Steve Blake!

[magnifier661]

Which means the team stats are unreliable, and therefore meaningless, in assessing an individual player. It's a shame you're struggling to wrap your mind around that, but the people who design these stats are pretty clear that it can take a season's worth, or multiple season's worth, of data for team-based measures to be at all accurate about an individual. Applying stats that take season(s) worth of data to be useful to a single series is obviously silly. It means that all you're seeing is noise, not signal.

PER, a stat that is not team-based (to any significant degree), generates signal much quicker and shows Miller has been far, far better than Blake. It's still a small sample, so maybe not completely accurate, but the difference between the two is so massive that it's unlikely that they've actually been equal or that Blake has been better.

Dude anyone that thinks Blake is better than Miller needs to check his fucking head. 99.9% of the fans, analysts and coachs would laugh at the mention of Blake being a better player than Miller. It's ludicris!

 

[PapaG]

Dude anyone that thinks Blake is better than Miller needs to check his fucking head. 99.9% of the fans, analysts and coachs would laugh at the mention of Blake being a better player than Miller. It's ludicris!

I'm not saying he is better than Miller. I am saying that he has been better for the team than Miller, at least in terms of the playoffs.

If you can't argue the stats, then attack the poster. That seems to be where you're at right now.

 

[The Professional Fan]

Are you fucking an idiot?!?!?!

Please leave wives and girlfriends out of it. Thx.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm not saying he is better than Miller. I am saying that he has been better for the team than Miller, at least in terms of the playoffs.

If you can't argue the stats, then attack the poster. That seems to be where you're at right now.

LMAO! This coming from the poster that does nothing but attack posters in this forum. Tell ya what sparky. How about you take some of your own advice. Or not, cause I like to have a laugh every now and then. I love it when someone whines about the one thing they do the most. It's like watching the Laker fans whine about the officiating. IRONY!

 

[PapaG]

Which means the team stats are completely unreliable, and therefore meaningless, in assessing an individual player. It's a shame you're struggling to wrap your mind around that, but the people who design these stats are pretty clear that it can take a season's worth, or multiple season's worth, of data for team-based measures to be at all accurate about an individual. Applying stats that take season(s) worth of data to be useful to a single series is obviously silly. It means that all you're seeing is noise, not signal.

PER, a stat that is not team-based (to any significant degree), generates signal much quicker and shows Miller has been far, far better than Blake. It's still a small sample, so maybe not completely accurate, but the difference between the two is so massive that it's unlikely that they've actually been equal or that Blake has been better.

Correct. BLANKY and Miller had the exact same PER when comparing first playoff series with the Blazers as starting PG, yet BLANKY put up that PER on half the usage. So, at best, that's a wash for Miller in a head-to-head. When you throw in the huge disparity in team stats from the series while the starting PG was on the court, BLANKY wins the comparison.

Ergo, BLANKY was Miller's equal, at the very worst, in 2008-09 playoffs versus the 2009-10 playoffs, and at best, the advanced stats prove that the team performed much, much better offensively (124 vs. 102 Ortg), and defensively (114 vs. 120 Drtg).

If someone is going to bash BLANKY for his playoff performance in 2008-09, then logic dictates that Miller in 2009-10 deserves the same treatment, if not worse. Plus, while Miller had a shiny PER, it didn't translate into better team perfomance stats in the Dallas series.

My conclusion?

Upgrade the PG position, because neither BLANKY nor Miller have proven they can get it done.

 

[Minstrel]

hen you throw in the huge disparity in team stats from the series while the starting PG was on the court, BLANKY wins the comparison.

Since we've established that team stats, which require season(s) worth of data to be accurate in assessing an individual, are useless in such small samples, we can safely throw them out based on logic.

So we have Miller and Blake similar in PER in their "first" playoff series (with a big edge to Miller because he accomplished his PER with Phoenix focusing their defense on him, while Houston was barely paying attention to Blake) and then a LOL-worthy gap between Miller and Blake in their "second" playoff series (19 to...6). That "6" is not a misprint. It's actually 5.9, but let's be nice.

Sounds like Miller has been crushingly better overall. Which backs up observation and what every basketball fan on Earth except you believes.

 

[PapaG]

Since we've established that team stats, which require season(s) worth of data to be accurate in assessing an individual, are useless in such small samples, we can safely throw them out based on logic.

So we have Miller and Blake similar in PER in their "first" playoff series (with a big edge to Miller because he accomplished his PER with Phoenix focusing their defense on him, while Houston was barely paying attention to Blake) and then a LOL-worthy gap between Miller and Blake in their "second" playoff series (19 to...6). That "6" is not a misprint. It's actually 5.9, but let's be nice.

Sounds like Miller has been crushingly better overall. Which backs up observation and what every basketball fan on Earth except you believes.

You've established it for yourself. I certainly don't subscribe to your hypothesis, and I've seen advanced playoff team stats used plenty of times over the years on this board and others to either support or denigrate whichever player is being discussed.

Also, PHX didn't focus on Miller for Game One. After they did focus on him, his PER and play suffered greatly, as did the team's. After a GmScr of 29.8 in the first game, he only reached double-digits twice (an 11.9 and a 12.4), and he only shot better than 37% once (50% on 6-12 shooting) during the last five games, and he had a negative GmScr in Game 6 at home, which closed out the series.

So, Miller wasn't an upgrade over BLANKY, and probably deserved just as much shame and derision as was heaped on BLANKY.

 

[Minstrel]

You've established it for yourself. I certainly don't subscribe to your hypothesis

It's not my hypothesis. It's what the people who design these stats, trained statisticians by and large, say about them.

and I've seen advanced playoff team stats used plenty of times over the years on this board and others to either support or denigrate whichever player is being discussed.

If they were used for individual series, or a few series, it was a poor use of stats then, too. You've never seen me do that, because I know that they take massive samples to say anything of use.

Also, PHX didn't focus on Miller for Game One.

And that was the game in which he was absolutely fantastic.

After they did focus on him, his PER and play suffered greatly, as did the team's.

Not a shock at all. Miller isn't a franchise superstar who can excel against a team defense focused on him, and no one has claimed he is. However, he's good enough to force an opposing defense to focus on stopping him, which Blake is not. The playoffs proved that. Unfortunately, Roy was injured and unable to make Phoenix pay for it and no one else stepped up.

So, Miller wasn't an upgrade over BLANKY, and probably deserved just as much shame and derision as was heaped on BLANKY.

I'm afraid all the facts you've quoted show Miller was a big upgrade on BLANKY. Miller, unlike Blake, was able to force opposing teams to focus their defense on him. Miller, unlike Blake, was able to be a major factor in two series, either by making the defense change how they play or by putting up excellent numbers. Blake has never been able to do either.

What Miller wasn't able to do was be a franchise superstar. But since he wasn't signed to be that, paid like that or expected to be that, that's fine.

 

[MickZagger]

Blanky was signed by the Lakers to be a solid bench player, play good defense and hit the catch and shoot 3. This series he hasn't brought a damn thing to their bench, Barea absolutely raped him and he's clanked all of his wide open 3 attempts.

I bet you they look to get his ass out of town this offseason ASAP.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Blanky was signed by the Lakers to be a solid bench player, play good defense and hit the catch and shoot 3. This series he hasn't brought a damn thing to their bench, Barea absolutely raped him and he's clanked all of his wide open 3 attempts.

I bet you they look to get his ass out of town this offseason ASAP.

Oden for Artest and Blanky?

 

[magnifier661]

Blanky was signed by the Lakers to be a solid bench player, play good defense and hit the catch and shoot 3. This series he hasn't brought a damn thing to their bench, Barea absolutely raped him and he's clanked all of his wide open 3 attempts.

I bet you they look to get his ass out of town this offseason ASAP.

Okay well here's something extremely funny I heard from the commentators last night. They were justifying Blake being on the court for his excellent defense. No lie!

 

[MickZagger]

Okay well here's something extremely funny I heard from the commentators last night. They were justifying Blake being on the court for his excellent defense. No lie!

I heard Kerr say that at the beginning. Then after awhile he was questioning why Jackson was leaving him in. Blake wasn't stopping Barea's penetration at all. It was funny a time that Barea ball faked Blake so bad that he was whining to the ref that Barea carried the ball.

 

[The Professional Fan]

Okay well here's something extremely funny I heard from the commentators last night. They were justifying Blake being on the court for his excellent defense. No lie!

I heard that. For his defensive "prowess" if I remember correctly. I giggled.

 

[Minstrel]

Blake has the image and look of a gritty, hard-nosed, lunch bucket player. And that is, in a sense, what he is...offensively. People just assume that also means he's a good, hard-working defender. He might be hard-working, but he's not good.

It's the same fallacy that people had with Derek Fisher.

 

[huevonkiller]

The "argument" that Blake is better than Miller because Blake is still playing and Miller isn't is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. By that "logic", Erick Dampier is better than Dwight Howard.

And, for any clueless morons who can't read, I did not just compare Andre Miller to Dwight Howard. What I compared is these two similar statements:

Steve Blake is still playing, and Andre Miller isn't, therefore Steve Blake must be better than Andre Miller.

and

Erick Dampier is still playing, and Dwight Howard isn't, therefore Erick Dampier must be better than Dwight Howard.

Both statements follow the same general construct:

Below average back-up is still playing, and above average starter isn't, therefore below average back-up must be better than above average starter.

And yes, Blake is a well, well, well below average back-up and Miller is an above average starter - both regular season and play-offs.

Regular season:
Blake: PER = 7.5, AST% = 15.0, TOV% = 18.6, ORtg = 101, DRtg = 108, WS = 1.8, WS/48 = 0.055
Miller: PER = 17.8, AST% = 35.7, TOV% = 16.8, ORtg = 111, DRtg = 108, WS = 7.0, WS/48 = 0.127

Playoffs:
Blake: PER = 5.9, AST% = 21.9, TOV% = 23.8, ORtg = 92, DRtg = 109, WS = 0.0, WS/48 = 0.018
Miller: PER = 19.0, AST% = 32.7, TOV% = 14.4, ORtg = 114, DRtg = 117, WS = 0.4, WS/48 = 0.107

So, the advanced stats show that Miller is a far, far surperior player than Blake, both regular season and playoffs. It should also be noted that Miller is a starter who logs big minutes, most against the opposing team's starters, while Blake is a back-up who should be able to pad his stats against other, weaker back-ups.

Miller is so vastly surperior to Blake at this point (and was as a Blazer last year, too), it baffles me how anyone can still, with a straight face, attempt to argue that Blake is better and we should have kept him over Miller. Anyone still attempting to make that agrument is either incredibly stupid, a blatant troll, or both (my vote is for both).

And, wasn't Miller, due to his advanced age, supposed to decline much faster than the younger Blake? Wrong, Miller performed at his career averages for the second straight year in Portland (the consistentcy of his advanced stats is absolutely amazing comparing his two seasons as a Blazer to his career averages), while Blake's production continues to plummet for the second straight season (and was far less than Miller's to start with).

BNM

I get the point, but you're forgetting the very important component of Usage. Without that, offensive rating and PER can not be put into a better context.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

great, Blake is going to have a career game now. thanks.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I get the point, but you're forgetting the very important component of Usage. Without that, offensive rating and PER can not be put into a better context.

Fine, add them in and Blake still sucks, err... is not as good as Andre Miller.

Blake's AST%, any way you slice it (career, current season, career playoffs, current playoffs) is way lower than Miller's, yet his TOV% is signicantly higher. He can't create for himself, and he can't create for others. He's a spot up shooter whose shot has abandoned him when his team needs him the most. I find it ironic that Andre Miller is a horrible 3-point sooter for his career, yet he shot the 3 better (0.400 vs. 0.308) in these playoffs than Blake.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Steve Blake is still playing, and Andre Miller isn't, therefore Steve Blake must be better than Andre Miller.


BNM

You spent a lot of time and did a lot of research to refute an argument that nobody in this thread made, including me. So, good job, I guess.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Fine, add them in and Blake still sucks, err... is not as good as Andre Miller.

Blake's AST%, any way you slice it (career, current season, career playoffs, current playoffs) is way lower than Miller's, yet his TOV% is signicantly higher. He can't create for himself, and he can't create for others. He's a spot up shooter whose shot has abandoned him when his team needs him the most. I find it ironic that Andre Miller is a horrible 3-point sooter for his career, yet he shot the 3 better (0.400 vs. 0.308) in these playoffs than Blake.

BNM

Andre Miller 3 point percentage in the the playoffs is higher than Steve Blake, therefore Miller must be a better 3 point shooter than Blake.

 

[DaRizzle]

great, Blake is going to have a career game now. thanks.

please

 

[DaRizzle]

I Blakes last 3 games where he has had about 48 min of playing time he has

ZERO POINTS
0/9...7 OF THOSE BEING FROM 3PT RANGE

 

[barfo]

I Blakes last 3 games where he has had about 48 min of playing time he has

ZERO POINTS
0/9...7 OF THOSE BEING FROM 3PT RANGE

There was a reason why we pawned him off on you.
But at least he's still got his youthful good looks.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

But at least he's still got his youthful good looks.

I don't think his passes were good looks even in his youth. I guess he had some okay looks for Roy on the wing once in a while.

 

[DaRizzle]

yeah, he's so hot with those red chickenpox scabs flaking off

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Mission accomplished, agent Blake. Target franchise in ruins. You may return to the fold now.

 

[PapaG]

Mission accomplished, agent Blake. Target franchise in ruins. You may return to the fold now.

Actually, shouldn't we as Blazers fans want Andre Miller to go to Dallas, Memphis, or OKC? He's the kiss of death in terms of winning in the playoffs.

Send BLANKY to Dallas, and Miller to OKC. That takes care of two rivals.

 

[Minstrel]

Actually, shouldn't we as Blazers fans want Andre Miller to go to Dallas, Memphis, or OKC? He's the kiss of death in terms of winning in the playoffs.

Yep. I'm not saying that Miller makes teams lose in the playoffs, I'm just sayin'.

 

[PapaG]

Yep. I'm not saying that Miller makes teams lose in the playoffs, I'm just sayin'.

Hey, if BLANKY makes teams lose, the same evidence says the Miller makes teams lose. Why do you hate the Blazers? Shouldn't you want both Dallas and OKC to have proven losers on their roster, even if they're just a back-up?

 

[Minstrel]

Hey, if BLANKY makes teams lose, the same evidence says the Miller makes teams lose.

BLANKY doesn't make teams lose. He makes himself play badly. If teams were so good, they wouldn't let BLANKY's bad play drag them down.

Miller, on the other hand, plays well. Again, though, the logic applies: if the teams were so good, they wouldn't let Miller's good play drag them down.

Why do you hate the Blazers?

Numerous reasons.

 

[julius]

Someone should make a sign next year, for the first Laker/Blazer game in Portland. On it it should read:

"Well Done Steve. You helped destroy the Lakers. All is forgiven"