Steve Blake's defense

[Wizenheimer]

Your point about PER fails hard by the way, using PER to show Michael Jordan is the GOAT would be an amazing success, he has the highest PER of all time.

I didn't even bother to check his assertion about PER and MJ because it was fairly irrelevant to the points I was making. But MJ's career 27.9 PER is fairly impressive

[tisbee]

The major problem w/PER is the high value Hollinger awards to offensive rebounds.(Two yrs ago Carl Landry had the 7nth highest PER in the League.)
In Blakes case,I would tend to assume that Pryz and Oden's very high rebound rate kept opposing PGs from getting offensive rebounds,thus deflating Blake's opposing PG PER.
I have a hard time believing Nash is a better defender than Billups,as the PER suggests!

[Agenda42]

For some Blazer fans, the other PG's must be better at defense and the reason for that is that they aren't named Steve Blake. Grass is greener...only it really isn't by that much.

I think that Blazer fans think other teams have great defensive PG's because the Blazers haven't had a good offensive PG in some time.

[SalemStoner]

I think the first thing that needs to be noted is that PG defense nowadays is less about actually being able to staying in front of your man as it is being able to force him towards help and having the anticipation and reach to cause issues in the passing lanes. There's two reasons for this, the first being that since handchecking has been disallowed on the perimeter it's impossible to effectively body a guy to slow him down, and given the incredible quickness of PGs in today's NBA with the rules as such simply staying in front of him isn't an option that's going to be effective often enough - regardless of how quick you are. Thus defense is more about forcing them to go the directions they don't wanna go by limiting their options with your body and trying to get help where you can. This is why CP3 is the best PG in the NBA, why Ricky Rubio is considered an elite PG prospect, why Rudy Fernandez is a better defender than people give him credit for and why PG man defense is done best with long, smarter players nowadays than the short quick players... Why? Because in order to effectively slow down a PG nowdays you need to have some variation of a zone or help defense to try to prevent their penetration. Blake is good at forcing people towards help, or away from where they're trying to go normally... he can't stay in front of his man for ****, he's not particularly good at playing the passing lanes or anticipating where the next pass is going(like Rudy/Rubio both are) but he's marginally effective because he plays decent team defense. He's definately not a good defender, and he's probably better guarding SGs than PGs due the speed issue but he tries which more than I can say for some.

[HiHaters]

Where are the stats showing you're smarter?....

Haha, all disagreements aside.... that was pretty witty Wiz =) Made me chuckle.

I'm sorry if you took it as I have basketball IQ and you don't. I bet you (Wiz) and good percentage of posters here have decent basketball IQ. I just think you could use the game play in argument rather than stats.

For example... if you took the stats from last nights game against Jazz... you would assume Travis played about as well as Martell or Cunningham. If you watched the game, you'd know that Martell and Cunningham easily outplayed Outlaw. Martell had a few nice drives to the basket where the ball barely rolled off the rim... Travis, well took more jumpshots. Martell chased down a Jazz player on a breakaway and blocked the shot... Outlaw was even with Kirelenko and let him go for an uncontested breakaway jam because he is too lazy. Martell had 2 other blocked shots that weren't counted in stats because of whistled blowing for phantom fouls. Cunningham showed he could defend the 3, and bang with Millsap on the block. Outlaw showed he could get outquicked by the 3's and manhandled on the block by the 4's.

All I am saying is this.... do you think scouts make majority of their decisions on players based off of stats or from what they see from that player in person? Now hit me with some stats! =p

[HiHaters]

oh and sorry I did bring up PER in the Jordan thing. Truth is I couldn't remember the exact stats that I was looking at that really surprised me about the order.

I just quickly looked up one of them, and it seems to prove me point quite well

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

another, http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

[d-train]

As of others have said the Blazers are hardly a "great defensive team." They play at a slow pace and are coached by a guy who was a great defensive player, but overall team defense needs to improve. Blake will give effort on the defensive end. He is surprising adept at manning up against bigger guards... there was a game during his first stint with the Blazers where he famously did a nice job against Kobe. Unfortunately Steve is not quick and get torched by speedier point guards, and has a difficult time with pick and role defense causing a lot of switches and Oden and Aldridge to end up on the perimeter against guards where they pick up fouls.

the switches have a lot more to do with coaching philosophy then with personnel. It doesn't matter who is on the floor, the Blazers switch most of the time. It's a passive defense, and it's not Blake's doing it is like that

The Blazers defend the pick and roll poorly because the players execute their defensive reads and assignments poorly. LMA and Oden don't recognize and react to the pick and roll early enough. This is what results in switches. Przybilla also doesn't defend the pick and roll well but you can't blame him for not having enough quickness and mobility. And, you can't let our guards off the hook for not aggressively fighting through picks. The differences in coaching philosophy on defending the pick and roll are minor. For the most part all the teams and coaches agree how is the best way to defend the pick and roll. The great differences are the strengths and weaknesses of the players executing the play. There are player combinations such as Nowitzki/Nash, Malone/Stockton, and Kobe/Gasol that are virtually indefensible because the players are abundantly skilled and smart. No defensive strategy works against highly skilled players and a perfectly executed pick and roll.

[trk]

For example... if you took the stats from last nights game against Jazz... you would assume Travis played about as well as Martell or Cunningham.

I disagree with that. Cunningham had a much, much better statistical game than either Travis or Martell. He has the most points, most rebounds, and most assists despite playing the least amount of time and taking the fewest shots (and unlike Outlaw and Webster, Cunningham had no TOs).

That said, you are certainly right that there are some things that can't really be measured by stats. I think evaluating players should be done by combining stats with actually watching the player to see the intangibles that the stats don't show.

oh and sorry I did bring up PER in the Jordan thing. Truth is I couldn't remember the exact stats that I was looking at that really surprised me about the order.

I just quickly looked up one of them, and it seems to prove me point quite well

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

That shouldn't be too surprising. TS% is only based on efficiency, without taking into account how many shots a player actually takes. So it is possible to a role-player who doesn't shoot unless they are wide open to have higher TS% than a star scorer.

[Wizenheimer]

oh and sorry I did bring up PER in the Jordan thing. Truth is I couldn't remember the exact stats that I was looking at that really surprised me about the order.

I just quickly looked up one of them, and it seems to prove me point quite well

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

another, http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html

but what is the 'point' you claim to be proving???

you're taking pot-shots at Fitz and I using statistics to buttress cases we make, but TS% and eFG% don't have a lot to do with judging Blake's defense.

And when I post those 2 statistical categories in a player comparisons, I almost always also include FG%, 3pt%, FT%, Percentage of shots made by the players that are assisted, and Percentage of jumpshots versus close shots. Even points per shots. And that's just for the component of shooting production and efficiency. I will also look at scoring, PPG and Pper35, rebounds, assists, turnovers, steals etc. And also reb%, assist%.

I try to use a more complete statistical picture and they are often simply an adjunct to what I observe about the players.

I'm well aware that stats can sometimes be skewed by variables or simply misleading. But it's less likely to be the case with a broad range of metrics.

I'm sorry if you took it as I have basketball IQ and you don't. I bet you (Wiz) and good percentage of posters here have decent basketball IQ. I just think you could use the game play in argument rather than stats.

For example... if you took the stats from last nights game against Jazz... you would assume Travis played about as well as Martell or Cunningham. If you watched the game, you'd know that Martell and Cunningham easily outplayed Outlaw. Martell had a few nice drives to the basket where the ball barely rolled off the rim... Travis, well took more jumpshots. Martell chased down a Jazz player on a breakaway and blocked the shot... Outlaw was even with Kirelenko and let him go for an uncontested breakaway jam because he is too lazy. Martell had 2 other blocked shots that weren't counted in stats because of whistled blowing for phantom fouls. Cunningham showed he could defend the 3, and bang with Millsap on the block. Outlaw showed he could get outquicked by the 3's and manhandled on the block by the 4's.

there's a difference between a single game a 75-82 games. Webster scored 24 points in a quarter, and I'm guessing that in 4 years, he hasn't scored that many points is a game more then a half dozen times. If you judged Martell by that one game, he's an allstar.

I don't make any statistical judgments off a single game. As a matter of fact, I've railed against people using +/- stats from a single game.

All I am saying is this.... do you think scouts make majority of their decisions on players based off of stats or from what they see from that player in person? Now hit me with some stats! =p

guess what...scouts are paid to watch games and draw judgments from observation. They also compile a ton of stats.

KP watches players extensively. However, he also oversees the compilation of a massive statistical database on hundreds of players. IIRC, he's talked about tracking hundreds of metrics on every player. I've also heard him talk about the statistical algorithms the Blazers use (I'll bet if I hit you with a couple of algorithms, you'd become homicidal) As a matter of fact, the Blazers are very proprietary about their statistical methodology. They keep it secret. Just like Morey, the GM of Houston does.

Both observation and statistical analysis are important. They complement each other in my view, and keep a check of personal bias.

[HiHaters]

I'm well aware that stats can sometimes be skewed by variables or simply misleading. But it's less likely to be the case with a broad range of metrics.

agreed. But I think you agree you HAVE to watch the games to get the full picture of how a particular player is playing. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I feel like I see a lot of people posting up stats when they haven't even seen the team play (not everyone here has gotten to see all the home games like others have) and using them as the basis of their argument.


You can get the full picture from watching games, you can't get the full picture from looking at stats. No matter how in depth the stats.

[Wizenheimer]

I'm well aware that stats can sometimes be skewed by variables or simply misleading. But it's less likely to be the case with a broad range of metrics.

agreed. But I think you agree you HAVE to watch the games to get the full picture of how a particular player is playing. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I feel like I see a lot of people posting up stats when they haven't even seen the team play (not everyone here has gotten to see all the home games like others have) and using them as the basis of their argument.


You can get the full picture from watching games, you can't get the full picture from looking at stats. No matter how in depth the stats.

(by the way, I edited my previous post)

in the last 2 seasons, I've seen probably 160 of the Blazers 170 games. I've occasionally had league pass and have caught a lot of the TNT games, so I've seen a lot of the other teams as well. I base my opinions on watching the games and viewing the stats

I don't know why you keep harping on "you have to see the games". The stats are going to be the stats if I watch the games or don't.

My opinion on Blake's defense was based on both. Just because it differs from you doesn't mean I've watched fewer games, or when watching I was drooling and unfocused. I save that act for my wife.

[HiHaters]

Both observation and statistical analysis are important. They complement each other in my view, and keep a check of personal bias.

Well because of the fact that I know I am guilty of personal bias (like I bet you'd never know that I love Webster and Batum and dislike Outlaw!) this quoted statement actually made me stop and think about everything you had said. I suppose you are right, that to get the most well rounded view stats can help.

Also I don't believe I said you didn't watch games... I think you are taking my dis-like of stats and people who use PURELY stats to compile an opinion as a shot towards you. You just happen to post stats, and I have been pretty stat-nazi-ish....

So I'm proud of you for watching so many games! But really that doesn't mean that I have to like your observation/evaluation of players performance/ability.