Merged: Miller & Blake: who should start?

[Blaze01]

Who knew that Steve Blake was the main reason that POR won 54 games last year?

and he was so clutch in the playoffs...totally owning Aaron Brooks....oh wait a minute....

Golden State-Monta Ellis, definitly better.
LA Clippers-Baron Davis, definitly better.
LA Lakers-Derek Fisher, definitly better.
Utah Jazz-Deron Williams. Do I even have to say anything here?
Oklahoma City-Westbrook, already better and with upside.
New Orleans-Chris Paul. Enough said.
Denver Nuggets-Chauncey Billups, Enough said.
Dallas Mavericks-Jason Kidd. Duh.
Phoenix Suns-Steve Nash. Hmm do we even need to think about that one?
Houston Rockets-Aaron Brooks. Better. Period.
San Antonio Spurs-Tony Parker
Minnesota Timberwolves-Johnny Flynn

Uh....checkmate?

 

[BlazersBlood]

Dre. Not even thinking about it. We'll create more matchup problems with him on the court.

Plus it makes our 2nd unit more flexible with Rudy getting to handle the ball more.

 

[ucatchtrout]

Well here is what the coach said.

Last years lineup won fifty four games.

I'm not going to change that.

 

[illmatic99]

Heaven forbid, we exceed that win total and perform better in the playoffs.

 

[STOMP]

Wasn't Nate just quoted saying that going into this offseason Miller was his #1 UFA and that he sees his game as akin to Andre's? Miller is generally perceived as superior to Blake, he's going to be paid almost double, and posters are still freaking out that Blake might start over him?

we have so little to stress on yet it continues on at about the same volume as ever

STOMP

 

[KingSpeed]

Re: Miller & Blake: who should start?

Go ahead and throw out all the stats you want. Go team by team, bring up their starting PG and tell me they aren't better.

Lets go through them shall we?

Golden State-Monta Ellis, definitly better.
LA Clippers-Baron Davis, definitly better.
LA Lakers-Derek Fisher, definitly better.
Utah Jazz-Deron Williams. Do I even have to say anything here?
Oklahoma City-Westbrook, already better and with upside.
New Orleans-Chris Paul. Enough said.
Denver Nuggets-Chauncey Billups, Enough said.
Dallas Mavericks-Jason Kidd. Duh.
Phoenix Suns-Steve Nash. Hmm do we even need to think about that one?
Houston Rockets-Aaron Brooks. Better. Period.
San Antonio Spurs-Tony Parker
Minnesota Timberwolves-Bassy (worst).

You can argue stats until you are blue in the face. Those guys, all except Bassy are better and I would take any of them over Steve Blake any day of the week, any team, any time.

Monta Ellis 3.7 apg 2.7 tpg: better PG than Blake? Not even close
Westbrook 5.3 apg 3.3 tpg

Playoff Stats:
Steve Blake 6.2 apg, 1.5 tpg 41% 3 pt shooting; held Brooks to 10 of 36 FG shooting in Games 3 through 5;
Aaron Brooke 3.2 apg, 2.2 tpg 42% 3pt shooting
Derek Fisher 2.2 apg, 1.1 tpg, 28% three point shooting

So how is Fisher definitely a better PG than Blake? 2.2 apg??? 28% three point shooting??? How is Brooks better period? Look at Brooks' stats in the last month of the season as starting PG? 4 games less than 10 points. And only 20 assists total. That makes him a better PG than Blake??

How is Ellis a better "PG" than Blake? 3.7 apg and 2.7 turnovers per game??? Is that what you want at the PG position. Even Westbrook, who will ultimately be a better PG than Blake, didn't come close to Blake in assist to turnover ratio.

 

[KingSpeed]

Who knew that Steve Blake was the main reason that POR won 54 games last year?

and he was so clutch in the playoffs...totally owning Aaron Brooks....oh wait a minute....



Uh....checkmate?

Brooks shot 10 of 36 from the field in Games 3 through 5. Basically, after Game one, Blake shut Brooks down. A lot of Brooks' points in Game 2 were scored after the game was decided. Blake had a better assist to turnover ratio.

Checkmate.

 

[KingSpeed]

No doubt that Outlaw has hit some game winners, but I think Rudy can still perform better under pressure. Silver medal anyone?

Rudy had several opportunities to hit big shots for us at the end of games and he missed them all. I think specifically of the game against Utah where we went to him wide open to tie the game and he missed.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So if we trade for somoene like Prince then he would come off the bench? If Lebron suddenly wanted to come to Portland then he too would come off the bench? Apparently Hedo would have been a 50 million dollar bench player? We inquired about Nash, but apparently as a back up?

 

[KingSpeed]

By the way... at no point have I said who should start. I'm just defending Blake who is one of our own and is getting bashed for no good reason.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I agree, except I wouldn't put Aldridge in with Roy and Rudy, he cannot hit a long ball and until he does consistently don't assume he can. Andre shoots about the same range as Aldridge.

That is seriously a vicious lineup at the end!

Aldridge has reliable range out to 20 feet, and was starting to show some range out to the three point line in the corners, although I don't expect him to become a 3 attempts per game guy like Sheed. Being a "shooter" doesn't mean only taking and hitting threes, the mid-range game doesn't get you as many points, but it's also trickier to defend since most defenders are taught to challenge the three point line or sag back to defend the short range shot, not the in-between stuff.

My main point is that Dre should have around 3 shooters to kick the ball to on drives. There are undoubtedly going to be times when Roy is the primary ball-handler due to matchups or time score situations, but even that doesn't make Miller obsolete, he can still receive a kick out pass and drive the baseline for a mid-range shot, lay-in or floater should multiple defenders collapse on Brandon.

 

[Nikolokolus]

By the way... at no point have I said who should start. I'm just defending Blake who is one of our own and is getting bashed for no good reason.

I agree that there's no reason to hate on Blake; he's steady, he shoots well and and plays a very complimentary, egoless game. I for one am glad to we'll have him next season filling the role he's probably best suited to play.

 

[Mediocre Man]

By the way... at no point have I said who should start. I'm just defending Blake who is one of our own and is getting bashed for no good reason.

He is getting bashed because he is one of he bottome 5 staring PG's in th league, and his ass clown coach thinks he should sart over a top 10 starting PG on the league.

 

[Minstrel]

I agree that there's no reason to hate on Blake; he's steady, he shoots well and and plays a very complimentary, egoless game. I for one am glad to we'll have him next season filling the role he's probably best suited to play.

Yup. I've always thought that Blake was a near-perfect backup point guard. Steady, reasonably productive. I think Blake and Przybilla are quite ideal reserves, slim compliment that that may seem.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

He is getting bashed because he is one of he bottome 5 staring PG's in th league, and his ass clown coach thinks he should sart over a top 10 starting PG on the league.

I must have misinterpreted the statement; I assumed his ass clown coach was simply stating that you keep a job that you've earned until somebody actually outplays you for it.

 

[andalusian]

He is getting bashed because he is one of he bottome 5 staring PG's in th league, and his ass clown coach thinks he should sart over a top 10 starting PG on the league.

Bottom 5 by what measure?

He was 18th in win-score - not a great one - but sure not a bottom 5. He was 8th in the league in TOV%. He was probably in the lower-10 in PER - but his usage% is pretty low next to Roy - so that's somewhat understandable.

The guy is what he is - a heady, safe, good shooting role-player. Hating on him for what he is when he accepts it and helps you win is just... pointless...

 

[Mediocre Man]

Bottom 5 by what measure?

He was 18th in win-score - not a great one - but sure not a bottom 5. He was 8th in the league in TOV%. He was probably in the lower-10 in PER - but his usage% is pretty low next to Roy - so that's somewhat understandable.

The guy is what he is - a heady, safe, good shooting role-player. Hating on him for what he is when he accepts it and helps you win is just... pointless...

I am using the starting guards I would rather have instead of Blake formula. Taking the "nice guy" stat out of it, I think most couldn't find more than 5 they would like Blake over. People will use money and age, but I am strictly going off of who is better. Nash makes more and is older, but he is better.....as an example.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I must have misinterpreted the statement; I assumed his ass clown coach was simply stating that you keep a job that you've earned until somebody actually outplays you for it.

I think you may have then, His ass clown coach said he did not want to mess wit the starting unit that won 54 games.

 

[PapaG]

Well here is what the coach said.

Last years lineup won fifty four games.

I'm not going to change that.

Clearly he needs to read this board and be properly edumacated!

 

[PapaG]

I agree that there's no reason to hate on Blake; he's steady, he shoots well and and plays a very complimentary, egoless game. I for one am glad to we'll have him next season filling the role he's probably best suited to play.

What role is that? Starting PG on a 54-win team and starting PG on an NCAA champion? Or back-up on good team, a role he's never played.

 

[Idog1976]

It's true what they say I guess. No matter how intelligent, passionate and accepting a fan base is, there is still at least one asshole who can't appreciate what he has.

I suppose bit part players deseve no recognition, merely insults, especially those that played injured. Then again, injuries arn't on the show reels, they arn't entertaining, they don't come with statistics for you to quote, so what good are they?

Here is a mad idea from an outsider. How about instead of bitching about how poor Blake is, why not be thankful you have him AND Miller and support them both while they are Blazers?

Just a thought.

This^

Although I can't see Oden and Miller being on the bench to start games. That would be a very worrisome signal that either Oden still isn't ready or that Nate forms opinions of people at some point and they ossify. I expect Oden and Miller to start and Miller to shoot the three ball fairly well. He will certainly be getting lots of wide open looks.

I expect they will ask him to work on that almost exclusively this summer until training camp. If Miller the "Iron Man" can hoist 500+ 3 balls a day 5+ days a week until camp, I bet his percentage shoots way up. Isn't it coach Townsend who helps people's strokes? If its a strength issue you have Medina. 3pt % is probably the single easiest thing to increase as far as NBA skills goes. That's why I was all for Sessions and why I think Miller will do fine. Even if his three ball improves to just around .350 to .400 that would be huge and I think the former at least is real possible.

 

[Idog1976]

Yup. I've always thought that Blake was a near-perfect backup point guard. Steady, reasonably productive. I think Blake and Przybilla are quite ideal reserves, slim compliment that that may seem.

Not on this team it isn't. The starting 5 we have now just looks better to me by the day. If LA loses Odom to Miami things could be awfully interesting in the West next year.

 

[Nikolokolus]

What role is that? Starting PG on a 54-win team and starting PG on an NCAA champion? Or back-up on good team, a role he's never played.

Nope, not a starter, but a high quality 18-20 minute reserve point guard who can hit an open shot from the corner and won't turn the ball over but probably won't be able to give you much more (88% of his shots were jumpshots, he had a meager 2% draw foul rate indicating a lack of ability to drive and create off the dribble).

This isn't hating on Steve, I actually do feel excited to have him mostly facing NBA reserves where he'll probably be even more effective providing mistake free efficient play at the point.

 

[PapaG]

Nope, not a starter, but a high quality 18-20 minute reserve point guard who can hit an open shot from the corner and won't turn the ball over but probably won't be able to give you much more (88% of his shots were jumpshots, he had a meager 2% draw foul rate indicating a lack of ability to drive and create off the dribble).

This isn't hating on Steve, I actually do feel excited to have him mostly facing NBA reserves where he'll probably be even more effective providing mistake free efficient play at the point.

I hope Miller fits. If he doesn't, the team still should have a very good season.

 

[LittleAlex]

Re: Miller & Blake: who should start?

Monta Ellis 3.7 apg 2.7 tpg: better PG than Blake? Not even close
Westbrook 5.3 apg 3.3 tpg

Playoff Stats:
Steve Blake 6.2 apg, 1.5 tpg 41% 3 pt shooting; held Brooks to 10 of 36 FG shooting in Games 3 through 5;
Aaron Brooke 3.2 apg, 2.2 tpg 42% 3pt shooting
Derek Fisher 2.2 apg, 1.1 tpg, 28% three point shooting

So how is Fisher definitely a better PG than Blake? 2.2 apg??? 28% three point shooting??? How is Brooks better period? Look at Brooks' stats in the last month of the season as starting PG? 4 games less than 10 points. And only 20 assists total. That makes him a better PG than Blake??

How is Ellis a better "PG" than Blake? 3.7 apg and 2.7 turnovers per game??? Is that what you want at the PG position. Even Westbrook, who will ultimately be a better PG than Blake, didn't come close to Blake in assist to turnover ratio.

Why is this stat even looked at? All it really means is that Blake made a bunch of safe passes instead of making a slightly riskier pass that would have helped the team more (like passing the ball into the post when LA or Oden were wide fucking open). Blake has Steve Nash absolutely destroyed in assist to turnover, yet Nash makes his team better while Blake doesn't help anyone do shit.

Fisher is a better defender then Blake. Brooks and Ellis absolutely abuse Blake when they play Portland.

Sure, some of the players listed can be argued, but by that point we are just splitting hairs by comparing one bottom 5 guy to another.

The only guys Blake is absolutely 100% better then are Telfair and Beno. Other then that, it's debatable. I would rather the starter be arguably in the top 5 then the bottom 5.

Which is why Miller should start over Blake.

 

[Blaze01]

Brooks shot 10 of 36 from the field in Games 3 through 5. Basically, after Game one, Blake shut Brooks down. A lot of Brooks' points in Game 2 were scored after the game was decided. Blake had a better assist to turnover ratio.

Checkmate.

Did you even watch the games? Seriously, could you be more of a Blake homer? Blake had a decent season, and a subpar post season...the fact that some people are even trying to debate the merits of Blake vs Miller as a starting PG is ludicrous....Miller is a far better player, and it isn't even close...and as for Blake vs Westbrook or Monta Ellis??? Are you kidding me? Not ONE GM, not ONE, would take Blake over either of these guys...come on now....

POR\HOU playoff Series

Blake 9.8pts 6.2 ast 1.5 to
Brooks 15.3pts 4.3 ast 1.1to

Now one guys of these guys is "supposedly" the veteran at 29 years old, the other is a 2nd year player at 24yrs old....IF you really believe that Blake is a better player than Brooks then you are clueless.....

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Did you even watch the games? Seriously, could you be more of a Blake homer? Blake had a decent season, and a subpar post season...the fact that some people are even trying to debate the merits of Blake vs Miller as a starting PG is ludicrous....Miller is a far better player, and it isn't even close...

I would contend that ignoring the "best fit" argument is ludicrous. There are and have often been many instances in which the better player comes off the bench to play more minutes than the starter because it benefits the team, or because of the skill-sets of the individual performers. Few have disputed the notion that Roy's skill set likely meshes better with Blake's, while Miller's is nicely complemented by Rudy's. That doesn't necessarily mean that Blake should start, but it creates a legitimate discussion point.

Now one guys of these guys is "supposedly" the veteran at 29 years old, the other is a 2nd year player at 24yrs old....IF you really believe that Blake is a better player than Brooks then you are clueless.....

Ahh, the old, "if you disagree with me, you're an idiot" argument--my favorite.
I agree with you that Brooks is better, but it's not necessarily clear cut. I could see how one might dispute the notion.

 

[Idog1976]

Re: Miller Best As The Backup

aaaargh! This would seriously piss me off if Nate puts Miller on the bench because he likes to play fast, and Nate wants to keep the starters slow.

Aldridge would be an all star if Blake pushed the ball everytime he could and actually throw LA a lob pass. BRoy wouldn't be as beat up after every game if Blake wasn't de facto SG with the starting lineup.

I really, really hope Nate is just being PC and not committing anything. Unfortunately, I don't believe it to be the case.

PS> Greg starts this year. So does Batum.

Totally agree my man. Well said.

I would add...

P.S. Andre starts.

 

[Blaze01]

I would contend that ignoring the "best fit" argument is ludicrous. There are and have often been many instances in which the better player comes off the bench to play more minutes than the starter because it benefits the team, or because of the skill-sets of the individual performers. Few have disputed the notion that Roy's skill set likely meshes better with Blake's, while Miller's is nicely complemented by Rudy's. That doesn't necessarily mean that Blake should start, but it creates a legitimate discussion point.

It is not a "legitimate" discussion point, it is a short sighted one...

So because Blake can sit on the perimeter and ocassionally hit an outside shot, he is suddenly a better "fit" than Miller would be? What a bunch of garbage...

How about the fact that Miller would make EVERY OTHER STARTER, even including Roy better by the way he plays...because he can drive on the defense and put pressure on them, because he is a far better offensive player...because he is a far better passer, a FAR better pick and roll player, better at drawing fouls and GENERATING offense (400+ FT last year to Blake's 80)...because he has the ability to hit the midrange shot & floaters with far better consistency than Blake can, because he can post up other PG in mismatches, because he can generate far more 2nd chance opportunities b\c of his rebounding...b\c he can perform as good\better than Blake in the halfcourt and is far superior when pushing the pace (fast break)....Need any more reasons?

You know just b\c Roy is good with the ball in his hands, doesn't mean he NEEDS to have it in his hands all the time, in fact it should be just the opposite...this whole "Give the ball to Roy and let him do his thing" schtick did well to start the season, but as the season wore on and in the playoffs, teams dared POR other players to beat them...as guess what? Guys like Outlaw, Blake, Batum & Rudy showed themselves incapable of doing so...and as good as Roy is, it wore him down in the end as well....Perhaps, just perhaps, Roy might BENEFIT from coming off a screen or being the benificiary of another players' (Miller) ability to break down the defense....Can Blake do that? Hardly.....

What a concept to put another "creator" in the backcourt with Roy, but instead, no, let's put our blinders on and go with the same, give the ball to Roy and everyone else stand around and watch Roy score\create...err..kick the ball out for a jumpshot...how predictable...Why do you think POR went after Hedo Turkoglu in the first place,? Do you think that...maybe...b\c they perhaps KNEW that Roy needed another creator to help take pressure off of him in clutch situations? Miller can do that...Steve Blake cannot....

So NO, it isn't a valid discussion, it is a ridiculous one....are we concerned what is better for the "Team" or better for Roy? Roy can't win a title by himself....

Ahh, the old, "if you disagree with me, you're an idiot" argument--my favorite.
I agree with you that Brooks is better, but it's not necessarily clear cut. I could see how one might dispute the notion.

Why b\c it is true in this case? One guy is 5 years younger than other and out performed him in the playoffs...I think that is a pretty clear cut case, don't you?

I got an idea...Why don't you go over to the HOU board and ask them about a Steve Blake for Aaron Brooks swap and see what they say? I mean, since it isn't "clear cut" there should be a number of HOU fans who would like Steve Blake over Brooks...sure there is....

9.8pts and 6.1 ast in 38.7 minutes are not really the stats you would like from your starter.....unless he is clutch like Derek Fisher, what big time shots did Blake make in the playoffs again, oh that is right, none.....

Oh yeah, Miller's playoff stats?

21.2pts 5.3 asts 6.3 rbds

How about his CAREER post season stats?

17pts 4.8 asst 4.7 rbds

Miller has proven himself to be better, by a longshot...and Brooks clearly outplayed Blake in the playoffs and is 5 years younger....so if you are arguing that Brooks or Miller vs Blake is a "tough call\not clear cut" decision, then yes you are clearly mis-informed (is that a little "softer" for you?), b\c the numbers and more improtantly thier play on the court, if you watch the games, clearly indicates otherwise....

Blake is a mediocre PG, who is more suited as a b\u on a good team than as a starter...He played better than I expected last year, but I don't have any delusions about what type of player is, and it is frankly quite surprising that some fans have deluded themselves into such.....

and Nate would be a fool, if he opts to start Blake over Miller...and I think that Miller will more than prove who the better player between the two is when they play against each other in practice, just as he did head to head last year....or did you miss those games?

 

[hasoos]

I agree that there's no reason to hate on Blake; he's steady, he shoots well and and plays a very complimentary, egoless game. I for one am glad to we'll have him next season filling the role he's probably best suited to play.

There is a big difference between hating a player and learning from your mistakes. Just because I don't think a player gets it done night to night doesn't mean I hate them. It means they aren't getting it done. Is he getting it done? Would we even be having this conversation if he was getting it done? The same for Travis, Martell, and Bayless. If they were getting it done, we wouldn't be having these conversations. They arent' getting it done. How many years of not getting it done before you advocate change? You can either dwell in failure, or you can go do something about it. So sit around and dwell in it if you want. I am done with that.