The whole Steve Blake thing

[Nikolokolus]

What is this "defensive rating" of which you speak? Why should I believe that individual defense is easily or accurately quantifiable when multiple switches occur all the time and better defenders are called on to "help" off their man when worse defenders are beaten?

Defensive rating is a stat you can find on any player at basketball-reference.com, in short it measures a simple points per 100 possessions allowed for his counterpart for when that player is on the floor, thus it is highly suspect to collinearity and autocorrelation effects (basically Blake benefits from the fact that he's typically on the court when the team has it's best interior defenders on the court in Joel and Oden who rank near the top of the league in defensive rating).

With my eye I can see that Oden clogging the lane makes drivers more tentative and typically teams (minus the Hawks) have been more reliant on jump shots to score on us versus drives or post-ups, which means a lower shooting percentage and with Oden and Joel those teams usually don't get a lot of second chance points which depresses an opponents points per possession. The fact that Oden has been fouling guards at the rate he does also tells me that his having to cover for his guards and it's taking a toll (Joel's fouling a lot too and so is LMA).

This doesn't mean Blake is a terrible defender; mostly I think he does an above average job of rotating, reading and funneling players to certain spots, but he absolutely cannot cut off dribble penetration and stronger guards overpower him. There is a reason our three bigs (LMA, Oden, Przy) are league leaders in fouls.

Fuck it, I just hope Steve starts hitting some goddamn shots, because clearly Nate seems to have no intention of reducing his role or minutes.

 

[B-Roy]

This doesn't mean Blake is a terrible defender; mostly I think he does an above average job of rotating, reading and funneling players to certain spots, but he absolutely cannot cut off dribble penetration and stronger guards overpower him. There is a reason our three bigs (LMA, Oden, Przy) are league leaders in fouls.

That's pretty much spot on, except Blake actually does a bit better on bigger guards for some reason.

Too bad neither Miller nor Bayless are any better though...

 

[PapaG]

Blake is the one playing SG, not Miller.

Miller wasn't in Portland last year when Roy was 2nd team All-NBA at SG all year, was he?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Miller wasn't in Portland last year when Roy was 2nd team All-NBA at SG all year, was he?

Then blame KP for signing him.

 

[PapaG]

Then blame KP for signing him.

I'm not really blaming anyone, am I? I merely offered another explanation to counter why Roy is at SF right now; at least, that was my intention by mentioning Roy's success last year at SG.

 

[mikeg]

So far in this thread, Blake has been described as our "Derek Fisher" and our "Delonte West." I've also seen him described as our "Steve Kerr/John Paxson" in previous posts... Well, when Roy reaches the level of Kobe, LeBron, or Jordan, then maybe Blake can fill the role those players played on those teams. Fine. But Roy's not at that level. Not now, probably not ever. Thus, we need a better, more dynamic starting point guard. We have one on the roster, and we're not playing him. It's that simple.

I don't mind Blake as a reliable vet. He's awesome in that role. But our coach has to figure out a way to tailor his system to the new talent we have. If the whole thing, his entire scheme and philosophy on offense and defense, only works one way -- with only the same set of players we had last year -- and it's not going to be a championship caliber result, then something has to give.

Bottom line is, we should play our best players the most minutes. That means more Miller, more Rudy, and maybe a bit more Bayless here and there. But Blake shouldn't really get 35 minutes unless something unusual has happened. Heck, he didn't warrant that many minutes when he was on the freaking Wizards.

Love Steve Blake, just not 30+ minutes worth.

 

[magnifier661]

So far in this thread, Blake has been described as our "Derek Fisher" and our "Delonte West." I've also seen him described as our "Steve Kerr/John Paxson" in previous posts... Well, when Roy reaches the level of Kobe, LeBron, or Jordan, then maybe Blake can fill the role those players played on those teams. Fine. But Roy's not at that level. Not now, probably not ever. Thus, we need a better, more dynamic starting point guard. We have one on the roster, and we're not playing him. It's that simple.

I don't mind Blake as a reliable vet. He's awesome in that role. But our coach has to figure out a way to tailor his system to the new talent we have. If the whole thing, his entire scheme and philosophy on offense and defense, only works one way -- with only the same set of players we had last year -- and it's not going to be a championship caliber result, then something has to give.

Bottom line is, we should play our best players the most minutes. That means more Miller, more Rudy, and maybe a bit more Bayless here and there. But Blake shouldn't really get 35 minutes unless something unusual has happened. Heck, he didn't warrant that many minutes when he was on the freaking Wizards.

Love Steve Blake, just not 30+ minutes worth.

I don't believe it one bit. Roy is definitely able to get to that type of level, with the exception of Jordan because his talent alone far exceeds others. He works hard in the off season, never satisfied with the game he has. And remember he's still young. Jordan didn't even win his first ring until he was in his late 20's.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

Webster is being asked to be a scorer off the bench. Not gonna happen. With him starting with the big three and Miller, he doesn't have to score a single point. If Blake comes off the bench, he becomes the #2 option, behind Fernandez. Would have been 4th if Outlaw wasn't injured, hell maybe 4th if Bayless gets burn. Offensively, this makes more sense.

If Martell Webster "doesn't have to score a point" then we need to place him on waivers!


If he can ONLY SCORE if he starts; then he is a spoiled baby!


If Webster remains with this team (which I'm going to predict he's traded sooner, than later), he "could" potentially be a "6th man of the year" type! Only if he adjusted his attitude and accepted this as a key and important role.

Having Webster start, for starting-sake - doesn't make great sense to me.


Back to Blake. I dont' hate on Blake at all. I think he could be one of the premier back-up points in the league........I said "back-up" PG's. He's no different than Outlaw, really. Both have good skills, and both have limitations. All good teams need good depth. Blake and Outlaw (pre-injury) provide good depth.

Wait until Mills developes! This kid looks like a Tony Park-style player....and I think this is why KP signed him.


My question is: "What's this whole Bayless thing?"

 

[magnifier661]

If Martell Webster "doesn't have to score a point" then we need to place him on waivers!


If he can ONLY SCORE if he starts; then he is a spoiled baby!


If Webster remains with this team (which I'm going to predict he's traded sooner, than later), he "could" potentially be a "6th man of the year" type! Only if he adjusted his attitude and accepted this as a key and important role.

Having Webster start, for starting-sake - doesn't make great sense to me.


Back to Blake. I dont' hate on Blake at all. I think he could be one of the premier back-up points in the league........I said "back-up" PG's. He's no different than Outlaw, really. Both have good skills, and both have limitations. All good teams need good depth. Blake and Outlaw (pre-injury) provide good depth.

Wait until Mills developes! This kid looks like a Tony Park-style player....and I think this is why KP signed him.


My question is: "What's this whole Bayless thing?"

Webster gets no pass, but all I'm saying is he's about the "truest" healthy SF we have on our team right now. Instead of playing Blake and Roy out of position, just start Webster and have Blake be a scorer off the bench.

Hey if a deal comes up that uses pieces like Blake, Webster and Outlaw for some SF stud, I would be all for it. The sooner we solidify our starters and have a tighter 8-9 man rotation, the better.

 

[RoyToy]

Miller wasn't in Portland last year when Roy was 2nd team All-NBA at SG all year, was he?

Steve Blake wasn't playing SG last year either. This year he is, and it's forcing Roy to play a different position.

Blake needs to go to the bench. It's that simple.

 

[hasoos]

Lets get this straight. A lot of folks here don't hate steve blake. They hate the fact that he is playing ahead of players who are better than him. This is the NBA. Not the league of "be nice to guys because they play hard." The facts are that some players will just never ball as good as others because they are not as naturally gifted. Steve is one of those guys.

 

[magnifier661]

Lets get this straight. A lot of folks here don't hate steve blake. They hate the fact that he is playing ahead of players who are better than him. This is the NBA. Not the league of "be nice to guys because they play hard." The facts are that some players will just never ball as good as others because they are not as naturally gifted. Steve is one of those guys.

^^^This. I couldn't have said it any better. rep given.

 

[Natebishop3]

Lets get this straight. A lot of folks here don't hate steve blake. They hate the fact that he is playing ahead of players who are better than him. This is the NBA. Not the league of "be nice to guys because they play hard." The facts are that some players will just never ball as good as others because they are not as naturally gifted. Steve is one of those guys.

I would love for someone to say that to Nate's face. I wonder what he reaction would be?

 

[magnifier661]

I would love for someone to say that to Nate's face. I wonder what he reaction would be?

I don't know if many in here listened to "Quick Chat" before the Roy and Aldridge era, but I remembered Quick saying that Nate is a very defensive guy. I think he asked something very similar and he said he thought Nate was going to punch him in the face.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't know if many in here listened to "Quick Chat" before the Roy and Aldridge era, but I remembered Quick saying that Nate is a very defensive guy. I think he asked something very similar and he said he thought Nate was going to punch him in the face.

I only spent half a season covering the team when Nate was there. He was a very different interview than Mo Cheeks. I definitely got the feeling that certain things were off limits, and he would shut you down if you asked something that pissed him off. Cheeks would talk about anything.