OT:Blake's wife standing up for her man!

[PapaG]

What's your retort, PapaG, to the twitter in the OP? Do you agree that she should laugh about our situation, because her husband is "the pass-first PG that can shoot" that we need?

I already posted my retort.

 

[PapaG]

Blake isn't good. But Jackson doesn't need a good player to man the point guard spot. There is no classic point guard role on offense in Jackson's system. The "point guard" is simply the guard who defends the opposing point guard, generally.

45% 3pt shooting is "good". Sorry if you disagree.

 

[Minstrel]

Incorrect. Pippen guarded both Stockton and Gary Payton, not Steve Kerr.

I said "generally" because I knew you'd go for the edge cases. Pippen did not generally guard opposing point guards, nor did Jordan. Nor does Kobe, generally. Jackson certainly mixes things up based on circumstance, but Ron Harper generally guarded opposing point guards for those Bulls teams and Derek Fisher generally guarded the point guard for many of his Lakers teams.

The "PG" in Jackson's system has one role typically in his offense. Wait for ball rotations and hit open 3 pointers. John Paxson, Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, and Derek Fisher have all been able to do so in Jackson's variation of the triangle, and only Kerr was able to put up a decent PER. John Paxson was a 9ish PER player during the Bulls run with him.

That's because Jackson was building his system around Jordan and Pippen and then Kobe and Shaq (and then Kobe and Gasol). If you honestly believe that, given Chris Paul and Kevin Durant as his best players, he'd have Chris Paul waiting for ball rotations to shoot jumpers, I think you're quite mistaken.

Jackson has had superstars (or at least a very high level star in the case of Gasol) so it made sense to put specialized role-players around them. If he had Paul and Durant, he'd build around them and the shooting guard and small forward would be shooting jumpers when the ball rotated to them.

Blake's PER right now is basically the same as Fisher's PER last season as a starter for an NBA champion. This is a fact.

That's a fairly trivial fact. I agree that Blake is as good as Fisher. Neither are very good players relative to the NBA. That's all that Jackson has needed around his top players.

 

[Minstrel]

45% 3pt shooting is "good". Sorry if you disagree.

I don't disagree. I said Blake isn't a good player, not that he isn't a good shooter.

 

[Trader Ed]

Someone should ask her how she got pregnant twice when her man can't penetrate.

CLASSIC!!!!!!!

The Mail Man delivered

 

[BlazerCaravan]

The Mail Man delivered

"Steve honey, can you take baby Karl for a minute? He keeps elbowing me in the chin!"

 

[PapaG]

I don't disagree. I said Blake isn't a good player, not that he isn't a good shooter.

I think we agree, then. Blake is good for what is asked of him in that offense. I still find using his PER as a Laker as a criticism to be unfair, considering the role asked of PGs throughout Jackson's career. He seems "good" in his role right now, at least based on Jackson's rather lengthy history as a coach.

 

[RR7]

So PER can just be tossed aside, and I know you use it all the time to discuss a player's value, but the rebuttal to a poor PER is just it's his role in the offense? Sweet. I'll log that one away for the three times a day you post a player's PER as a reason of anything.

 

[RR7]

Also, first Bull's championship, paxson, 14 PER, BJ 14.8. Second one, Paxson dipped to 10.9, but BJ was at 14.1, third, BJ 14.7. In fact, BJ was right around 15 his whole tenure in Chicago. And Harper went 14.4, 13.6 and 14.7.

So I guess what PER is showing us, with 15 generally being an average NBA starter, is that the Bulls' PGs were right around an average to slightly, slightly below average. And Blake is well below that.

 

[MickZagger]

BJ Armstrong was a talented offensive player.

 

[huevonkiller]

I think we agree, then. Blake is good for what is asked of him in that offense. I still find using his PER as a Laker as a criticism to be unfair, considering the role asked of PGs throughout Jackson's career. He seems "good" in his role right now, at least based on Jackson's rather lengthy history as a coach.

Well he has a below average offensive rating for a catch and shoot player (check out James Jones this season http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jonesja02.html), and he's a bad defender. The Lakers are quite talented and deep in the frontcourt, so they overcame these deficiencies in the past couple of seasons.

Phil is playing him based on sentimental value, what he remembers from the Shaq three-peat.

 

[bodyman5001]

Hahahahah. I told my Laker fan co-workers that I awaited the day that Steve Blake would choke away a game or two for them. I just hope it is in the playoffs.

 

[PapaG]

So PER can just be tossed aside, and I know you use it all the time to discuss a player's value, but the rebuttal to a poor PER is just it's his role in the offense? Sweet. I'll log that one away for the three times a day you post a player's PER as a reason of anything.

Three times a day? Come on now, you're more rational than the above post. I've stated repeatedly that I would prefer LMA over Kevin Love on my team, yet their PERs would suggest otherwise.

 

[PapaG]

Well he has a below average offensive rating for a catch and shoot player (check out James Jones this season http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jonesja02.html), and he's a bad defender. The Lakers are quite talented and deep in the frontcourt, so they overcame these deficiencies in the past couple of seasons.

Phil is playing him based on sentimental value, what he remembers from the Shaq three-peat.

Fisher had basically the same PER last season, and the Lakers won a title.

 

[huevonkiller]

Fisher had basically the same PER last season, and the Lakers won a title.

Last post-season? Yes he was better than in 2009, when he was pretty awful.

Yet had his worst Defensive rating of his post-season career. The Lakers talented frontcourt bailed him out.

 

[MARIS61]

PER is a worthless stat.

 

[RoyToy]

Well he has a below average offensive rating for a catch and shoot player (check out James Jones this season http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jonesja02.html), and he's a bad defender. The Lakers are quite talented and deep in the frontcourt, so they overcame these deficiencies in the past couple of seasons.

Phil is playing him based on sentimental value, what he remembers from the Shaq three-peat.

OT but I think my favorite statistic this year is that James Jones has been astd on 100% of all his shots this year. That's just amazing. Sign me up to play with LeBron and Wade.

 

[Nikolokolus]

PER is a worthless stat.

Why are you quoting Sergio Rodriguez?

 

[huevonkiller]

OT but I think my favorite statistic this year is that James Jones has been astd on 100% of all his shots this year. That's just amazing. Sign me up to play with LeBron and Wade.

James Jones is a great dude, he likes drawing charges as well.

He's the best player so far outside of King/Wade/Bosh. http://www.82games.com/1011/1011MIA.HTM

 

[Ed O]

45% from 3pt isn't bad, though. Luckily, Rudy decided to pull his head out of his ass the past week. If not, shooting would still be a major issue.

Plus, Fisher had a PER of 9.6 last year (9.3 this year), and he won a ring in Jackson's offense. The PG in the triangle has never had a high PER, if you actually cared to research.

How do you explain his sub-12 PER last year, then?

The dude is just not a good NBA player.

Fisher's PER has been terrible, also, but that's because HE'S not good... and he's 36. Blake is 30 and doesn't have old age as an excuse.

Regarding the PG in the triangle generally: can you point to a team that had a good player at the PG spot but had his PER suppressed? Ron Harper was entering his 30's when he joined the Bulls and saw his PER drop substantially (although it was always significantly better than Blake's and Fisher's).

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

How do you explain his sub-12 PER last year, then?

The dude is just not a good NBA player.

Fisher's PER has been terrible, also, but that's because HE'S not good... and he's 36. Blake is 30 and doesn't have old age as an excuse.

Regarding the PG in the triangle generally: can you point to a team that had a good player at the PG spot but had his PER suppressed? Ron Harper was entering his 30's when he joined the Bulls and saw his PER drop substantially (although it was always significantly better than Blake's and Fisher's).

Ed O.

Since PER seems to be the focus, can I at least point out that BLANKY had the same PER (15.0) in the Houston playoff series that Andre Miller had against Phoenix? Can I also point out that Houston was a much better defensive team then Phoenix? Based on PER alone, it could be said that Miller was a downgrade from BLANKY in terms of playoff PG performance, since Miller's average PER was against one of the lesser defensive teams in the NBA.

 

[Ed O]

Since PER seems to be the focus, can I at least point out that BLANKY had the same PER (15.0) in the Houston playoff series that Andre Miller had against Phoenix? Can I also point out that Houston was a much better defensive team then Phoenix? Based on PER alone, it could be said that Miller was a downgrade from BLANKY in terms of playoff PG performance, since Miller's average PER was against one of the lesser defensive teams in the NBA.

You can point it out. But I don't really care about a player's PER over such a short stint.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

You can point it out. But I don't really care about a player's PER over such a short stint.

Ed O.

Well, I do, since the playoffs matter much more to me than the regular season.

BLANKY elevated his game in the playoffs for the Blazers; Miller wilted and then basically disappeared after one big game, culminating with a GameScore of -0.4 in the deciding Game 6.

 

[Ed O]

Well, I do, since the playoffs matter much more to me than the regular season.

So you're giving more emphasis to a less meaningful statistical sample?

That's not very logical.

BLANKY elevated his game in the playoffs for the Blazers; Miller wilted and then basically disappeared after one big game, culminating with a GameScore of -0.4 in the deciding Game 6.

Didn't you say that they produced similarly?

One "elevated his game" and one "wilted"... and yet they ended up in the same place.

That would seem to indicate Miller's a far superior player most of the time in your opinion.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

So you're giving more emphasis to a less meaningful statistical sample?

That's not very logical.

Didn't you say that they produced similarly?

One "elevated his game" and one "wilted"... and yet they ended up in the same place.

That would seem to indicate Miller's a far superior player most of the time in your opinion.

Ed O.

The supposed better player, who is making more money, had a worse playoff than the guy dubbed BLANKY. I guess beating Milwaukee on a December night is fun to watch, but when the better player was asked to elevate his game, he instead regressed from his regular season form. Also, the supposed better player was the starting PG on a team that won 4 less games than the supposed lesser player.

 

[Minstrel]

The supposed better player, who is making more money, had a worse playoff than the guy dubbed BLANKY. I guess beating Milwaukee on a December night is fun to watch, but when the better player was asked to elevate his game, he instead regressed from his regular season form.

The better player was focused on by the opposing Phoenix defense after he destroyed them in game 1. The lesser player was largely ignored because the opposing Houston defense was worrying about Roy destroying them.

Had Miller been playing with a healthy Roy, the Suns would have been fucked, because they couldn't have focused on him.

Context does matter.

 

[MickZagger]

Are we really arguing that Blake was better than Miller as a Blazer?

 

[PapaG]

Are we really arguing that Blake was better than Miller as a Blazer?

I know, it's crazy. Clearly, the 2008-09 Blazers won more games than the 2009-10 Blazers. I'm not even sure why this is up for debate. The team won more games with BLANKY as the starting PG, even if he is a lesser player.

 

[PapaG]

The better player was focused on by the opposing Phoenix defense after he destroyed them in game 1. The lesser player was largely ignored because the opposing Houston defense was worrying about Roy destroying them.

Had Miller been playing with a healthy Roy, the Suns would have been fucked, because they couldn't have focused on him.

Context does matter.

I'm not sure about that. I remember plenty of posters stating after Game One that the team was better without Roy.

 

[BlazerBeav]

I'm not sure about that. I remember plenty of posters stating after Game One that the team was better without Roy.

Well that makes one of you. There is not a single executive in this league who would argue for Blake over Miller and you know it.