend him to the death, there's no convincing them, and I'm done trying.

Actually, I think this thread has evolved from a ridiculous debate into an intelligent discussion. I wish all threads took this same route.

 

[RR7]

Damn, I only come for the ridiculous debate. When it shifts to intelligent discussion, I'm out!

 

[KingSpeed]

Lol I love how you constantly defend (w/skewed reasoning and stats) the crappiest players on our team....

Last year and this year ('till injury) it was Outlaw

This year, Blake....

What gives man? Outlaw (while being alright) isn't what you make him out to be (your messiah, or maybe just fantasy) and Blake (this year),he sucks, hes useless out on the court. The only reason why he gets any positive ratings is because he's playing with the starters.

We are a MUCH better team with Outlaw than we are without so I don't know why you would call him one of the crappiest players on our team.

 

[andalusian]

We have had this discussion earlier - and we noticed that if you look at Blake's win% over the last 4 or so years (including when playing in Denver next to 'Melo and AI) - you will notice that he is usually among the win% leaders on teams with good players.

This tells me that something he does helps good players play well when he is on the court next to them.

This, to me, shows that he is a better player to have on a team with good players, as a glue guy, than people give him the credit for.