Steve Blake: PER = 8.9

[Rastapopoulos]

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

BNM

That's B.N.M.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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.

And you're more than entitled to your opinion. I do not think that Nate, KP or anyone else (including myself) is omniscient. I would surmise that your reasoning is that we don't have Chris Paul on our team right now because:

a) "(John Nash and his team) understand things (Paul) does or the others don't do or the team does when (Paul) is on the floor better than you" OR
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 wouldn't say "Incredibly obvious". I would say "obvious to people who have a lot of time on their hands watching the games." My grandmother probably wouldn't care why that nice boy Jerryd isn't playing over that nice boy Steve. She's happy they're not endangering her life driving over 100mph while high in a yellow hummer. She's happy that when she sees "Portland" on 60 Minutes it's because of the Jail Blazers. She also isn't paying Comcast 75 extra dollars a month to watch games...isn't paying $200 for League Pass...isn't paying thousands in season tickets. I, on the other hand, have been watching, practicing, playing ,coaching and rooting for basketball for around 25 years. And while I have no doubt that I'm not qualified to be on an NBA payroll for millions of dollars, I'm also certain that there are basic basketball fundamentals that are being missed when our team plays--and if you don't then I'm not overly concerned about your knowledge of what's likely or opinion of me...sorry.

So since there are basic basketball fundamentals (and I won't go into "leadership" ones, which I am much more qualified than KP, Nate or Brandon Roy to observe and discuss) that are not being done, the question becomes "why"? As I stated, you're more than welcome to think everything's ok, and that Nate and his staff are coaching geniuses who don't do anything worth correcting. I happen to disagree, and can back up my opinion with things other than a hypothesis that since someone's on a payroll, they know better.

 

[Ed O]

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

If we define "position defense" as "defense that is not at all captured by blocked shots or steals or defensive rebounding", then your statement is correct.

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.

If 15.0 is the average NBA starter, and we all agree that Bowen was at least an average starter, then his noncaptured value had to be about 6 or 7 in the early years with the Spurs (when his per was 8 or 9).

Blake's got a sub-9 PER, and he's nowhere near the defender Bowen is. As a result, I don't think that he's anywhere near an average starter.

Further, I would submit that Bowen is an outlier--that there are almost no players that are so effective without looking anywhere near average in PER.

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.

How are those "intangibles" working for the team again?

How would we have fared on that road trip without the big 0 that Blake gave us quantitatively, even if it meant shaking up the awesome chemistry this team has? Would we have been 0-4? Or might we have squeaked out a win and come home 1-3?

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."

I am not sure that's the case. I think we--or at least I--have a different decision-making process than the coaches. It's their jobs on the line, and they shouldn't listen to me, necessarily, but it doesn't mean that they are correct.

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.

Do they? The team keeps. Losing.

And they do... what? The same thing. Yes, there have been significant injuries, but running out the same approach--making the same mistakes--doesn't seem wise to me. At least not if you want different results.

Ed O.

 

[illmatic99]

I was looking up more stats and found that one of the only other PGs who has performed unconventionally poorly is Hinrich. Dude's sporting a 6.7 PER and is playing 28mpg, while shooting 33% from the field! That's just ridiculously bad. Although his D might compensate for his offensive woes, I'm certain Bulls' fans aren't happy.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

If we define "position defense" as "defense that is not at all captured by blocked shots or steals or defensive rebounding", then your statement is correct.

Thank you.

If 15.0 is the average NBA starter,

Huh? Are you talking about "PER" again? In that case, you would have to say that the average PER for an NBA player is 15. That doesn't make them average players. You could have a player with a PER of that who is useless (because they're Zach Randolph lite) or a player with a PER like that who is invaluable (like a Derek Fisher).

and we all agree that Bowen was at least an average starter, then his noncaptured value had to be about 6 or 7 in the early years with the Spurs (when his per was 8 or 9).

You would love Jeremy Bentham, Ed. He believed that happiness could be measured in little units called "hedons".

How are those "intangibles" working for the team again?

Well, we way overperformed last year. And I'm not saying Blake is great, just that he's better for the team than Bayless (and possibly Miller). I'm sure Bayless's PER was through the roof in Summer League. Remind me how the team swept through undefeated.

How would we have fared on that road trip without the big 0 that Blake gave us quantitatively, even if it meant shaking up the awesome chemistry this team has? Would we have been 0-4? Or might we have squeaked out a win and come home 1-3?

We would've lost all 4 by a larger margin. Why is that hard to understand?

I am not sure that's the case. I think we--or at least I--have a different decision-making process than the coaches. It's their jobs on the line, and they shouldn't listen to me, necessarily, but it doesn't mean that they are correct.

Fair enough. This is why coaches get fired, because their goals don't match up with the GM's. I'm pretty sure these coaches are trying to win games. When it comes time for tanking, then it will be time for Pritchard to take over again.

Do they? The team keeps. Losing.

...players. To. Injury. And in spite of that, they put up a valiant effort in two tough road games. I'm sure they're glad of the many loyal fans who appreciate the effort they put in.

And they do... what? The same thing. Yes, there have been significant injuries, but running out the same approach--making the same mistakes--doesn't seem wise to me. At least not if you want different results.

Look: the problem is Roy. Roy is very very good, but not super-duper great. But to maximize him, you need a PG like Blake. (Or the balls to tell him to change his game. But Bayless is not good enough to force Roy to change his game.) PLUS: Roy is not a very good defender, so you absolutely can't pair him with a crappy defender, because we'd get destroyed. (Hence my comment about Roy going down affecting Blake's minutes.)

I believe that the mistake that most casual fans make is thinking that Bayless is a good NBA player. He's a good scorer, and has proved to be nothing more than that. Blake at least has proved he can be the PG of an NCAA championship team. Whose best (other) player just bounced out of the NBA. Bayless could barely make the tournament with a stacked roster.

 

[Minstrel]

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.

You're thinking of +/-. Statisticians are pretty consistent in saying that +/- requires mutliple (generally more than two) to be particularly meaningful. The reason is because it is an indirect measure: it doesn't measure the individual directly, it attempts to measure the individual through the indirect strategy of seeing how the team plays when he's on the floor.

PER is a direct measure, as it uses the individual's own performance. It can be used meaningfully much more quickly. I wouldn't use a one week sample of PER, but a month would start to tell me how the player is doing currently and a season's PER gives a pretty good idea of player value (at least in terms of production...not as much in terms of defense).

Bayless doesn't have a big enough sample, IMO, for his PER to be very reliable. However, considering his prospect pedigree, his PER definitely suggests to me that he's worth giving more time to as he may be fulfulling the promise that many saw in him. It'll take a lot more minutes of play for him to show that he has.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I was looking up more stats and found that one of the only other PGs who has performed unconventionally poorly is Hinrich. Dude's sporting a 6.7 PER and is playing 28mpg, while shooting 33% from the field! That's just ridiculously bad. Although his D might compensate for his offensive woes, I'm certain Bulls' fans aren't happy.

Funny you should mention that! The Bulls haven't been playing great all season, but they recently went through a stretch of a ton of losses by HUGE margins (which appeared to make LeBron want to dance). Guess what this coincided with? Hinrich being out.

 

[B-Roy]

Funny you should mention that! The Bulls haven't been playing great all season, but they recently went through a stretch of a ton of losses by HUGE margins (which appeared to make LeBron want to dance). Guess what this coincided with? Hinrich being out.

In Hinrich's last 6 games, the bulls are 1-5.

The Bulls were playing Lindsay Hunter and Jannero Pargo with Hinrich out. Yeah, Hinrich is terrible, but Hunter and Pargo are even worse.

 

[Schilly]

With us now having to rely on Joel to start and with really only Webster at the 3, we have 3 of our 4 worst PER players starting. Bayless is our 2nd rated PER player but I think it's safe to say his sample size is too small and if placed in the role of starter it would go down... Blake on the other hand is our worst rated player and has enough minutes to say that it is pretty accurate as to what he gives us. He's our 3pt specialist to stretch the offense as a starter right? .345 from 3 isn't a legit threat, it is tolerable if that player also gets to the line and shoots well inside the 3pt land, but Steve does neither. With Greg out and Steves massively dropped efficiency and Martels inconsistency, we are going to rely almost completely on just LMA and Roy in the starting lineup. We simply don't have the firepower starting to compete night in and night out.

 

[Ed O]

Huh? Are you talking about "PER" again?

Again? When did we stop?

In that case, you would have to say that the average PER for an NBA player is 15. That doesn't make them average players. You could have a player with a PER of that who is useless (because they're Zach Randolph lite) or a player with a PER like that who is invaluable (like a Derek Fisher).

Haha. Yes, Fisher is "invaluable".

We would've lost all 4 by a larger margin. Why is that hard to understand?

Considering you're just that up, there's not really much to understand.

I could say the team would have gone 4-0 if we'd benched Blake.

If I'm right, we're three games better off. If you're right, we're only one game worse.

Fair enough. This is why coaches get fired, because their goals don't match up with the GM's. I'm pretty sure these coaches are trying to win games. When it comes time for tanking, then it will be time for Pritchard to take over again.

There's not just "win" and "tank".

There are varied levels of risk aversion, where a coach might be willing to, say, tick off a player who doesn't have experience playing with a big guy who deserves the ball on the blocks. Or who may be unwilling to bench a guy who isn't really helping the team but isn't really hurting, either.

...players. To. Injury. And in spite of that, they put up a valiant effort in two tough road games. I'm sure they're glad of the many loyal fans who appreciate the effort they put in.

Haha. I don't give a shit about "effort".

I care about results. If the players sleepwalked their way to the Championship, I'd be just as happy as if they scrapped their way there.

A team full of scrappy losers are still losers. Ask John Nash's teams.

Look: the problem is Roy. Roy is very very good, but not super-duper great. But to maximize him, you need a PG like Blake. (Or the balls to tell him to change his game. But Bayless is not good enough to force Roy to change his game.) PLUS: Roy is not a very good defender, so you absolutely can't pair him with a crappy defender, because we'd get destroyed. (Hence my comment about Roy going down affecting Blake's minutes.)

I'm not going to blame Roy for mistakes that the coaching staff is making... starting Roy and Miller might be a TOTAL disaster, whether due to Roy or Miller or both.

But we don't know because they won't do it without having Blake in there, too.

I believe that the mistake that most casual fans make is thinking that Bayless is a good NBA player. He's a good scorer, and has proved to be nothing more than that. Blake at least has proved he can be the PG of an NCAA championship team. Whose best (other) player just bounced out of the NBA. Bayless could barely make the tournament with a stacked roster.

I don't think that comparing college accomplishments of teenagers means much, personally. But if you want to base Bayless not being a good NBA player because of his year at Arizona... OK.

Ed O.

 

[tlongII]

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

BNM

Actually I think it should be "Ed OH!"

 

[Schilly]

Show us the Oh face TlongIsland

 

[KingSpeed]

He can't create it for anyone else,

False. Blake creates lots of easy baskets for his teammates. If you think not, you're not watching the games.

 

[B-Roy]

False. Blake creates lots of easy baskets for his teammates. If you think not, you're not watching the games.

So, how many people did he set up in 43 minutes last night?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

False. Blake creates lots of easy baskets for his teammates. If you think not, you're not watching the games.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I love it when people cannot justify a player's (positive) worth by using stats (be it raw or advanced stats) or even what the eyes see that they immediately bring up the "intangibles" defense. It is as though "intangibles" is some sort of magical power that certain players possess that makes them good players even though the eyes and stats say otherwise. Hell, I'd bet that the very own people who defends those players can't even honestly tell with their own eyes if those players are worth a damn. It's much simpler to just say, "Hey, he's a winner (because he's on a winning team)." Just like Britney Spears is a great singer because she has million of fans. Wait, I'm not a good singer myself nor do I have any musical training. Maybe I'm missing something, and Britney is actually a damn great singer.

I've heard Steve is a great singer. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I'd question your hearing. I'm not questioning your ability to judge musical talent, just your hearing.

You don't need anything as crude as "hearing" to judge musical talent, great signing has intangible qualities that cannot be quantified or measured.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Again? When did we stop?

I was hoping we were back to talking about vaguely useful things.

Haha. Yes, Fisher is "invaluable".

Yes he is. I know this is hard for you to understand, but to that Lakers team, he is. Of course, he almost certainly would not be invaluable to most teams, but that doesn't mean that he's not an essential cog for them. And he is.

Considering you're just that up, there's not really much to understand.

Sigh. I'm not saying I know it to be true, but you tried to suggest that there was nothing worse than getting the record we did, because you only talked about final results. But there are degrees of losing.

I could say the team would have gone 4-0 if we'd benched Blake.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

If I'm right, we're three games better off. If you're right, we're only one game worse.

Um, okay. Your happy place is better.

There's not just "win" and "tank".

True.

There are varied levels of risk aversion, where a coach might be willing to, say, tick off a player who doesn't have experience playing with a big guy who deserves the ball on the blocks. Or who may be unwilling to bench a guy who isn't really helping the team but isn't really hurting, either.

Yes, that's true. And our coaches do seem to be risk averse. But that's probably wise when your team is still relatively young. Because confidence is fragile, and a real beatdown can undermine it. And that's part of what good coaches, who have, in Nate's case, been good players amongst other players, understand and we have no clue about.

I agree that there are also bad reasons a coach can stick with a player: they've become too close, they're trying to be buddies, they're playing favorites, blah blah blah. But Blake is not likely to be a player to get preferential treatment because he's not the type to get a bruised ego by being sent to the bench. He strikes me as the ideal employee: if you play him, he plays hard. If you benched him, he would practice just as hard and never complain. So it's very unlikely that "personality" issues are getting him minutes. (Whereas, for Roy, it is much more likely that decisions to ditch the three-guard lineup, which actually seemed to be working, are influenced by those type of reasons.)

Do I wish Blake was playing better? Jesus Christ yes. If he could just shoot his last year's % from 3 we probably would've won 2 or 3 more games. Does that mean he should be benched and Bayless played instead? I dunno. Probably the coaches feel that they would be rewarding selfish play if they did that.

Haha.

That's a nasty tic you're developing there.

I don't give a shit about "effort".

Bullshit.

I care about results. If the players sleepwalked their way to the Championship, I'd be just as happy as if they scrapped their way there.

Well sure - Championships trump all. But there's no way that you wouldn't be put off by players who clearly didn't give a shit. I don't want to say you'd prefer a 30-win team that scrapped all out to a 30-win team that sleepwalked, because you'd probably argue that the non-workers had "more potential". But if you knew they couldn't exert more effort, even Android Ed would prefer the bold little scrappers.

A team full of scrappy losers are still losers. Ask John Nash's teams.

Oh yes - Zach Randolph and Darius Miles were noted scrappers. That's why the people of Portland embraced them so.

I don't think that comparing college accomplishments of teenagers means much, personally. But if you want to base Bayless not being a good NBA player because of his year at Arizona... OK.

It's nice to get your imprimatur. If that was all I had to go on on Bayless's ability, that wouldn't be much. But that and two Summer Leagues are about enough for me.

 

[B-Roy]

It's nice to get your imprimatur. If that was all I had to go on on Bayless's ability, that wouldn't be much. But that and two Summer Leagues are about enough for me.

This is funny coming from the guy who proclaimed Patty Mills a better prospect than Bayless, while completely ignoring how Mills played in college.

 

[KingSpeed]

So, how many people did he set up in 43 minutes last night?

It was an off game for him.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I love it when people cannot justify a player's (positive) worth by using stats (be it raw or advanced stats) or even what the eyes see that they immediately bring up the "intangibles" defense. It is as though "intangibles" is some sort of magical power that certain players possess that makes them good players even though the eyes and stats say otherwise. Hell, I'd bet that the very own people who defend those players can't even honestly tell with their own eyes if those players are worth a damn.

Actually, I just said that to piss Ed off. What I'm seeing with Blake is exactly the opposite. There ARE "advanced stats" that show him to be valuable. Notably +/-, and Synergy Sport's defensive ratings. But people (like you) who watch him and focus on his obvious offensive limitations refuse to believe that he COULD be valuable, so they discount those stats and focus on his PER as if that were the be-all and end-all.

I also believe that there are many contributions that a member of a group can make to the group's success that are almost impossible to quantify using any kind of statistic other than a measure of the group's success. And certainly not some incredibly crude measure like PER.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

This is funny coming from the guy who proclaimed Patty Mills a better prospect than Bayless, while completely ignoring how Mills played in college.

Show me where I said that.

 

[B-Roy]

Show me where I said that.

Sorry, it wasn't that he was a better prospect, but more of a PG, despite putting up the same assist and turnover numbers in college against weaker competition.

Here's one post I could find where you claim he will be ahead of Bayless:

I fully expect:
(a) that we will pick up an extra PG by the end of training camp.
(b) whoever that extra PG is, he will be ahead of Bayless in the rotation
(c) as will Patty Mills (unless he's elsewhere/injured into the season)
(d) assuming that Bayless isn't traded
(e) probably for not much.

 

[Denny Crane]

I was looking up more stats and found that one of the only other PGs who has performed unconventionally poorly is Hinrich. Dude's sporting a 6.7 PER and is playing 28mpg, while shooting 33% from the field! That's just ridiculously bad. Although his D might compensate for his offensive woes, I'm certain Bulls' fans aren't happy.

Paying his salary (about the same as Gordon's) and watching him play instead of Gordon is downright awful.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Sorry, it wasn't that he was a better prospect, but more of a PG, despite putting up the same assist and turnover numbers in college against weaker competition.

That's fair enough. Mills actually is a shoot-first PG (like Aaron Brooks). Bayless is a short SG. I wouldn't want either as our starter. But hey, at least Mills has had a good game against the "Redeem Team".

Here's one post I could find where you claim he will be ahead of Bayless:

In the PG rotation. Because, you know, he actually played PG for most of his college career. And there's a reason he got worse assist/turnover numbers: he's the #1 scoring option BY FAR on his team. If Mills had been on Arizona, he would've passed more, I bet.

But, it's speculation on my part. I didn't want either of Bayless OR Mills precisely because I want my PGs to be PGs. But Mills at least was a low second-rounder, so not exactly a big cost. I'm sure I'll become disillusioned with him after I've seen him play...

I wish we could've got Beaubois or Collison. Or Westbrook - who is also a tweener, but at least plays ferocious defense.

I also wish that Blake could go down with a minor injury for a few games so we can at least see what happens when Bayless gets minutes. My guess is, it wouldn't be pretty. But at least it would be interesting, and, while I defend the coaching staff's right to play Blake, I can't say I tune in just so I can watch Steve Blake in action.

 

[Boob-No-More]

False. Blake creates lots of easy baskets for his teammates. If you think not, you're not watching the games.

Bullshit. I've watched nearly every game the Blazers have played this year, either live or on TV, and Steve Blake absolutely does NOT create a lot of easy baskets for his teammates. He stands around at the 3-point line and misses wide open looks. How exactly is that creating easy baskets for his teammates? Offensive rebounds? Maybe when Oden was playing, but now that he's not, we can't rely on someone else converting Blake's missed shots into scoring opportunities.

Our starting PG, who averages > 30 MPG has an AST% of 21.0. Our staring SG has a higher AST% (25.4) and Andre Miller who many bitch about looking for his own shot too much has a AST% of 28.6 (meaning he's 36% more likely to get an assist than Blake). Even Jerryd "Not a True PG" has an AST% nearly as high as Blake's. And Bayless actually puts pressure on the defense with his ability to score and get to the FT line. With Blake in the game, opposing defenses know he's not a threat to score. So, they can sag off, play the passing lanes and double team Roy and/or Aldridge. Our offense sucks because our starting PG sucks. If you can't see that, I'm afraid nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

I have no idea what games you've been watching, but one of the HUGE problems with this team right now is the lack of easy baskets. Blake, in spite of playing > 30 MPG has 3 or fewer assists in 13 of our 25 games. So, where are all these easy baskets he's creating? Is one assist every 10 minutes your idea of good production from your starting PG?

Andre Miller, on the other hand, in spite of playing fewer minutes than Blake has six games of 7 or more assists (compared to Blake's three) and three double digit assist games (compared to one for Blake). Yes, Miller shoots more (which given out lack of scoring, is a good thing), but he also does a better job than Blake of setting up his teammates for easy scoring opportunities.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

It was an off game for him.

It's been an off season for him. He's had three or fewer assists in over half our games. Unacceptable for a starting PG.

BNM

 

[Denny Crane]

It's been an off season for him. He's had three or fewer assists in over half our games. Unacceptable for a starting PG.

BNM

Derek Fisher is averaging 3.1 APG, 3 assists in over half the Lakers' games.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Derek Fisher is averaging 3.1 APG, 3 assists in over half the Lakers' games.

In other words: Blake might work in the triangle offense (if he started hitting his shots again) - but the Blazers don't run the triangle, and won't be adopting it anytime soon.

 

[Denny Crane]

In other words: Blake might work in the triangle offense (if he started hitting his shots again) - but the Blazers don't run the triangle, and won't be adopting it anytime soon.

I was thinking more like, "if you play PG next to Kobe or Roy, you're not exactly a PG."