Hollinger: Blazers PG Andre Miller Is A "No-Stats All Star"

[SlyPokerDog]

John Hollinger of ESPN.com named the Portland Trail Blazers point guard to his "no-stats all star" team, a group of player "who have contributed strong plus-minus numbers despite minimal stats."
-------------------
He can't shoot and he's not the most mobile of defenders, but Portland's improved play with him on the court is unmistakable. He's been in the top 20 in net plus-minus in both his seasons with the Blazers, with this season's +9.90 ranking 10th.
-------------------

http://www.blazersedge.com/2011/5/1...lazers-pg-andre-miller-is-a-no-stats-all-star

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/play...?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-110511

 

[3RA1N1AC]

andre miller is dirtier than a truck stop glory hole

 

[Nikolokolus]

Hollinger is an idiot, Andre Miller compiled all kinds of statitics. I can't believe this joker gets to call himself a statistician.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Hollinger just proves what some of us already know by watching Miller play.

Here's another good analysis of what Miller contributes to this team.

A few noteworthy quotes:

"The problem was, this team didn't really need a new-school point guard. They needed the old-school guy, the set-up man, the guy who could score when you needed it but mostly gave up his offense for the sake of getting teammates going. Portland didn't need another king, they needed a king maker behind the throne, getting all the nobles in line and making sure the crown was stable.

In 2010-11 the Blazers got their man. And his name was Andre Miller."

"LaMarcus Aldridge was the king this year. Who put him on the throne, instilling that confidence and verve with the pinpoint alley-oop passes that got him rolling? Andre Miller did. Miller's shots were down, his free throw attempts were down, his usage rating was down, but his assists and assist percentage went up. Old school point guard FTW."

"The number that yet again bears examining is Net Points per 100 Possessions. The +10.8 rating, up from +9.2 the year before, supports what most observers sensed instinctively during the season"

"but minute-for-minute, possession-for-possession nobody even came close to keeping the offense on track like Miller did. 9.6 of that net 10.8 point gain came on the offensive end. That's huge. Not even Aldridge equaled that number."

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Andre Miller is a no-stats All-Star who puts up stats. He's the master of two worlds.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yeah, but can anybody verify if Miller's team has ever made it to the second round of the playoffs?

 

[Sedatedfork]

Nevermind...

 

[Draco]

Part of the problem of using plus minus with Miller is we have no backup PG. Patty and Armon are crap, the offense falls apart when those guys are in the game. Kyle Lowry would have also had a massive plus minus if he played for us instead of Miller. Almost any average NBA PG would have had a very good plus minus as the only PG on this roster.

Miller had a great year for us and I consider him a key rotational guy no matter who else we bring in. But he was not our best player even if plus minus says so, and while he is valuable he is definitely replaceable by other starter level NBA PG's.

 

[Draco]

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious Hollinger uses stats to pick the best no-stat players?

 

[Minstrel]

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious Hollinger uses stats to pick the best no-stat players?

Only if you take "stat" literally. The context of "no-stat" is "no-traditional-box-score-stat." That's just not as catchy because it's a bit longer.

As for your first post, I agree that that's a problem with basic +/-. There is an Adjusted +/- that takes into account a team's reserves.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Part of the problem of using plus minus with Miller is we have no backup PG. Patty and Armon are crap, the offense falls apart when those guys are in the game. Kyle Lowry would have also had a massive plus minus if he played for us instead of Miller. Almost any average NBA PG would have had a very good plus minus as the only PG on this roster.

Miller had a great year for us and I consider him a key rotational guy no matter who else we bring in. But he was not our best player even if plus minus says so, and while he is valuable he is definitely replaceable by other starter level NBA PG's.

I agree. However, couldn't you also say the same thing about LaMarcus Aldidge? He didn't have a quality back-up either. So, his on court/off court +/- should have also been similarly inflated. And Miller's +/- last year, when he was the back up for a couple months, followed by a couple months with Blake as his back-up was a very respectable +9.2.

Miller does a good job running the offense and getting other players involved. There is better ball movement and better player movement when he's in the game. That is very obvious to anyone who has watched the Blazers the last two seasons. Yeah, Miller has his deficiencies (if he didn't, he'd be an actual all-star), but his positive contributions more than make up for what he lacks.

Given his advancing age, his performance over the past two seasons has been remarkably consistent and right at, or slightly above his career averages. Eventually he will start to decline, but hasn't shown any signs of it, yet. We will need to get someone to replace him, but unless we somehow get a younger player than can step in and start right away, we need to pick up Miller's team option for next year, because without him, or someone else at least as good, we are a lottery team. Other than Miller, we don't even have a decent back-up PG, let alone a starter capable of leading this team to the playoffs.

BNM

 

[KingSpeed]

Who were the others?

 

[Boob-No-More]

Who were the others?

The Professor and Mary Ann.

BNM

 

[Denny Crane]

Did he mean "no star all stats team?"