Chicago Bulls point guard Nate Robinson learned something that was, at the very least, a surprise to him: Steve Blake is ranked higher than him by a gap of 37 players on ESPN. It should be a surprise because if we are looking at this from a production standpoint from the previous season, it’s not even close. Robinson was unquestionably the superior player based on performance. Both guards played just over 23 minutes per game, and here is a comparison of what they did with those minutes:
Nate Robinson averaged 11.2 points on 42.4 percent field goal, 83.2 percent free throw shooting, 36.5 percent shooting on 3-pointers, two rebounds, 4.5 assists, 1.5 turnovers and 1.2 steals.
Steve Blake averaged 5.2 points on 37.7 percent shooting, 77.8 percent free throw shooting, 33.5 percent shooting on 3-pointers, 1.6 rebounds, 3.3 assists, 1.4 turnovers and 0.7 steals.
Presumably, other factors – leadership, maturity, defense, etc – were involved in coming up with these ranks. However, it’s difficult to see where exactly Blake holds such a strong advantage over Robinson, even if it’s a simple projection for the upcoming season. If you have an answer, please do chime in.
Deron Williams plays one-on-one with a fan
@Willie, is using what GM’s do actually any kind of rational argument for rating players? Jeremy Lin got cut by how many teams? Brook Lopez’s max deal? Amare’s contract? Even the best team in the league signing Rashard Lewis. Both Nate and Blake are below average guards, with Nate’s numbers being slightly closer overall to average, so if you want to rank these guys I can’t see how Blake would have enough “intangibles” to put him above Nate. At any rate, if you’re a GM you aren’t expecting much from either of these two.
Bernard, you are not logical at all. Multiple teams decided that Blake was worth more than $4m per year over past 5 seasons (Portland and Lakers). Robinson has been waived by OKC, not offered contracts following seasons with Boston and Golden State then signed a minimum salary contract with Chicago.
That’s 5 GM’s who share the same sentiments as this ranking.
Maybe there’s something I don’t see, but from every statistical measure Robinson is a more useful player (though I acknowledge this doesn’t take into account ‘leadership’ and other narrative-based skills). Obviously Hollinger’s stats are hardly the determining factor in these things but by PER Blake was the 59th best point guard in the NBA last year, Robinson was 14th.
As B pointed out, the fact that GMs are enamored with a player is hardly an objective measure of quality. Darko Milicic…
Oh, please. By that logic, if incompetent morons like Danny Ferry, Otis Smith and Billy King did something totally crazy by bidding against themselves to give a stiff like Daniel Gibson a five-year contract totaling $22 million, that means Gibson is worth it.
Oh, wait. Ferry did that.
I hate that this is my answer, but… subtle racism.
The ‘scrappy’ white player always wins the popularity over the ‘surly’ black player.
Wish it wasn’t the case, but that seems a pretty logical explanation…
One plays for the Bulls and one plays for the Lakers, and anyone with the Lakers, Knicks or Heat is automatically overrated.
Blake played for the Lakers…He probably would’ve matched Nate’s numbers if he didn’t have to feed Pau, Bynum, and KOBE all every night…
If he played 30-plus minutes, maybe.