"Heated Exchange!"

[Natebishop3]

Who didn't see this coming? McMillan is an idiot. Miller is a better point guard than McMillan ever was.

 

[andalusian]

Unless I am misreading something, Basketball Prospectus has Miler with both a higher WARP and a higher "win%".

I have no idea, I am using 82games.com

Blake:
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR1.HTM

Miller:
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR2.HTM

Just to show you that Miller's Win% has been around 50% for quite some time now, here are his results from the year before

http://www.82games.com/0809/08PHI1.HTM

and the one before:

http://www.82games.com/0708/07PHI2A.HTM

Finally, here is JB from this year:

http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR3.HTM

 

[oldmangrouch]

By the fact that they are not playing him in the 4th and allowing Roy be Roy.

That's one way to look at it.

The other way is this: Nate is allowing Roy to pretend to be Kobe/Lebron/Wade. Since Roy isn't as good as those guys, and doesn't have the refs in his pocket, the use of repeated ISOs will never consistently succeed.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Who didn't see this coming? McMillan is an idiot. Miller is a better point guard than McMillan ever was.

OH SHIT! Someone should tell Nate that..

 

[andalusian]

The other way is this: Nate is allowing Roy to pretend to be Kobe/Lebron/Wade. Since Roy isn't as good as those guys, and doesn't have the refs in his pocket, the use of repeated ISOs will never consistently succeed.

We have been winning pretty consistently, with a depleted group, when Roy is doing that.

Again, I find it hard to understand why everyone is upset at Miller sitting the 4th quarter of the last game when the data clearly shows that the team played much better without him than with him in that specific game...

I have no problems with someone telling me that we were a lot worse without Miller if the data proved it - but it proves the exact opposite...

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Now you're just making up shit for the sake of argument. I never said Miller was "great", just that he's far more pruductive than Blake, should have been starting all along and should have played more than 8 seconds in the 4th quarter Tuesday.

That doesn't make him "great", just a whole hell of a lot better than Blake. Back when Blake was starting, Blake's PER was 8.3 - one of the lowest in the league for as player averaging over 30 MPG. Since moving to the bench (his proper role), Blake has pulled his PER up to 9.9. Still not great, but an improvement. Good for him. Since becoming the starting PG, Miller has also improved his PER from 15.0 to 15.7. That makes him a whole lot better than Blake and an above average NBA starting PG. Again, not "great" but way, way, better than Blake (this season).

In spite of the the two recent losses, the team is still 15-6 when Miller starts. So much for the bullshit theory that Roy and Miller can't co-exist in the starting line-up.



I disagree. Miller is 33 and due to Nate's misuse of him, his numbers are down considerably from where they were last season. Many teams will now see him as an over-the-hill malcontent on the decline, rather than a productive veteran on a reasonable contract that can help them win.

Nate has misused Miller from day one. If he wasn't considered an upgrade to Blake, they never should have signed him. But since they did, and he IS an upgrade, he should have been starting from day 1.

BNM

Just for the record BNM, I like reading your posts and respect your take on Blazer basketball. It also looks like you are taking on several posters, and having been there, I'm guessing you are getting a little heated up over all this .. . I'm not trying to push your buttons.

I want you to know I'm not making shit up just for argument (I'm not the one who said Nate won't start Miller unless Blake is injured, you said that and that was made up). I have skimmed through this thread (who has time to fully ingest all this . . . and who would want to) and when i said you think Miller is great, I was refering to you pointing to his double doubles multiple times, putting teams into the playoffs, calling his play spectacular and other stuff. If I mischaracterized how you feel about Miller, my bad. My skimming through the thread and getting a general gist of your posts led me to that statement . . . I'm not trying to make stuff up . . . man I feekl like you are battling enough as it is (keep up the battle bro)

I will say I don't think you give scouts enough credit. This is what they do for a living. If scouts think Miller is washed up, then maybe, just maybe the experts are right and he is. I don't think he is and I think he has value. I think KP hasn't been shopping him in hopes of him fitting in . . .rumor was KP was not engaing in trade talks about Miller and he tried to switch them to Blake.

So I am hoping you're analysis of Miller, that he is a productive veteran on a reasonable contract that can help a team win, is correct. Because if he is and if Nate and Miller can't work it out, I trust KP will get something positive done with a chip like Miller. If Nate and Miller work it out, then he can be productive for the Blazers.

But I don't think there is any denying that Miller has baggage (I think that is what drop his value) and it has effected this organization.

 

[MickZagger]

Its been something that I have been debating internally within myself for a while...

I've come to the conclusion that Nate is an overrated coach. He has this stubborn mindset yet has only made it past the 1st round of the playoffs once as a coach.

KP brushing off the argument like its a "marriage", is his way of trying to save face for a shitty FA signing on his part.

Face it, Roy needs a point guard next to him that is some kind of threat of hitting an outside shot.

I'm just worried with Nate is that he's created such a bond with the younger players that he's played a hand in developing and Pritchard is so close with him, that he might get a way longer leash if the team underachieves.

 

[e_blazer]

We have been winning pretty consistently, with a depleted group, when Roy is doing that.

Again, I find it hard to understand why everyone is upset at Miller sitting the 4th quarter of the last game when the data clearly shows that the team played much better without him than with him in that specific game...

I have no problems with someone telling me that we were a lot worse without Miller if the data proved it - but it proves the exact opposite...

I think perhaps you are using way too much logic in your assessment.

 

[illmatic99]

"You don't play the way we want to play."

LOL. F-off, Nate.

 

[e_blazer]

Its been something that I have been debating internally within myself for a while...

I've come to the conclusion that Nate is an overrated coach. He has this stubborn mindset yet has only made it past the 1st round of the playoffs once as a coach.

Given the players he had to start with and the rebuilding project that he signed on for, you expect more than that?

Face it, Roy needs a point guard next to him that is some kind of threat of hitting an outside shot.

And Miller fills this bill? Have you seen the guy try to shoot from more than ten feet? UGLY.

I'm just worried with Nate is that he's created such a bond with the younger players that he's played a hand in developing and Pritchard is so close with him, that he might get a way longer leash if the team underachieves.

Given that Nate has only been willing to accept one-year contracts, I think he's putting himself out there as willing to be evaluated on each year's performance. What more do you expect of him this year to date than what the team's achieved so far?

 

[e_blazer]

LOL. F-off, Nate.

Nate in response: LOL...take a seat on the bench.

 

[oldmangrouch]

We have been winning pretty consistently, with a depleted group, when Roy is doing that.

Again, I find it hard to understand why everyone is upset at Miller sitting the 4th quarter of the last game when the data clearly shows that the team played much better without him than with him in that specific game...

I have no problems with someone telling me that we were a lot worse without Miller if the data proved it - but it proves the exact opposite...

FWIW, here are the BP numbers:

Miller 1.9 WARP, .508 win%

Bayless .2 WARP, .437win%

Blake -.7 WARP, .384 win%

I find it odd that their formula put Miller's win% in the same range as 82games, but disagrees so strongly on the other 2.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I have no problems with someone telling me that we were a lot worse without Miller if the data proved it - but it proves the exact opposite...

Actually, it doesn't.

See this for more details (sorry, I don't feel like cutting and pasting it here). You have one questionable team influenced stat in Blake's favor. Most (quite possibly ALL) other team and individual stats are in Miller's favor. You are using a single, suspect data point to make a broad generalization that the team plays worse with Miler in the line-up. You're conclusion is erroneous. You need to look at more data points before reaching any such conclusion.

BNM

 

[BBert]

No it doesn't - not one teeny, tiny bit. What makes me wonder is why people who otherwise appear intelligent insist on continuing to misuse this stat. +/- is a TEAM stat, not an individual player, single game stat. Look at who Miller played his minutes with:

Roy - 9
Howard -11
Aldridge -8

Should we have sat all of them for the entire 4th quarter, too?

I am convinced the Blazers would have won the Memphis game if Andre Miller would have played more in the 4th quarter. When Miller is in, the Blazers have much better ball movement and get better shots. With Miller on the bench during the last 3:45 of the Memphis game EVERY stinking play was an ISO for Roy or Bayless. Totally predictable and easily defendable if that's the ONLY set you run. The result, the Blazers scored a grand total of ONE point over the final 3:45pm.

I blame Nate for the NOT paying Miller and a totally unimaginative, predictable, stagmant ineffective offense that lost the game for the Blazers.

I also don't blame Miller for being mad. Nate is a back stabbing liar. He tells his players, and even the media, that playing time is earned and will go to whoever plays best - yet he continued to play Blake over Miller for WEEKS after is was clear to anyone with eyes that Miler was the better player.

Nate has done nothing but jerk Miller around since he failed Nate's little preseason conditioning test. Shaq would not have passed that test in his prime. Nate is such a fucking idiot, I honestly believe he would have benched Shaq if he would have failed his stupid little test. The difference being, he would have gotten fired if he would have benched Shaq.

Now, Andre Miller looks like the bad guy. So, he'll get traded at below market value for a talentless big with a pulse, and we'll be stuck with Blake as our starting PG and Nate as our coach.

Nate was good at getting the young guys to play together and limit their mistakes. He has been HORRIBLE at taking the talent he's been given (when healthy) to the next level. He had trouble integrating both Oden (a dominant big man) and Miller (a proven PG) into his offensive "scheme" - which is basically ISOs for Roy and hurried 3-pointers as the shot clock expires for everyone else. Oden's injury postponed the need to figure out how to use a dominant big man. Nate pretty much admitted he didn't have a clue how to use Oden on offense before the season started when he publically said he wanted Greg to focus on defense and rebounding. And now Miller will be traded because our coach can't figure out how run an offense that utilizes his talents.

BNM

Wow, Booby. Excellent chapter in 'The Book On Nate.'

 

[ABM]

Wow, Booby. Excellent chapter in 'The Book On Nate.'

These guys should just cut to the chase and add all that stuff here, eh?

 

[Sug]

It is getting pretty clear. The anti-Nate group has become true Miller fanbois.

 

[BBert]

I love how the PGs on this team keep having trouble with Nate. Miller's just been the first one to have the track record to be able to stand up to it.

Absofreakinglutelyright.

 

[KingSpeed]

Yea but he is dating an ex blazer dancer who is realllly hot.

really?

 

[illmatic99]

Ex dancer? yes.
Really hot? meh. I don't think so.

 

[ABM]

Ex dancer? yes.
Really hot? meh. I don't think so.

Marlene, right?

 

[mook]

It is a different situation. For us to be good, Brandon's usage rating needs to be high. It's been hovering just over 27% the past two seasons. Come Playoff time last year you know what happened to that number? Skyrocketed to 33%. This usage produced a 24PER during the regular season and a 26PER in the Playoffs. Put quality shooters around Brandon, like last year, and we win.

Huh? I'm trying to remember the "we win" part in last year's playoffs. I remember Roy having phenomenal stats and everybody else sucking. And getting bounced in the first round. I see nothing different in the strategy Nate wants to run this year.

Philadelphia is not nearly the same. Iggy isn't nearly the superstar Brandon is.

...and yet Philly took a team that made it to the NBA finals to six games. We took a team that lost in the next round to six games. Our team is far more talented.

So tell me again how Miller can't succeed in the playoffs?

If we didn't have Brandon, Miller would be a fantastic guard to have. We have Brandon. We need the floor spread out. Miller doesn't help provide that.

Well jesus. If it's just about hitting three pointers, let's call Steve Kerr out of retirement and make him our starting point guard. Because I bet he still hits threes better than anybody on our roster.

Weren't you watching when we ran 5 or 6 isolations in a row at the end of the game the other night for Roy/Bayless and we lost? That was with Webster out there to hit threes. We'd still have lost if we'd have 4 expert three point shooters out there next to Roy. Because it was pathetically predictable.

 

[KingSpeed]

Okay.... my thoughts...

A) Why are people getting so upset about Miller not playing the 4th quarter? He has missed a ton of 4th quarters and we've won many of those games. It started around the Phoenix win where Nate got really comfortable with the three guard lineup of Blake, Bayless, & Roy. It was working. And it worked last night! After sitting Miller for the start of the 4th, we went on a 25-9 run. But the Grizzlies grabbed the game back from us and then, with a little bad luck, we lost the game. Bayless missed an open three, refs fouled to call out of bounds on Zach, refs failed to give Webster three free throws, Roy uncharacteristically let Mayo steal the ball from him, and Bayless' free throw went in and out.

B) I'm sure many of you knows this but it's important to reiterate that we aren't hearing the whole story. I know, from my line of work, that almost everything that gets written about behind the scenes at "Bones" is flat out false. Like 95% of it. All the stuff the producers say, the reasons they give for decisions, etc, etc, are false. And there are serious behind the scenes issues and conflicts that no one has ever heard about at all. So I wouldn't take what you hear ("Nate wanted Andre in Portland," "Roy doesn't like playing with Miller," etc) as the gospel.

 

[DaRizzle]

Okay.... my thoughts...

A) Why are people getting so upset about Miller not playing the 4th quarter? He has missed a ton of 4th quarters and we've won many of those games. It started around the Phoenix win where Nate got really comfortable with the three guard lineup of Blake, Bayless, & Roy. It was working. And it worked last night! After sitting Miller for the start of the 4th, we went on a 25-9 run. But the Grizzlies grabbed the game back from us and then, with a little bad luck, we lost the game. Bayless missed an open three, refs fouled to call out of bounds on Zach, refs failed to give Webster three free throws, Roy uncharacteristically let Mayo steal the ball from him, and Bayless' free throw went in and out.

B) I'm sure many of you knows this but it's important to reiterate that we aren't hearing the whole story. I know, from my line of work, that almost everything that gets written about behind the scenes at "Bones" is flat out false. Like 95% of it. All the stuff the producers say, the reasons they give for decisions, etc, etc, are false. And there are serious behind the scenes issues and conflicts that no one has ever heard about at all. So I wouldn't take what you hear ("Nate wanted Andre in Portland," "Roy doesn't like playing with Miller," etc) as the gospel.

[video=youtube;MK6TXMsvgQg]

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Every team in the league now knows that the end of the 4th quarter of a close game EVERY play the Blazers run is an ISO - usually for Roy, and apparantly now occasionally for Bayless. When the other team knows you're playing 1-on-5, it's not exactly difficult to stop.

I missed your response on this. Got lost in the whirlwind of posts. Every team knows what we run at the end of games, you're right. We're predictable. Teams also can't stop it the majority of the time, which is why we run it over and over. The ISO got us, what, the third most wins in the West last year. That ISO also had us, as of last weekend, in third place in the West with as depleted a roster as I've ever seen. It fucking works. It's gravy. And frankly if that offense produces a ROY, an All Star, possibly an MVP candidate, a 24PER, and victories, I'm pretty much down with it.

As to the rest of your comments, I agree to a certain extent that Miller is crafty in that manner, and definitely can be valuable to this team if used in the right way. But, my argument would be, if you're wanting to include Miller into a fourth quarter line up, and make him the quarterback for say half of the plays, you're still going to have him for the other half when Brandon's quarterbacking the team, which again leads me to the liability that Miller becomes in those half court sets. What do you do about that?

 

[hasoos]

It is getting pretty clear. The anti-Nate group has become true Miller fanbois.

I am not actually a fan of either of them.

 

[mook]

Anyway, it's beside the point that Miller can't take us to the NBA finals in the playoffs. The point right now is that this team is hoping to get out of the first round. Maybe even to just make it into the playoffs.

Our chances get a lot more slim if we want to play Roy iso ball for the next 45 games. Maybe that strategy gets us into the playoffs, but without Oden and Przybilla, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning 2 games like we did last year once we get there.

 

[Blazed Mania 52]

BOOOOOM!

I believe this is a little Publicity stunt just in time for the tradeline....

 

[hasoos]

BOOOOOM!

I believe this is a little Publicity stunt just in time for the tradeline....

Yea because it always enhances a players trade value when it is known they just got into a big fight with their coach.

 

[yakbladder]

What I find funny..in a tragic way...is that most of the anti-Nate crowd seem to be unwilling or unable to realize that most of the people who "defend" Nate would also easily admit that Nate has flaws and shortcomings. But it seems like whenever there is a discussion about something Nate has done wrong or right it inevitably ends up as a stat/BS fest about the player in question and how great they are. Bayless wasn't playing but he was a freakin' All-Star if Nate would just give him a chance. Miller is being made out to be an NBA god by some people in this thread, and that makes it a little hard to swallow their arguments against Nate...it's like they are just blinded by Nate rage.

Was Miller better than Blake? Sure, he was.
Should Nate have put Miller in as a starter sooner? Probably. But you also don't go around yanking your veteran players because they hit a drought. It's called showing a little loyalty and trying to let them work it out.
Has Miller been consistent as a starter? Absolutely not. He's been better the last two games but he certainly wasn't consistent before that.
Is it possible Nate is mis-using Miller? Yep.
Is it possible Miller just isn't a good fit for the system? Yep.
Should we change our entire system to fit Miller? Nope.

 

[mook]

I missed your response on this. Got lost in the whirlwind of posts. Every team knows what we run at the end of games, you're right. We're predictable. Teams also can't stop it the majority of the time, which is why we run it over and over. The ISO got us, what, the third most wins in the West last year. That ISO also had us, as of last weekend, in third place in the West with as depleted a roster as I've ever seen. It fucking works. It's gravy. And frankly if that offense produces a ROY, an All Star, possibly an MVP candidate, a 24PER, and victories, I'm pretty much down with it.

Yeah, it worked when we had the best 48 minutes of center in the league. You really think it'll work this year just as well as last for the next 45 games (plus however many playoff games)? Because from where I'm sitting, we can't stop anybody, we can't rebound nearly as well, and if we hope to beat teams we'd better be able to put more points on the board than we did last year.

Roy can't play 48 minutes, and he really can't be expected to run the entire offense and take 3 charge attempts a night like he did in the last game.