Bye, bye, Andre Miller

[Natebishop3]

The team brought Miller in because he was supposed to be a veteran and a professional, like Juwan Howard. Guys who can come in and play a role on a team that won 54 games. Miller did not do that. His 'pride' was more important than what the team wanted out of him.

Your hatred blinds you.

 

[RoyToy]

Thanks! I'm also happy to have the statistical evidence on my side, and McMillan's change of mind on my side. But it is, still, an opinion for sure. And I am totally entitled to hold it.

Stats don't really factor into the discussion. All along it was about who was more responsible for the lack of team chemistry, Roy or Miller. I don't see how stats factor into that.

Appreciate the discussion, though. That's what RipCityTwo is all about!

 

[Boob-No-More]

Miller is a worse perimeter defender than BLANKY, which I though was impossible, but then it happened.

Based on what? Your misinformed opinion? You keep posting crap like this hoping it will go unchallenged and accepted as fact - just like your insanely incorrect and repeatedly disproved "Miller is a ball hog" claim. Post some fucking stats to back up such claims, or shut the fuck up.

ALL of Blake's advanced stats at 82games.com are NEGATIVE. His production vs. his opponents is 8.2 - 19.8 = -11.6 NET - that's fucking HORRIBLE. His on court/off court is -2.2 and his simple rating is - 8.5, also HORRIBLE. Notice a trend? Hint: all NEGATIVE.

If you look a little deeper, you'll see opposing PGs light him up for a PER of 18.9. Compared to his own PER of 7.9, that gives Blake a net PER, compared to the guys he's "guarding" of -11.0. Again, NEGATIVE and extremely HORRIBLE.

You've already argued (unsuccessfully) that Phil Jackson's offense makes Blake's stats look worse than they really are. What now, Phil's defensive schemes prevent Steve Blake from guarding his man?

Now, go back and compare Blake's numbers to Andre Miller's: Miller's NET production = +5.0, on court/off court = +10.1. simple rating = +6.7, NET PER = +4.5.

So, if Blake is the better defender, please explain why opposing PGs post much higher numbers against him than they do against Andre Miller.

And, before you try to play the "but Blake's team wins more games than Miller's" you may want to consider this. Blake is playing on a team loaded with talent that are the two-time defending champs. Given that ALL of his NET contributions are negative, they are winning games in spite of Blake, not because of him. Andre Miller is playing on a team decimated by injuries. Given that ALL of his NET contributions are positive, he is actually HELPING his team win games.

BNM

 

[RoyToy]

Your hatred blinds you.

Hatred? Nah. I think it's a pretty reasonable position to take. It can't be disputed Andre wasn't happy with his role on a team that won 54 games without him.

 

[PapaG]

As opposed to what; Roy's comfort is more important to him than starting a superior player over is buddy?

Go Blazers

Miller should have changed his game to make his 2nd-team All-NBA SG an even better player. Instead, he pouted, whined, and ultimately failed, as per usual, in the playoffs. He's an odd one, that Miller. Playing the exact same way over his entire NBA career, finally getting a chance to play with a legitimate All-NBA star, and then pinning the blame on Roy.

The OP is right. The more I think about it, the more I may just waive the guy or not pick up his option if no good trades are available. He's a proven loser who can't defend.

 

[PapaG]

Based on what? Your misinformed opinion? You keep posting crap like this hoping it will go unchallenged and accepted as fact - just like your insanely incorrect and repeatedly disproved "Miller is a ball hog" claim. Post some fucking stats to back up such claims, or shut the fuck up.

ALL of Blake's advanced stats at 82games.com are NEGATIVE. His production vs. his opponents is 8.2 - 19.8 = -11.6 NET - that's fucking HORRIBLE. His on court/off court is -2.2 and his simple rating is - 8.5, also HORRIBLE. Notice a trend? Hint: all NEGATIVE.

If you look a little deeper, you'll see opposing PGs light him up for a PER of 18.9. Compared to his own PER of 7.9, that gives Blake a net PER, compared to the guys he's "guarding" of -11.0. Again, NEGATIVE and extremely HORRIBLE.

You've already argued (unsuccessfully) that Phil Jackson's offense makes Blake's stats look worse than they really are. What now, Phil's defensive schemes prevent Steve Blake from guarding his man?

Now, go back and compare Blake's numbers to Andre Miller's: Miller's NET production = +5.0, on court/off court = +10.1. simple rating = +6.7, NET PER = +4.5.

So, if Blake is the better defender, please explain why opposing PGs post much higher numbers against him than they do against Andre Miller.

And, before you try to play the "but Blake's team wins more games than Miller's" you may want to consider this. Blake is playing on a team loaded with talent that are the two-time defending champs. Given that ALL of his NET contributions are negative, they are winning games in spite of Blake, not because of him. Andre Miller is playing on a team decimated by injuries. Given that ALL of his NET contributions are positive, he is actually HELPING his team win games.

BNM

54>50

I'd also check out the difference in Roy's PER from Blake to Miller if I was assessing a PG, but that's just me.

The rest of it is meaningless to me.

 

[Minstrel]

Stats don't really factor into the discussion. All along it was about who was more responsible for the lack of team chemistry, Roy or Miller. I don't see how stats factor into that.

I think it's relevant in that Miller had a solid reason to be upset (stats back that up) and playing Blake over Miller made the team worse than it could be (Nate McMillan changing his mind backs that up).

 

[PapaG]

Your hatred blinds you.

So melodramatic! I thought we were all past that stage.

 

[RoyToy]

I think it's relevant in that Miller had a solid reason to be upset (stats back that up) and playing Blake over Miller made the team worse than it could be (Nate McMillan changing his mind backs that up).

I get what you're saying but imo Miller didn't buy-in from day 1, before the stats were accumulated. The tone was set at that point and the lack of chemistry followed. The team had amazing chemistry just the season before and in the blink of an eye it was gone. IMO, in hindsight, Miller was more responsible, not Roy. That's all I'm saying and that's all this has been about for me.

 

[PapaG]

I think it's relevant in that Miller had a solid reason to be upset (stats back that up) and playing Blake over Miller made the team worse than it could be (Nate McMillan changing his mind backs that up).

Yet, Roy had a significantly worse season with the switch at PG. To me, that's a big part of how to assess a "distributing" PG, isn't it?

Comparing raw data on BLANKY and Miller seems rather silly, since as I've been told repeatedly, they are both just a part of a team. The fact is that the best player saw his play diminish with the so-called upgrade at PG. This must be considered when assessing both players, and how they impacted the Blazers.

 

[oldguy]

PapaG, you are making the case that PJ's PG's were bad because of the triangle. If you want to back up your wild leap of faith, it should be easy to tell us which of PJ's point guards would have posted a 19 PER in a system other than PJ's. What's the holdup?

Go Blazers

 

[PapaG]

LMA even went from a 19.1 PER to an 18.2 PER with the "upgrade" at PG.

When your two best players, who are in their fourth season, both regress, and the only major change was PG, well, isn't it valid to criticize the PG?

 

[Minstrel]

Yet, Roy had a significantly worse season with the switch at PG. To me, that's a big part of how to assess a "distributing" PG, isn't it?

Roy had his best season the year before, I agree. Of course, I don't think that was due to Blake, I think that was more Roy getting closer to his prime. He was hurt the next season (with Miller) which turned out to be a deteriorating condition (to the point that now Roy appears finished as an elite NBA player).

Do you feel that Miller damaged Roy's knees? if so, I can see why you'd blame Miller.

 

[PapaG]

PapaG, you are making the case that PJ's PG's were bad because of the triangle. If you want to back up your wild leap of faith, it should be easy to tell us which of PJ's point guards would have posted a 19 PER in a system other than PJ's. What's the holdup?

Go Blazers

I've already addressed that question. While Miller's PER last season was considerably better than BLANKY's, Roy's went from 24 to 21, and LMA went from 19 to 18.

Basically, Roy went from a borderline MVP player (those that win titles) to a very good player (those that don't win titles) in one year, most of it healthy until the end.

PER from the PG doesn't mean much to me in that instance, since Roy's game regressed, and the overall play of the team regressed, under Miller.

 

[oldguy]

Roy should have changed his game to help his newly acquired, and far superior PG, become the best he could be, and to strengthen the biggest hole in his own skillset. Instead, he pouted, whined, and ultimately failed, as per usual, in the playoffs. He's an odd one, that Roy. Playing the exact same way over his entire NBA career, finally getting a chance to play with a legitimate PG, and then pinning the blame on the new guy.

The OP is right. The more I think about it, the more I may just waive the guy or not pick up his option if no good trades are available. He's a proven loser who can't defend.

That's an idiotic position to take, and unsupported by any facts you've provided, or even any of the stuff you've made up.

So, you think this team is better with AJ and PM playing the point?

Go Blazers

 

[Boob-No-More]

I assess players by wins. As a pseudo-elite PG, Miller's lack of success in winning even a single playoff series has always troubled me since he was signed. Nothing I've seen from him in the past year and a half has changed that opinion.

The team won 50 games last year, in spite of Roy missing 17, Batum missing 45, Joel missing 52, Oden missing 61. Do you honestly think the team would have won 50 games last season without Andre Miller? Keep in mind that Miller was 3rd on the team in WS at 7.0, trailing only Roy (9.1) and Aldridge (8.8). This year, Roy is gone (and was ineffective while here) and Oden is gone. Miller is second on the team in WS at 3.7, trailing only Aldridge (4.8).

Miller hasn't changed his game a bit, and the franchise is floundering. Another example of "correlation", I guess.

The franchise is floundering due to injuries and a bench that was seriously, and unwisely, "thinned" by trades that brought nothing of immediate value in return. We went from talented and deep to lacking talent and shallow. That's not Andre Miller's fault. Perhaps you've not noticed, but Greg Oden hasn't played one second this season. Roy is out, and was a shadow of his former self when he did play. Przybilla is not the same player he was pre-injury. Yet, in spite of the depleted roster and horrible bench, the team has a winning record. Give me 82 games with a healthy Oden, a healthy Roy, Aldridge, Batum and Miller, with Wes Matthews, Marcus Camby, Martell, Webster and Jerryd Bayless coming off the bench, and I'd be seriously disappointed if they only won 54 games and didn't make it out of the first round. Problem is, that team has never existed - and it's NOT Andre Mill's fault. Stop trying to place the blame for the team's "lack" of success on one of the few players that is healthy enough to play every night and is making positive contributions that help the team win games.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

54>50

I'd also check out the difference in Roy's PER from Blake to Miller if I was assessing a PG, but that's just me.

The rest of it is meaningless to me.

Umm, so Roy's injuries and resulting declining performance are now Andre Millers fault, too? Roy missed 17 games last season, and was not at 100% for most of the year.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

I get what you're saying but imo Miller didn't buy-in from day 1, before the stats were accumulated. The tone was set at that point and the lack of chemistry followed. The team had amazing chemistry just the season before and in the blink of an eye it was gone. IMO, in hindsight, Miller was more responsible, not Roy. That's all I'm saying and that's all this has been about for me.

So, with Roy out and all of his BFFs gone, do you still blame Andre Miller of any lack of team chemistry? Seems to me, this current team has pretty good chemistry. What they lack is talent, and that's due to injury, not anything Andre Miller did.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Basically, Roy went from a borderline MVP player (those that win titles) to a very good player (those that don't win titles) in one year, most of it healthy until the end.

Bullshit and completely revisionist. Most of the games Roy missed were in January and February - and when he did play, he wasn't 100%. He "tweaked" the knee again right before the play-offs, but had been suffering the cumulative effects of his injuries for most of the regular season.

PER from the PG doesn't mean much to me in that instance, since Roy's game regressed, and the overall play of the team regressed, under Miller.

Roy's regression had a LOT more to due with his injuries. The team won 4 fewer games with Oden, Roy, Batum and Przybilla missing a combined 175 games. Outlaw was also out for a couple months prior to his trade and Rudy missed several games due to his back surgery. That team was totally decimated by injuries, yet still won 50 games. Rather than blaming Andre Miller, you should be thanking him.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

LMA even went from a 19.1 PER to an 18.2 PER with the "upgrade" at PG.

When your two best players, who are in their fourth season, both regress, and the only major change was PG, well, isn't it valid to criticize the PG?

OK, so if Miller gets 100% of the blame for Aldridge's regression from PER = 19.1 to 18.2, does he also get 100% of the credit for Aldridge's improvement from 18.2 to to 20.6? If so, that looks like a net gain to me. And seriously, Roy's declining performance has had a lot more to do with his injuries than his teammates. Or, if we waive Andre Miller do you actually expect Brandon Roy to immediately return to near MVP status with a PER of 24+?

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

And, since Roy isn't playing anyway, why waive Miller now? It's not like Miller can further harm Roy's production.

Oh, and while we're playing these cutesy little games, what about Wes Matthews? Last season in Utah, Matthews had a PER of 12.3. This season in Portland, he has a PER of 15.3. Therefore, by your "logic" Andre Miller must be a better PG than Deron Williams. Seriously, does this not make it clear how ridiculous your argument is? Players get better, players get worse, players get injured. Trying to pin those changes on one OTHER player is completely idiotic and devoid of sound reasoning.

BNM

 

[MickZagger]

A certain couple of posters are getting sliced and diced with facts in this thread. Arguing until they're red in the face. Not healthy. When stats go against their argument, they are ignored.

Oh, the inconvenient truth.

 

[PapaG]

A certain couple of posters are getting sliced and diced with facts in this thread. Arguing until they're red in the face. Not healthy. When stats go against their argument, they are ignored.

Oh, the inconvenient truth.

I agree. It's been proven that both Roy and LMA regressed as players last season with a new PG at the helm, and also that the team won 4 fewer games.

Seems cut and dry to me.

 

[PapaG]

OK, so if Miller gets 100% of the blame for Aldridge's regression from PER = 19.1 to 18.2, does he also get 100% of the credit for Aldridge's improvement from 18.2 to to 20.6? If so, that looks like a net gain to me. And seriously, Roy's declining performance has had a lot more to do with his injuries than his teammates. Or, if we waive Andre Miller do you actually expect Brandon Roy to immediately return to near MVP status with a PER of 24+?

BNM

21-20

You aren't even reading what I post, yet you post these rambling rants full of strawmen and tangents to try and disprove a point that I am not even making.

Is Miller a better "player" than BLANKY? Sure. Is he better for the roster from the moment Miller was signed. I don't think so, and I think Miller needs to be traded if at all possible, or not have his option picked up afterward, because he is old and he has never proven to be a winnner in the NBA. Expecting him to suddenly be the PG for a title contender seems like a wish, more than anything based in fact.

 

[PapaG]

Bullshit and completely revisionist.
BNM

Actually, you're offering spin to explain the facts that I posted. Basically, you're doing what you accuse me of doing earlier in this thread in relation to the facts that you posted.

I guess we agree, then?

 

[e_blazer]

As far as being the Blazers' PG going forward, the only stat that blows Andre out of the water as far as I'm concerned is his birth date: Mar 19, 1976. The Blazers are in a retooling mode and a soon-to-be 35 year-old PG isn't a fit for a team in that situation. I don't think he has to be moved this year necessarily, but I would certainly do it for a deal that brought back somebody that does fit with competing a couple years down the road.

 

[Boob-No-More]

21-20

And, yet again, you COMPLETELY ignore the injuries this team has suffered, and the other roster changes. Back to ignore for you. I should have known better.

I've said all I plan to say in this thread. It's clear the haters are going to keep hating Andre Miller no matter how illogical their "arguments". I don't understand the mentality, but have fun rooting for one of your own players to fail. Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather see the players do well as it helps my team win. But if the Blazers lose more games, and you can somehow, in your mind, pin those losses on Andre Miller, knock yourself out. Because it's clear no matter how well Miller plays, you will continue to disrespect him and hope he fails just to prop up your own fragile ego.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

54>50

I'd also check out the difference in Roy's PER from Blake to Miller if I was assessing a PG, but that's just me.

The rest of it is meaningless to me.

Oh please, you know why this team won less games last year and you're intentionally ignoring the facts to continue on with what I can only label as trolling.

 

[Nate Dogg]

The one time I was frustrated with Andre Miller was against the suns on Friday. He turned the ball over and I had hoped that P.Mills was put in the 4th quarter for a little bit of that loss.

 

[Natebishop3]

Hatred? Nah. I think it's a pretty reasonable position to take. It can't be disputed Andre wasn't happy with his role on a team that won 54 games without him.

Andre wasn't happy with his role on a team that won a championship in 1977 without him.