Steve Blake Discussion: Out Indefinitely (p. 102)

TIME wrote:Blake is going to benefit tremendously from watching Nash every night. I think that he will absorb a measure of Nashtiness by observational osmosis.

That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.

Fixed.

borri wrote:

nthydro wrote:

borri wrote:

Psychobroker wrote:

LooN3y wrote: he needs the balls in his hands to be effective.

Sometimes i need my balls in my hands to be "effective" too.

I hope it's your own...

Of course....the part about "my balls". Reading comprehension, a lost art. LOL.

That's why I said "hope"

Sometimes people get possessive with other people's properties.

puffyusaf#2 wrote:

gcclaker wrote:^I prefer Chucky Atkins...

hell lets roll with Jordan Farmar he would shoot as much as he could.

Actually, players like Farmar and young Chucky would probably fit better with this Laker team. IMO, of course. This way you'd have 3 trigger happy players on the bench.

I have always been a Blake supporter actually. He does play alright D (at least as much as you can -- or are allowed to -- play D against speedy PGs) and he also takes care of the ball. Other then that.... he doesn't do much at all, good or bad. He usually won't win or lose the game for you (save for hitting or missing that rare clutch 3-pt shot) and won't do anything stupid either.

But yeah... someone like Farmar would bring less D, but more shooting and penetration, and when you have players like Metta/Kobe/Meeks/Howard or even Pau behind you, you can afford to play sub-par defense most of the time. But you will have to make up for it by not being afraid to chuck the ball. Farmar and Atkins did not have a problem with that.

I know Chucky was ... yeah. But Chucky was at least a 45%/39% player for his career, and when he was younger (and not playing hurt) he was a pretty decent scorer.

therealdeal wrote:

khmrP wrote:

therealdeal wrote:

khmrP wrote:his 3fg % has gone from 37% to 33% and his overall fg% is sub 35% over his 2yr stint here....this "good shooter" stuff is all rep. As far as making the safe play and playing his role, thats fine but is it asking to much to expect a "lil bit" more? As D is concern I dont see it, he still gets lite by most PG, even Fisher got off shots with ease against him, the SG defense I ignore cause thats not his fault potato head thinks he can defend that position for god knows why.

His overall field goal percentage as a Laker is exactly 37% (211/574).

This "good shooter" stuff is in fact not all rep. He's been a good shooter as a Laker. His 3 point percentage as a Laker has been exactly 36% (126/351). That's not great, but it is good. We've all been excited about acquiring Meeks and he shot 37% from deep last season. Jamison shot 34% from deep last season (and has done so throughout his career) and we're excited about his spacing.

Like I posted on the previous page in spot up opportunities Blake has shot 36% or so from deep. That's not bad and that'll get the job done.

well I guess the standard of being known as "shooter" is pretty low these days than.

Oh come on now. Is that the best response you have, man? I provided some good evidence and you just give me a sarcastic response... No bueno, my friend.

I don't know what you are expecting really from a "shooter". If you're expecting over 40%, there were only 22 players in the entire league that shot that well from deep in 2012. And many of them shot muh less than Blake did. In fact of the top 15 guys, 9 of them shot under 100 threes (In fact 7 of them shot 60 or less). Would it be great if he shot better? Yes, of course. But he's a bench guy here for a reason. I don't know that anyone can realistically expect more from the guy.

I just realized Duhon was one of them, and he shot over 100.

That's more a testament to what I said than anything else.

Steve's averages as a Laker:
FG%- 37% (211/574)
3PT%- 36% (126/351)
FT%- 82% (47/57)
Mins- 21:35
Pts- 4.53
Rbds- 1.83 (1.61 Def./0.21 Off.)
Asts- 2.61
Tos- 1.10
Stls- 0.6
Blks- 0.04
Fouls- 1.32

But what I think is more important is that in 53 games, he had more assists than he did in 2011 when he played 79 games. He also nearly matched his steals total in the shortened season (40 in 2011, 39 in 2012). He took more shots in his second season here than his first, so while he does pass up a lot of open shots, I think we'll see him be a little more aggressive here in a clearly defined role.

I'm not high on him by any means. If we could replace him with Barbosa I'd be ecstatic as I think he's likely to be our weak link on this team (maybe a step above Ebanks). But if he can average 5/4/1 with maybe half a steal or so and less than 2 turnovers, I think he'll be enough. We don't need the world from our bench, we just need them to be able to hold a lead for a bit and allow our starters to get enough rest to come back in and smash up the league.

We were missing scorers from the bench, this is why Blake seemed horrible. But we have Jamison, Meeks who are scorers. Blake is not as bad as people make him out to be. He played well in the playoffs and shot the three ball pretty well. Yeah sometimes yr turns down shots, but it's better than trying to be another Kobe when you're not (Shannon)

davriver290 wrote:We were missing scorers from the bench, this is why Blake seemed horrible. But we have Jamison, Meeks who are scorers. Blake is not as bad as people make him out to be. He played well in the playoffs and shot the three ball pretty well. Yeah sometimes yr turns down shots, but it's better than trying to be another Kobe when you're not (Shannon)

This. being able to just play PG and shoot the open 3 will be huge for Blake. being forced into a scoring option role for our bench as a SG was terrible for him bc thats not him. hes a good 3 point shooter and i think with meeks and jaminson surrounding him...maybe even ebanks; blake will be a decent backup PG for us. ill give him 1 last season before i really throw him out. everything is in blake's favor to have a good season; so hopefully he'll have one.

I think the first season he struggled horribly. But this season he seemed so much better. Sure he had some moments that just drove us crazy, but so did a whole host of other players as well. Steve Blake is not a scorer, he is not a penetrating PG. We brought him here for two reasons. Defense (which he does fairly well against PG's) and hit open threes. He accomplished this in the playoffs. Its not his fault Mike Brown placed him in SG roles. Thats just not him. Sure he gets payed a pretty penny, but he does exactly what he was brought in for. And he does it well.

Ariza3 wrote:

davriver290 wrote:We were missing scorers from the bench, this is why Blake seemed horrible. But we have Jamison, Meeks who are scorers. Blake is not as bad as people make him out to be. He played well in the playoffs and shot the three ball pretty well. Yeah sometimes yr turns down shots, but it's better than trying to be another Kobe when you're not (Shannon)

This. being able to just play PG and shoot the open 3 will be huge for Blake. being forced into a scoring option role for our bench as a SG was terrible for him bc thats not him. hes a good 3 point shooter and i think with meeks and jaminson surrounding him...maybe even ebanks; blake will be a decent backup PG for us. ill give him 1 last season before i really throw him out. everything is in blake's favor to have a good season; so hopefully he'll have one.

Agreed, hopefully Brown won't see the need to put him at SG, he can be a natural PG for the bench and do his job.

And he's a bad mo fo back down to no one kung foo fightin' s.o.b. Ask Dwight....he didn't scare him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwdQOEzuVYQ

^ 8 mile

LTLakerFan wrote:And he's a bad mo fo back down to no one kung foo fightin' s.o.b. Ask Dwight....he didn't scare him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwdQOEzuVYQ

wow, i forgot how terrible the portland commentators are.

^ They're the one that stands out as absolutely something I cannot stand listening to.

davriver290 wrote:I think the first season he struggled horribly. But this season he seemed so much better. Sure he had some moments that just drove us crazy, but so did a whole host of other players as well. Steve Blake is not a scorer, he is not a penetrating PG. We brought him here for two reasons. Defense (which he does fairly well against PG's) and hit open threes. He accomplished this in the playoffs. Its not his fault Mike Brown placed him in SG roles. Thats just not him. Sure he gets payed a pretty penny, but he does exactly what he was brought in for. And he does it well.

not a creator either, so basically nothing like a PG. Your description sounds more like a stand still shooting guard. His 3 ball was good in the playoff but it would take 3-4 games stretches, like his gm 1 against Den that didn't reappear until gm 7. Declining #'s hardly consitude doing anything well, fg% is horrible for someone who gets open looks constantly, for a guy who had shot 40% from 3's countless times, I'd expct sometime close to that with all the attention taken away from him, there were times where it seemed teams actually dared him to shoot and he hardly ever made them pay.

40% from deep in 4 of his 9 seasons... countless?

therealdeal wrote:40% from deep in 4 of his 9 seasons... countless?

yep, there almost half of his season played, unfortunately he forgot how to shoot once he got here. There's not that many player who can shoot 40% that often in their career. You cant' honestly tell me he's not getting better looks then his Por days when he was able to shoot 40%?

khmrP wrote:

therealdeal wrote:40% from deep in 4 of his 9 seasons... countless?

yep, there almost half of his season played, unfortunately he forgot how to shoot once he got here. There's not that many player who can shoot 40% that often in their career. You cant' honestly tell me he's not getting better looks then his Por days when he was able to shoot 40%?

I'm not excusing his poor shooting during the season by any stretch, but to say he has shot 40% countless times is giving him too much credit and expecting too much. Not many players can maintain shooting 40% from deep that long. Again, not an excuse, just an observation.

I think he probably has had equal or better looks than he did in Portland, but he's not shooting them. He's taking tougher shots and not making as many instead of just shooting the shots that are available to him. Having a defined role as the backup PG in a system that is less difficult to understand than the Triangle should help. His first season he was handcuffed by the Triangle. His second season here he was asked to be the backup 1 and the backup 2. I'm expecting better things from him this season.

He's a serviceable backup 1 when that's his role.

davriver290 wrote:I think the first season he struggled horribly. But this season he seemed so much better. Sure he had some moments that just drove us crazy, but so did a whole host of other players as well. Steve Blake is not a scorer, he is not a penetrating PG. We brought him here for two reasons. Defense (which he does fairly well against PG's) and hit open threes. He accomplished this in the playoffs. Its not his fault Mike Brown placed him in SG roles. Thats just not him. Sure he gets payed a pretty penny, but he does exactly what he was brought in for. And he does it well.

You're a overrating Steve Blake. He has failed miserably thus far as a Laker. He was brought in to play the point, and he's a horrendous value at 4 million a year. His advanced stats indicate that he's a super scrub. his PER as a Laker has been pretty much bottom of the barrel(7.5 first year, and a whopping 8.5 last season). Keep in mind the league average PER usually hovers around 15. His offensive efficiency has been very mediocre as Laker as well, as his TS% the past two season has been .500% and .493%(which is not good, at all) which probably has a lot to do with his knack for NOT getting to the rim, and his hot garbage raw FG%. His 3 point% has been respectable as a Laker, but he hasn't, by any means, been the knock down shooter we've needed.

Since we can only amnesty players that were signed before the current CBA, Steve Blake should've got the boot this summer.

Frank Dux wrote:

davriver290 wrote:I think the first season he struggled horribly. But this season he seemed so much better. Sure he had some moments that just drove us crazy, but so did a whole host of other players as well. Steve Blake is not a scorer, he is not a penetrating PG. We brought him here for two reasons. Defense (which he does fairly well against PG's) and hit open threes. He accomplished this in the playoffs. Its not his fault Mike Brown placed him in SG roles. Thats just not him. Sure he gets payed a pretty penny, but he does exactly what he was brought in for. And he does it well.

You're a overrating Steve Blake. He has failed miserably thus far as a Laker. He was brought in to play the point, and he's a horrendous value at 4 million a year. His advanced stats indicate that he's a super scrub. his PER as a Laker has been pretty much bottom of the barrel(7.5 first year, and a whopping 8.5 last season). Keep in mind the league average PER usually hovers around 15. His offensive efficiency has been very mediocre as Laker as well, as his TS% the past two season has been .500% and .493%(which is not good, at all) which probably has a lot to do with his knack for NOT getting to the rim, and his hot garbage raw FG%. His 3 point% has been respectable as a Laker, but he hasn't, by any means, been the knock down shooter we've needed.

Since we can only amnesty players that were signed before the current CBA, Steve Blake should've got the boot this summer.

That can be attributed to the fact our second unit had no creators. In Portland, he had other guys who could create allowing him to do what he does. First season here I felt it was just becoming accustomed to us. Then his 2nd year came and was tasked with more. We literally had the wrost bench, no creators, nothing. He struggled.... immensely. Im sure all our bench players ranked pretty low on whatever scale there may be. He did most of the dribbling and when he did get guys open, they clanked shots. So I can't blame Blake too much. I'm hopeful for this season, our bench looks so much better and I feel this is the season where he produces consistently. Maybe I am overrating Stevie. But from what I've seen and analyzed, we can say all of our bench were superscrubs. I feel this is the year where we get the Steve we were expecting.

ya i think blake will step it up and do what he was brought here to do. the 2nd unit will be run by him so he can play PG so that'll be good. he's a good backup point guard and a good 3 point shooter. hes a willing passer and plays not great defense but scrappy which has worked for him against 2nd unit PG's.

it takes a lot to play in this league at only 6 feet tall and hes been good throughout his career. his years in LA were hard for him I'm sure. first year he actually didnt play that bad. it was only when brown came and made him a SG for the bench where he struggled. no one else could do anything except for him off the bench and teams knew that.

i expect blake to be a good backup for us. he knows the team. he knows the coach. and most importantly he now knows his role. and thats PG passing it to jaminson and meeks and hitting the open 3. thats it.

The new offense will suit him well, he'll be under less pressure to create offense....instead defenders will have no choice but to sag off him and give him a lot of space to shoot. In that type of a situation he'll thrive.

kray28 wrote:The new offense will suit him well, he'll be under less pressure to create offense....instead defenders will have no choice but to sag off him and give him a lot of space to shoot. In that type of a situation he'll thrive.

Isn't that what defenses have been doing to him the last two years?

Doc Brown wrote:

kray28 wrote:The new offense will suit him well, he'll be under less pressure to create offense....instead defenders will have no choice but to sag off him and give him a lot of space to shoot. In that type of a situation he'll thrive.

Isn't that what defenses have been doing to him the last two years?

The difference will be that he'll be open within the flow of the offense, and not because the defense is sagging off him on purpose. He'll shoot it because it's an open shot earned in the flow of the offense (through dribble penetration or a double team in the post), and not because the defense dares him to shoot with the shotclock running down.

Ariza3 wrote:ya i think blake will step it up and do what he was brought here to do. the 2nd unit will be run by him so he can play PG so that'll be good. he's a good backup point guard and a good 3 point shooter. hes a willing passer and plays not great defense but scrappy which has worked for him against 2nd unit PG's.

it takes a lot to play in this league at only 6 feet tall and hes been good throughout his career. his years in LA were hard for him I'm sure. first year he actually didnt play that bad. it was only when brown came and made him a SG for the bench where he struggled. no one else could do anything except for him off the bench and teams knew that.

i expect blake to be a good backup for us. he knows the team. he knows the coach. and most importantly he now knows his role. and thats PG passing it to jaminson and meeks and hitting the open 3. thats it.

I agree with the posts saying he is not as bad as certain posts are hammering him to be and also expect him to be better this year. Brown was an idiot with playing him at the 2 and getting him torched last year in multiple games. The old definition of insanity. But the height mentioned didn't sound right. All the reports have him at 6'3".