So I guess the Steve Blake Showcase went off without a hitch last night...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Nope, now he looks too valuable for our team. Nate will never allow him to be traded now.
 
Where are all the people who were calling McMillan a useless moron for "benching Batum" in favor of Blake?

So, two good games in a row for Blake. I guess he wants to stay.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Where are all the people who were calling McMillan a useless moron for "benching Batum" in favor of Blake?

So, two good games in a row for Blake. I guess he wants to stay.
Click to expand...

I would rather have Batum start no matter who else is out there.

I have to hand it to Blake. That was a very good game from him.


Now if he could play even half as well more then a handful of times per season he would be a great addition to the team.

I hope he does.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Where are all the people who were calling McMillan a useless moron for "benching Batum" in favor of Blake?

So, two good games in a row for Blake. I guess he wants to stay.
Click to expand...




Steve Blake had a good game, but Batum is better.



More a case of a blind squirrel finding a Steve Blake
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Where are all the people who were calling McMillan a useless moron for "benching Batum" in favor of Blake?

So, two good games in a row for Blake. I guess he wants to stay.
Click to expand...

TWO good games? His GmSc against OKC was -0.8. Only in this forum is a game where someone shoots 0-5 considered a good game.

Last night was, by far, Steve's Blake's best game of the year. I know you don't like statistics, because they don't support your opinion, but Steve Blake has now had 4 good games (GmSc => 15.0) the entire season. He's had another 7 decent games (GmSC betweem 10.0 and 14.1). That leaves 40 games with a GmSc below 10.0. For every good game he has, he has 10 bad games. He has 20 games with a GmSc below 5.0 and 8 games with a negative GmSc.

ONE game does not a season make (unless you're Kingspeed or Mixum).

BNM
 
I've been impressed with Nate's willingness to experiment with various line-ups. For a coach who at times has been inflexible in his rotations, he's really trying every thing he can to find the right combinations with the spare parts of a roster he has right now. Portland had no business winning that game last night, and I imagine Nate would have been crucified had the Blazers lost.

I don't expect him to get much credit today, but I have to say I've been impressed with his coaching this season.
 
BGrantFan said:
I've been impressed with Nate's willingness to experiment with various line-ups. For a coach who at times has been inflexible in his rotations, he's really trying every thing he can to find the right combinations with the spare parts of a roster he has right now. Portland had no business winning that game last night, and I imagine Nate would have been crucified had the Blazers lost.

I don't expect him to get much credit today, but I have to say I've been impressed with his coaching this season.
Click to expand...

He has been good about ditching what doesn't work and trying something else.


I just wish that something else included Batum for no other reason then I think it is Portland's best interest to give the kid minutes to accelerate his growth.
 
LittleAlex said:
He has been good about ditching what doesn't work and trying something else.


I just wish that something else included Batum for no other reason then I think it is Portland's best interest to give the kid minutes to accelerate his growth.
Click to expand...

Nic seems a bit off since he got his shoulder bumped the other day.
 
Boob-No-More said:
TWO good games? His GmSc against OKC was -0.8. Only in this forum is a game where someone shoots 0-5 considered a good game.
Click to expand...

What the fuck is GmSc now?

I know you don't like facts when they don't support your opinion, but while Steve Blake was on the court against OKC the Blazers outscored them by 6 points. So when he was off, the team got outscored by 18 points. Now, there are two explanations for this:
1. He made a positive contribution that your amazing stat isn't measuring
2. He's an amazing lucky charm

I'll take either.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
What the fuck is GmSc now?

I know you don't like facts when they don't support your opinion, but while Steve Blake was on the court against OKC the Blazers outscored them by 6 points. So when he was off, the team got outscored by 18 points. Now, there are two explanations for this:
1. He made a positive contribution that your amazing stat isn't measuring
2. He's an amazing lucky charm

I'll take either.
Click to expand...




Here you go.

GmSc
Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, i.e., 40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.



some people think it's better than +/-
 
1. He made a positive contribution that your amazing stat isn't measuring
2. He's an amazing lucky charm
Click to expand...

Give up this ridiculousness...

Going 0-5 with 2 to is not a positive contribution...what the hell are you watching?

I was at that game...and POR increase in better play for PERIODS of time when Blake was in the game had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Blake....

He was a non factor...

You Blake homers have to stop with MAKING UP shit to try and justify Blake's piss poor play of late....

TWO good games? His GmSc against OKC was -0.8. Only in this forum is a game where someone shoots 0-5 considered a good game.

Last night was, by far, Steve's Blake's best game of the year. I know you don't like statistics, because they don't support your opinion, but Steve Blake has now had 4 good games (GmSc => 15.0) the entire season. He's had another 7 decent games (GmSC betweem 10.0 and 14.1). That leaves 40 games with a GmSc below 10.0. For every good game he has, he has 10 bad games. He has 20 games with a GmSc below 5.0 and 8 games with a negative GmSc.

ONE game does not a season make (unless you're Kingspeed or Mixum).
Click to expand...


Concurred...and nice post..Blake had a good game last night and somehow that justifies all of his poor play before that and the heavy minutes (at the expense of better players) that Nate is playing him?

I don't fucking think so.....
 
Blaze01 said:
Give up this ridiculousness...

Going 0-5 with 2 to is not a positive contribution...what the hell are you watching?
I was at that game...and POR increase in better play for PERIODS of time when Blake was in the game had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Blake....

He was a non factor...

You Blake homers have to stop with MAKING UP shit to try and justify Blake's piss poor play of late....
Click to expand...

Blake had 1 TO. He also had 4 assists and 3 rebounds. It appears that you are the one MAKING UP shit. What the hell are you watching?
 
Steve Blake is the greatest trade asset in NBA history...
 
Rastapopoulos said:
What the fuck is GmSc now?

I know you don't like facts when they don't support your opinion, but while Steve Blake was on the court against OKC the Blazers outscored them by 6 points. So when he was off, the team got outscored by 18 points. Now, there are two explanations for this:
1. He made a positive contribution that your amazing stat isn't measuring
2. He's an amazing lucky charm

I'll take either.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. There are more than two possible explanations - as I pointed out in the other thread yesterday.

In the second quarter, the Blazers outscored the Thunder by 7 (10-3) with Blake in the game. That 10-3 run happened to coincide with Durant and Westbrook both being on the bench. It's not surprising that the Blazers, as a team, outscored OKC during a brief stretch when OKC's two best players weren't in the game.

For the rest of the game, Steve "Lucky Charm" Blake was -1.

BNM
 
Blake had 1 TO. He also had 4 assists and 3 rebounds. It appears that you are the one MAKING UP shit. What the hell are you watching?
Click to expand...


Ooh I missed 1 turnover when trying to recall it from memory...wow you got me...kudos to you....I guess?

I'll bet you couldn't type that response out fast enough....

My points stand...correct by the way...
 
Blaze01 said:
Ooh I missed 1 turnover when trying to recall it from memory...wow you got me...kudos to you....I guess?

I'll bet you couldn't type that response out fast enough....

My points stand...correct by the way...
Click to expand...

I just found it ironic that you would berate that poster for MAKING UP shit when in reality, you were the one MAKING UP shit. It seemingly deflates your criticism, doesn't it?
 
No...not really...

Why b\c I said he had 2 turnovers instead of 1?

mi⋅nu⋅ti⋅a
Usually, minutiae. precise details; small or trifling matters: the minutiae of his craft.
 
I think Blake was playing purely because he had not been fucking up as badly as Rudy and Bayless lately. Its not a lot but it's better than what we had been getting lately out of the rest of the guards.
 
so because rudy was +6 against okc that means he played well too??? no, and i'm about as big a rudy apologist as you'll find on here. blake didn't play well against okc, he played great last night.

my gripe is, can we stop with "showcasing" a veteran player? he isn't be showcased, teams know exactly what and who steve blake is.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Nice strawman. There are more than two possible explanations - as I pointed out in the other thread yesterday.
Click to expand...

Actually that would be a false dilemma.

In the second quarter, the Blazers outscored the Thunder by 7 (10-3) with Blake in the game. That 10-3 run happened to coincide with Durant and Westbrook both being on the bench. It's not surprising that the Blazers, as a team, outscored OKC during a brief stretch when OKC's two best players weren't in the game.
Click to expand...

And yet Durant was only +4 for the game, despite OKC winning by 12 (Westbrook was better at +10). By your numbers they should've been +19. Hmmm - could it be that OKC doesn't necessarily depend completely on its best player, so that it might actually be an achievement for Portland to outscore OKC when he's out?

For the rest of the game, Steve "Lucky Charm" Blake was -1.
Click to expand...

Which still makes him pretty damn good, considering Miller was -10.

It's about matchups. Blake is our best guard defender and doesn't make sloppy mistakes. This makes him particularly valuable against OKC which does better on offense when its guards get into the paint (Westbrook, for example, is a crappy shooter) and which pounces on the kind of turnovers that Bayless was giving them in bunches. It's also (as somebody else pointed out) that Blake was actually following the plan of getting the ball to Aldridge and also actually getting it to him when he tried. Miller put up gaudy stats, but clearly was getting torched on the other end or doing things that led to fast break OKC points. Something that none of your stats measure.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
while Steve Blake was on the court against OKC the Blazers outscored them by 6 points. So when he was off, the team got outscored by 18 points. Now, there are two explanations for this:
1. He made a positive contribution that your amazing stat isn't measuring
2. He's an amazing lucky charm
Click to expand...

It doesn't take "amazing" luck to happen to be on the floor when the team, through no virtue of the player's own, happens to play well in a single game. That's precisely why +/- is considered useless over small sample sizes by credible basketball statisticians. Luck can very easily overwhelm everything else when it comes to +/- over small samples.

Even statisticians who are proponents of the stat say you need a few season's worth of data for the stat to tell you anything meaningful. To use it as a meaningful measure of a player's performance in a single game really isn't compelling at all.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Which still makes him pretty damn good, considering Miller was -10.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't. +/- isn't an individual stat. The TEAM was -10 when Miller was in the game. How much of that was Miller's fault? How much of it was due to his four teammates that couldn't hit an open shot or guard their man? How much of it was because he started and played most of his minutes against the opponent's best players?

Impossible to say, but you continue to try to misuse the +/- as an individual stat in a feeble attempt to "prove" that the guy who has ZERO points on 0-5 shooting had a better game than the guy who scored 22 points on 9-18 shooting and had more assists and more rebounds.

Yeah, right.

BNM
 
Minstrel said:
It doesn't take "amazing" luck to happen to be on the floor when the team, through no virtue of the player's own, happens to play well in a single game. That's precisely why +/- is considered useless over small sample sizes by credible basketball statisticians. Luck can very easily overwhelm everything else when it comes to +/- over small samples.

Even statisticians who are proponents of the stat say you need a few season's worth of data for the stat to tell you anything meaningful. To use it as a meaningful measure of a player's performance in a single game really isn't compelling at all.
Click to expand...

Welcome to my hell. +/- is by far the most misused stat on this forum. It is generally used to "prove" a shitty player has some magical influence on his team's play in spite of his own ineptitude and poor individual play.

In the overtime win against Dallas, Andre Miller scored 52 points on 22-31 shooting. But, Martell Webster, who scored 4 points on 1-3 shooting had a "better" +/-. Gee, which player had the better game and helped his team actually win the game? Where were the Martell Webster appreciation threads after his game changing 4-point performance?

I wish the ignore function could be expanded to filter any post containing the +/- character string. Because you KNOW it's going to be another thread praising someone's favorite shitty player and the magical, unquantifiable manner he inexplicably makes his team better.

BNM
 
Blake started because we were playing the Suns. It's like he's able to steal Steve Nash's mojo and harness it for himself against Phoenix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top