Steve Blake: PER = 8.9

[Boob-No-More]

After tonight's "contributions" Steve Blake now has a PER of 8.9. He has the 2nd lowest PER of any player playing more than 30 MPG and is one of only four players in the entire league to play > 30.0 MPG with a PER < 10.0. The only player who plays more than 30 MPG with a lower PER is Charlie Bell. And now that Michael Redd is back, look for Bell's minutes to drop below 30 MPG.

When that happens, Steve Blake will officially be the worst player in the entire league to be averaging > 30.0 MPG.

Meanwhile, Andre Miller with a PER of 15.1 gets fewer minutes (27.4 MPG) and Jerryd Bayless with a PER of 17.9 continues to rot on the bench (10.6 MPG).

And don't give me that crap about how Blake makes Roy better. That's total bullshit. Blake makes Roy more comfortable, not better. Roy is struggling right now, and a big reason is Blake. Blake cannot create offense for himself. He can't create it for anyone else, and since he can't shoot worth crap, teams can sag off him and double Roy and/or clog the paint.

I've been a supporter of Blake in the past, but enough is enough. When a player's main role is to knock down open jump shots, and he's shooting 0.364 from the field and 0.343 from 3-point range, it's time to give the bulk of his minutes to a more productive player.

BNM

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Steve Blake is amazing. Seriously, how dare you.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Anyone here remember Derek Anderson's last season in Portland. DA had by far the worst of his four seasons in Portland. He had a PER of 11.7, shot 0.389 from the field and 0.384 from 3-point range. Compared to Blake's current stats, that makes DA look like a borderline all-star by comparison. Yet, he only got 26.4 MPG on a 27 win team. Based on his production this season, Blake has no business playing > 30 MPG on a team with aspirations of making the play-offs.

Oh, and the following summer, even though he had two years left on his contract, DA was cut by the Blazers, in a one-time luxury tax amnesty exception that allowed teams to cut one player to reduce their luxury tax obligations. They still had to pay the remaining two years of his salary, and it still counted against the salary cap for those two years, but at least they didn't have to pay luxury tax on his salary. So, the Blazers basically paid a guy who was outproducing Blake by a significant margin NOT to play for them. Yet, Blake continues to play big minutes. Makes no sense at all.

BNM

 

[alex42083]

And don't give me that crap about how Blake makes Roy better. That's total bullshit. Blake makes Roy more comfortable, not better. Roy is struggling right now, and a big reason is Blake. Blake cannot create offense for himself. He can't create it for anyone else, and since he can't shoot worth crap, teams can sag off him and double Roy and/or clog the paint.

BNM

Good point about the more comfortable bit rather than better. I don't know if teams are scouting to sag off Blake now, but they'd be wise to with his big-time slump.

You can't help but wonder what a Roy-Bayless backcourt could do for a stretch without Blake or even Andre in there. Bayless is good enough to handle quick PGs on D, so that wouldn't be a problem on that end.. and Roy can handle the ball on offense. Jerryd doesn't necessarily need to bring up the ball to create his own offense.

I don't know.. I'm hoping Nate was enlightened as he got away from the team for awhile and I'm anxiously awaiting to see if there will be any changes next game.

 

[roydezlaw]

Anyone here remember Derek Anderson's last season in Portland. DA had by far the worst of his four seasons in Portland. He had a PER of 11.7, shot 0.389 from the field and 0.384 from 3-point range. Compared to Blake's current stats, that makes DA look like a borderline all-star by comparison. Yet, he only got 26.4 MPG on a 27 win team. Based on his production this season, Blake has no business playing > 30 MPG on a team with aspirations of making the play-offs.

Oh, and the following summer, even though he had two years left on his contract, DA was cut by the Blazers, in a one-time luxury tax amnesty exception that allowed teams to cut one player to reduce their luxury tax obligations. They still had to pay the remaining two years of his salary, and it still counted against the salary cap for those two years, but at least they didn't have to pay luxury tax on his salary. So, the Blazers basically paid a guy who was outproducing Blake by a significant margin NOT to play for them. Yet, Blake continues to play big minutes. Makes no sense at all.

BNM

I'm not a Blake supporter but don't compare him to DA. DA was a headcase who quit putting out any effort on the floor. He wanted out of Portland and got his wish. We can see Steve is working hard, just not knocking down shots. Blake definitely needs to be on the 2nd unit but I don't wish him out of Portland.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not a Blake supporter but don't compare him to DA. DA was a headcase who quit putting out any effort on the floor. He wanted out of Portland and got his wish. We can see Steve is working hard, just not knocking down shots. Blake definitely needs to be on the 2nd unit but I don't wish him out of Portland.

Plus, Derek Anderson still thought he was a star. The guy had a whole persona that he would put on. The Jordan Brand polish. The guy rarely showed his true self. Steve Blake isn't anything like that. He's a regular guy.

 

[C_note]

BUT STEVE BLAKE HAS A 71.9 win %!!! THIS MEANS HE'S CLEARLY THE BEST

 

[julius]

Steve is a role player, who played admirably last year in his starters role. He's not being asked to play, he's being told to play.

I doubt Steve is asking to play more minutes, he probably does exactly what the coaches tell him to do. I would bet even he knows it's bologna.

His best asset was his 3 point shooting, and this year it's so-so. I don't think his shooting makes up for the lack of FT's, or better flow on offense with Miller. I think we've given it enough time to see how Blake and Roy handle this year starting, we need to go with Miller and Roy.

Blake, as he's playing now, is a good backup. Maybe going to the bench will light a spark under him, and he'll play better.

The PG spot needs points, both created and scored by the PG. he's doing neither on a regular basis (esp considering he is averaging fewer points, fewer assists, and shooting much worse than Miller).

 

[hasoos]

You know Steve Blake is fine if you play him as a backup and for backup minutes. The facts are we have another guard waiting in the wings who averages 0.5 points per minute, when we need offense. If Bayless was playing 36 minutes a game he would be averaging 18 points a game and all of this would be moot. It wouldn't even be a contest. By the way, he would also be averaging 4 assist, which is the same amount Blake does. So you get your cake and get to eat it too.

 

[oldmangrouch]

BUT STEVE BLAKE HAS A 71.9 win %!!! THIS MEANS HE'S CLEARLY THE BEST

Maybe I'm dense, but I still can't make any sense out of that. Of all the "advanced" stats out there, this one seems the most counter-intuitive.

 

[ucatchtrout]

Jerryd Bayless PER=17.94
Only 11 point guards in the league have a better PER
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...istics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pg&seasonType=2

 

[Nikolokolus]

Jerryd Bayless PER=17.94
Only 11 point guards in the league have a better PER
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...istics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pg&seasonType=2

But his win% is terrible.

 

[roydezlaw]

Jerryd Bayless PER=17.94
Only 11 point guards in the league have a better PER
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...istics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pg&seasonType=2

Sergio Rodriguez has a 19.67 PER and only 7 point guards have a better PER than him and he plays 4 more minutes a game than Bayless does.

Play Sergio!!

 

[hasoos]

Folks PERS is only really a good estimator of talent if the players have got about 3 years of good playing time in the book.

I ask you this. Don't think about the stats, and think, who would you start, if you were doing it based upon what you watched in the game, by going off your gut. Would it be Blake, Miller, or Bayless?

 

[roydezlaw]

It would be Miller.

 

[SheedSoNasty]

Can I get me some Jerryd Bayless any time soon?

 

[Ed O]

Folks PERS is only really a good estimator of talent if the players have got about 3 years of good playing time in the book.

First of all: it's "PER", not "PERS".

Secondly: no. PER is not ineffective with relatively small sample sizes. It's based on individual production, rather than reliant on primarily matchup/external factors.

A game's worth of PER? Not worth much of anything. A week or a month? You can definitely get an idea of how the player is going.

I ask you this. Don't think about the stats, and think, who would you start, if you were doing it based upon what you watched in the game, by going off your gut. Would it be Blake, Miller, or Bayless?

Miller. He's been the best player for years now... and Blake has been the worst Blazer I've seen all year. Bayless is not quite ready to start I don't think.

If the Blazers keep struggling, I think we should start Bayless to see if he can be the long-term solution there.

Ed O.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Folks PERS is only really a good estimator of talent if the players have got about 3 years of good playing time in the book.

I ask you this. Don't think about the stats, and think, who would you start, if you were doing it based upon what you watched in the game, by going off your gut. Would it be Blake, Miller, or Bayless?

Interesting question.

My gut reaction: start Bayless, since the team seems to need another scoing option early. Then bring in Miller.

 

[hasoos]

First of all: it's "PER", not "PERS".

Secondly: no. PER is not ineffective with relatively small sample sizes. It's based on individual production, rather than reliant on primarily matchup/external factors.

A game's worth of PER? Not worth much of anything. A week or a month? You can definitely get an idea of how the player is going.



Miller. He's been the best player for years now... and Blake has been the worst Blazer I've seen all year. Bayless is not quite ready to start I don't think.

If the Blazers keep struggling, I think we should start Bayless to see if he can be the long-term solution there.

Ed O.

Bullshit Ed O. Statistics rely on a sample size to get accurate. The more you get, the more accurate they are. The 3 years wasn't plulled out of my ass. It was stated by Hollinger in an article a long time ago. PER can easily be thrown off by a single really good game in a small sample size.

Oh and yea so I threw an S in there on the end. My bad. Happy your nitpick of the day went well?

 

[C_note]

Maybe I'm dense, but I still can't make any sense out of that. Of all the "advanced" stats out there, this one seems the most counter-intuitive.

High possibility, as I thought I was being blatantly sarcastic

 

[Boob-No-More]

I'm not a Blake supporter but don't compare him to DA. DA was a headcase who quit putting out any effort on the floor. He wanted out of Portland and got his wish. We can see Steve is working hard, just not knocking down shots. Blake definitely needs to be on the 2nd unit but I don't wish him out of Portland.

I was only comparing production - not demeanor or attitude. And the fact is, DA was producing more and getting less minutes on a 27 win team than Blake is right now. And, it's not like that team was stacked at SG. Other than DA, the only other SG on the roster was Richie Frahm.

Frankly, with the way Blake is producing, I'm not even sure if I want him on the 2nd unit. If I was coaching, I'd start Andre and give him about 32 MPG and bring Jerryd off the bench to back up both guard positions. That should easily get Bayless 25 - 30 minutes a night. With Outlaw and Rudy out, we need someone who can score on the second unit and Bayless is perfect for that role at this point in his career.

That doesn't mean I want Steve Blake gone. I just want him getting PT based on his production, which is easily the worst of any player in the rotation and way below Miller and Bayless. With so many injuries, we don't have the luxury of playing guys out of some sense of loyalty. We need production, and Blake isn't producing - no matter how hard he tries.

Miller hasn't been great, but he's been totally jerked around by Nate and hasn't had a consistent role. At least he's been average (which is WAY better than Blake). Likewise, Bayless has been consistently productive, in spite of insanely inconsistent playing time. I think both players would do even better if they had clearly defined roles and got consistent minutes. Blake is the only one of the three who has gotten consistent minutes and he continues to be embarrassingly unproductive. Time for a change.

BNM

 

[Schilly]

Don't forget Blakes 0.6 made FT per game on sub 70% from the line.

If It were me, and this opinion hasn't changed since the start of camp. Miller starts. WHat has changed due to injuries and sucking crap hole is that Blake should be the guard getting 8-10 mpg and Bayless getting 24mpg.

 

[Ed O]

Bullshit Ed O. Statistics rely on a sample size to get accurate. The more you get, the more accurate they are. The 3 years wasn't plulled out of my ass. It was stated by Hollinger in an article a long time ago. PER can easily be thrown off by a single really good game in a small sample size.

That three year thing is bogus until/unless I see it from Hollinger. I've read numerous writings he's done on PER--including the 2003-04 Pro Basketball Prospectus, which I have on my lap and have just re-read. I have never mentioned that PER is only valuable with three years of data. That seems ridiculous to me.

Over three years there is a larger sample size, but the player three years ago is NOT the same player as the player now... so sample size has a half-life.

A single game will not distort a month's worth of PER too much.

A single game will not distort a week's worth of PER, either--a game is often a third or a quarter of a week's worth of stats, so it influences, rather than distorts.

Oh and yea so I threw an S in there on the end. My bad. Happy your nitpick of the day went well?

It made you look ignorant. I thought you'd want to be corrected, rather than continuing to make that mistake. If you want to continue to look ignorant, just let me know and I won't endeavor to correct you in the future.

I prefer to be corrected, myself. For example: if you have a link to the Hollinger "three year" column, please send it to me so I can see how applicable it is.

Ed O.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

1. Remind me again how PER measures a player's defense. It seems to me patently obvious that Blake is being played for his defense (and lack of turnovers).
2. The coaching staff insists on playing Blake. The coaching staff is aware of every single advanced stat out there, and more that you've never heard of.
Either:
a) They understand things Blake does or the others don't do or the team does when Blake is on the floor better than you
b) a bunch of people with a lot of time on their hands watching the games on the TV are spotting something incredibly obvious that the coaching staff is unable to see because they're st00pid.

I know which I think is more likely.

I must say, though, I think Blake must be reading him some internets, because he's playing scared. It's like he doesn't even TRY on offense.

I wonder if, if Roy got injured, Blake's PT would actually go down.

 

[oldmangrouch]

High possibility, as I thought I was being blatantly sarcastic

No, no....I got that *you* were being sarcastic...but some folks seem to have great faith in it.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I prefer to be corrected, myself.

Okay then, PER is practically useless as a measure of a player's value. Note that down, sonny.

Oh, and it should be "Ed. O.".

 

[Ed O]

1. Remind me again how PER measures a player's defense. It seems to me patently obvious that Blake is being played for his defense (and lack of turnovers).

It doesn't address position defense. Very good defenders (like Bowen) who don't get steals or blocks are under-represented by PER.

I think putting Blake at that level of a defender is just silliness.

2. The coaching staff insists on playing Blake. The coaching staff is aware of every single advanced stat out there, and more that you've never heard of.
Either:
a) They understand things Blake does or the others don't do or the team does when Blake is on the floor better than you
b) a bunch of people with a lot of time on their hands watching the games on the TV are spotting something incredibly obvious that the coaching staff is unable to see because they're st00pid.

I know which I think is more likely.

Maybe they're making a mistake? Maybe they're too risk-averse (because they are on a one year coaching contract)? There's a variety of reasons we might be right and they might be wrong.

Coaches get fired all the time, in spite of getting paid for it and knowing more advanced stats than we do. In fact, coaches make mistakes like, say, not using Oden on offense. Or starting three guards.

Miraculously, coaches sometimes correct those mistakes, and some of us even see them before they're corrected.

The whole "they know more than we do, so they must be right" is a weak, weak argument.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Statistics rely on a sample size to get accurate.

This is true.

The more you get, the more accurate they are.

Up to a point. If you let the sample size get too large it no longer reflects CURRENT production. 25 games at 30 MPG is more than enough to show that Steve Blake is embarrassingly unproductive THIS season. I don't care what his PER was last year. He's not producing THIS year, and that's what I care about right now.

The 3 years wasn't plulled out of my ass. It was stated by Hollinger in an article a long time ago.

Link please? I seriously doubt if anyone as good with numbers as Hollinger would make such a statement about PER. 3 years is a very inexact sample size. A guy who plays occasional garbage time minutes for three years will have a smaller sample size than a guy who starts and plays 40 MPG for half a season.

PER can easily be thrown off by a single really good game in a small sample size.

Or a single really bad game - for a REALLY small sample size. However, Blake has played 25 games. So, a single game only reflects 4% of his total sample size. A PER of 8.9 +/- 4% still sucks for a guy getting > 30 MPG.

Stats like +/- and win% do not rely on the production of a single player. They are totally dependent on the production of the nine other players on the court (four teammates and five opponents). Plus there are many variations within those ten variables - both during the course of the game (different line-ups on the floor) and over the course of the season (29 different opposing team). With so many variables, these stats require a much bigger sample size - and even then they are highly dependent on who else is on the court. Bad players benefit from playing big minutes with good teammates and good players are penalized by sharing the court with an productive player.

Using +/- as an individual stat for a single game is asinine and shows a complete lack of comprehension of the meaning of the stat. Even using it for a fraction of a season will likely lead to faulty conclusions. Blake has a high +/- and a high win% simply because he plays the bulk of his minutes with our best players. Anyone who has watched him play this season can easily see he's not close to our best player and is NOT helping the team more than guys like Roy, Aldridge and Oden (before he got hurt). That alone should cause anyone with half a functioning brain to question the validity of these stats (based on the current sample size) - even if they don't understand how they are calculated.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Oh, and it should be "Ed. O.".

Sorry to corect your correction, but I believe it should be "Ed O.".

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It doesn't address position defense. Very good defenders (like Bowen) who don't get steals or blocks are under-represented by PER.

Or, to put it another way, PER doesn't measure ANY position defense.

I think putting Blake at that level of a defender is just silliness.

What level? Are you trying to suggest that the only thing that PER can't measure is the magical super-duper position defense that Bruce Bowen alone plays? And that because Steve Blake is not Bruce Bowen (which I will readily concede) PER measures Blake's position defense? There must be a name for that kind of fallacy.

Maybe they're making a mistake?

Very possible. But not as possible as the idea that we're missing something. It doesn't even have to be something evident on the court. It could be that thing the very mention of which makes you snort in derision -- intangibles.

The whole "they know more than we do, so they must be right" is a weak, weak argument.

Absolutely. But so what? Wait, you're not implying that that was my argument are you? My argument was: "they know more than us so if we think they're missing something that's blatantly obvious to us, it's very likely there's something we're missing."

Hey, I'm not a Blake fan. And I'd actually like to see more of Bayless and Miller. But I always want to see the younger/newer guys play because they're novelties. I want to see Cunningham play. But then I look at Howard's ridiculously good +/- numbers and figure, hey, they know what they're doing.