To all ridiculous "Trade Monta" supporters:
by LarryEllisonSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 3:54 PM PST
Email
PrintUnbelievable how a terrible front office, terrible coaching staff, injury plagued season, and mediocre roster will easily get people to start claiming "it's time to trade the best player" for ridiculous reasons.
I fully understand the 4.4 turnovers is high, but consider who he is playing with and how much he has to be relied on to even stay close in games. For as much as Homer Fitzgerald likes to talk up the likes of Maggette and "I get burned by every single player who wants to turn the corner on me" CJ Watson, this team (not counting the injured players in this discussion) is comprised of:
- players who shouldnt be in the league any more (Moore, George)
- really young players with upside, but who have not figured it out (Randolph, Curry, Morrow)
- a solid-ish D-Leaguer there as a warm body (Hunter) and
- a bunch of guys who are capable at one thing, but terrible at everything else (Watson, Maggette, Vlad)
Put Roy, Parker, Billups, Rose, Joe Johnson with that team and see what their numbers look like.
Monta's TOs are high because he has to try to take over for them to even have a chance. Look at the rest of the numbers:
41 min. 24.7 pts. 4.4 reb. 5.2 ast 2.4 steals .457 FG .357 3FG .793 FT 4.4 TO
Compare that with, arguably, the closest player to how Monta plays from his 5th year, Tony Parker:
33 min. 18.9 pts. 3.3 reb. 5.8 ast. 1.0 steals .548 FG .306 3FG .707 FT 3.1 TO
at the same 41 min as Monta
23.5 pts. 4.1 reb. 7.2 ast. 1.24 steals 3.9 TO
Pretty similar huh? And remember, that was a 63-19 team which had the likes of Tim Duncan, Ginobili, Michael Finley, Bowen, and a host of capable role players.
Give Monta that team and, based on those stats, tell me that Parker is so far and above Monta.
Also, go take a look at the 5th seasons of Steve Nash, Billups and Joe Johnson. All had numbers near or worse than Monta's this year.
Monta is not the problem on this team, period.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
97 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Monta’s TOs are high because he has to try to take over for them to even have a chance. Look at the rest of the numbers:
A more accurate statement woudl that his TOs are high because he’s not overly adept at handling the ball and he is trying to take over because he (and possibly his teammates believe that this is the only way they’ll have a chance. It’s common to give ball hogs a free pass that they have to take all the shots because if they didn’t, no one on the team could do it. This is rarely actually supported by what happens when ball-hogs get injured and have to be replaced. The drop off in production, if it happens at all, rarely supports the notion that the low percentage ball hog was really the best option.
Monta’s TOs are high because he has to try to take over for them to even have a chance. Look at the rest of the numbers:…Pretty similar huh?
No, not really that similar, at least not in one of the most important factors: FG%. Parker was taking far fewer shots to get his points. Those shots were shots someone else was able to take and was able to score at least some points off of.
Monta’s numbers 2 years ago suggested better things, and suggested he was on the level Parker plays at. Monta’s numbers now show a regression in production because he shoots too much and handles the ball too much.
by jae on Dec 14, 2009 4:35 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Again, those were numbers playing with Ginobili, an in his prime Duncan, and much better role players. You proved my point with Monta’s FG% being better 2 years ago, when he was playing with a better team.
His FG% and TOs are off this year because of the players around him. The rest of the numbers are up because of his talent. Put him with a top-5 EVER PF and those others and see what the numbers look like.
by LarryEllisonSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
Blaming the players around him only goes so far. He is still the one taking too many shots, pushing the ball beyond his ability to take care of it. There are other players on the team and involving them more would help everyone. Giving the ball-hog a free pass seems to be a favorite of fans of the NBA.
You said that the numbers were “pretty similar”. They weren’t. Parker was a more efficient scorer, a better passer, and turns the ball over much less. The points scored similarity is superficial and not terribly meaningful.
They rebound similarly. I’ll give them that.
by jae on Dec 14, 2009 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Kinda a reply to both...
The only think I would say against this, is who else is going to step up? We have very little talent on the floor and everyone knows it. I have to think that our coaching staff is giving him the green light to dribble into three defenders and putting the onus on him to get things done.
Parker is not the person you want to compare Monta to, Parker is not nearly as fast but is so much more crafty with the ball that it would not matter if there numbers were close, there just two completely different players.
That said putting a better cast of characters around Monta and I think two things happen, TO’s go down and scoring efficiency goes up.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
morrow and curry should be getting more shots, watson should never stop shooting with how he’s looked this year (.624 TS%!). maggette is an excellent scorer. those guys can make open shots when monta drives to the hoop. he’s been trying to do way too much and his efficiency demonstrates this.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
Watson should not be in the game until he learns how not to get burned every play. No matter how many shots he makes, every guard in the league burns by him with ease.
To the claim that “Parker turns the ball over much less”, I put the stats up there for a reason. As the STATS showed, at a similar point in their career, per 48 minutes, their TO numbers were nearly identical. The point being that claiming “Monta has to go” is ridiculous, as his stats are comparable, or better, than players like Parker and Nash at the same point in their career.
by LarryEllisonSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
if watson makes shots at that clip, he’d have to actively play for the other team on the defensive end to be a detriment. that TS% is phenomenal. of course, i’m not calling him a good defender and never made any statment along those lines. so with that strawman aside, it’s fair to point out that monta should try passing the ball watson’s way more often. he makes shots.
as for monta v. parker (a topic i never even brought up) their a:to ratios were very different. you can get by with more turnovers if you find the open man more often. monta has teammates, he does not use them effectively. an extra two assists while turning the ball over .5 less times in that time frame is very relevant. it’s not as similar as you want to say it is.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
The defense of the ball hog almost always starts with “who else is going to step up?” as it’s always going to be on one other player. I am not advocating that he stop shooting or that someone else take all of a sudden take 15 shots a game. But it’s unfathomable to me that they can’t find a way to get 4 or 5 other players 1 extra shot a piece and cut Monta down to 14 or so shots, 14 better shots. I’ve seen too many plays where he’s got the ball and you know he’s going to shoot without even considering if someone else has a better shot. When that happens, no one else gets involved. Their numbers look like they can’t do anything in part because they’re not getting the opportunity.
Monta would be better with a better supporting cast. But he could be better than he’s been with this supporting cast too.
by jae on Dec 14, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+1 The perfect example are Sacramento who is playing at .500
without Kevin Martin who averaged 30 ppg.
I have to think that our coaching staff is giving him the green light to dribble into three defenders
I agree, and that speaks to just how pathetically bad our coaching staff has been.
That said putting a better cast of characters around Monta and I think two things happen, TO’s go down and scoring efficiency goes up.
Monta’s surrounding cast of characters includes one of the very best scorers of the past ten years, the league’s reigning three-point champion, one of the most underrated offensive players in basketball (CJ, if you’re wondering) and a rookie who can shoot threes and do some other things. Strictly in terms of offense, this is not an untalented team.
I wouldn’t put all the blame on Monta. I don’t get the sense that he’s selfishly deviating from a solid plan; neither coach has bothered to set up an offensive scheme worth a damn. But it just isn’t true that Monta is driving into triple-teams because we need him to. Our current Monta Uber Alles attack is stupid. It’s not exactly a surprise that it’s not working.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
The rest of the league knows Monta can score and are making sure that the concentrate the defense on him. It is now up to Monta to adjust his game and get his teammates involved instead of forcing shots.
That would be up to the coaching staff to draw up plays to get guys open and to drill it into Monta’s head to pass it. If he still displays his ball hogines then that would need to be addressed pronto.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Monta has the ability on his own to pass the ball to an open teammate without the coaching staff drawing up plays to get others open.
Usually when Monta is attracting more than one defender, someone is open. He just needs to be more aware of where is teammates are on the floor and dish the ball out instead of forcing a shot.
Parker’s passing numbers really were notably better, too. 7.2 assists and 3.9 turnovers is a helluva lot better than 5.2 assists and 4.4 turnovers. Parker’s not a brilliant passing point guard, but Monta simply isn’t a point guard, period.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
If Monta were playing with Duncan and Ginobili, and coached by Popovich, instead of Maggette and Moore, you dont think he would be able to get a few more assists? Not having to be option number 1, you think he would still be over 4 TOs?
by LarryEllisonSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions
lol exactly.
You can’t compare Monta to anybody in the league. We are the worst team in the league outside of Monta (with injuries and randolph playing 5 mpg) and with Keith Smart.
You can compare him to an all-star in Harris, but Monta kills him in every imaginable stat.
If Monta were on a team as intelligent as the Spurs, he’d have significantly fewer assists per game than he currently does. You know why? Because he’d be a two-guard. His passing numbers would look more like they did in ‘07-’08 — 3.9 assists, but only 2.1 turnovers — and he’d be a much, much more effective player.
I’m not saying Monta sucks. I’m not even saying Monta isn’t as good as Tony Parker, because I believe he has the potential to be better. But I am saying that Monta is not a point guard, and it’s a waste of everybody’s time to pretend that he is.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
by onlxn on Dec 14, 2009 11:43 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Not really an answer to anybody, but Ellis is not as TO prone as everybody makes him out to be.
Sure he leads them, but if you combine that with the possessions where he has the ball the TOR (Turnover Ration) is above average.
Curry: 15
Parker: 14.23
Jack/Chalmers: 14.16
Kidd: 13.95
Westbrook: 13.91
Brooks: 13.37
MONTA ELLIS: 13.08
Steve Nash: 13.03
so yeah, ya’ll can be quiet about the TO’s for this one.
shhhhh.!!!!!. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good misinformed opinion.
by crab dribble cocktail on Dec 14, 2009 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Problem is
Monta’s turnovers are only one area of concern.
His shooting efficiency is way down from his peak. His rebounding is down. And (see below) his plus-minus suggests he hurts the team more than helps it when he plays.
I’m still not sure which faction on this site is wackier, the rabid Monta haters or the rabid Monta apologists. Monta’s a pretty good player, but not a great one. Chill out, all of you.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions
His efficiency will go down since he takes more shots and people are focusing on him
Remember when he when he shot 60 percent we had Baron, Jack, AL, Barnes, Beans, Buike, Pietrus and even Wright. Rebounding down is a weird stat to me, yes it is down but it goes down when Beans is out. When he is there it goes up. He’s still a good rebounder but not as good as he was.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
A non-scientific-but-perhaps rational explanation for the decline in rebounding vs 2 years ago.
1: the added minutes and the added emphasis have worn him down. The rebounding wasn’t really that much different (just a shade off and probably in the realm of regular statistical variation) for November. In Dec he’s averaging more minutes, shooting worse (like a guy who is tired and trying to do to much) and rebounding worse (like a guy who is tired and is saving himself for the offensive end). He’s getting to the line far more often but that’s probably at the result of more punishment on his body that saps the rest of his game some.
2: Two years ago, he was averaging more offensive rebounds, which is something that I suspect was the result of playing off the ball more and not having a double team follow him as often. He was a bit more free to track down other people’s misses, more often having fewer guys to contest it with than he has now. Couple that with being a bit more tired all the time and ask if that can result in one fewer offensive rebounds a game (which is about what the decline has been). I suspect it can. That’s most of the difference in rebounding right there. It’s also possible that the ankle injury still robs him of a tiny bit of bounce, just enough to make him lose out on one rebound a night and miss one or two more shots a night. I don’t suspect that though. His defensive rebounding rate is real close to what it was 2 years ago. It was somewhat higher last year for some reason. Maybe just a sample size issue? [The defensive rebounding isn’t going to climb that much, in part because it requires the other team to miss more often to have more opportunities. We’re not making them miss too many shots right now.]
It’s not surprising that Biedrins out hasn’t helped Monta’s rebounding. There really is very little effect from teammates in terms of more rebounds being available, and the rebounds Biedrins is not getting aren’t ones that would otherwise bounce out to a guard. They’re ones that the other team’s forwards and centers are gobbling up.
Need we also be quiet about Monta’s -20.7 plus-minus (-6.8 adjusted)?
Small sample size, but so far this season the only regular players who have hurt the team more than Monta are VladRad and Mikki Moore.
I think Monta is better than that, but I’m not seeing how the idea of trading him is “ridiculous,” per se. Is it ridiculous if it brings back a better player?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
Name a player that would benefit the Warriors if Ellis is gone?
Chris Bosh? Amare Stoudemire? All free agents at the end of the year who will not sign with the Warriors.
There’s no way the Warriors trade Ellis, Ellis needs another consistent scorer.
I’m not really sure what your point is here. To be frank, you sound a little confused about it, too. Here, I’ll give you multiple choice:
A. It is impossible to fathom the Warriors ever trading Ellis.
B. I don’t want the Warriors to trade Ellis, under any circumstances.
C. There is no one in the NBA who is both (a) not a free agent and (b) better than Ellis.
D. If Ellis were paired with another consistent scorer, the Warriors would never need to make another trade.
E. All of the above.
I’m saying that there is a non-zero chance that some team (likely one with a GM who overvalues volume scoring) will offer us something better than Ellis for Ellis; and that we should be open to that possibility. What’s so “ridiculous” about that?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
The +/- is scewed
When your playing 48 minutes almost every night and your team sucks it’s going to be low. Give him regular minutes if everyone is healthy(Wright, Buike etc) and it would go up. Durant had the same problem last year.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
The net plus minus (the difference between how bad your team is when you’re on vs when you’re sitting on the bench) doesn’t explain that though. Why is it that a terrible team somehow becomes not so terrible when he’s on the bench?
maybe its because the only time monta sits on the bench tends to be during garbage time...?
"so much losers" - hiero
Or …. maybe not?
How would you explain the fact the net plus-minus of pretty much any player you or I would call a legit “star” (and that now includes Kevin Durant) is overwhelmingly positive?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 15, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe, but that’s an empirical issue that can be addressed. The assumption that the only time Monta sits significantly is “garbage time” and that we do so overwhelmingly well in said “garbage time” (and the non-garbage time without Monta is/would be even more terrible than the time Monta is on the court) aren’t givens by any stretch.
dude. how many times do i have to tell you this?
tov% rewards high volume shooters because you technically get a “usage w/o a turnover” every time you shoot the ball.
the formula is 100 * TOV / (FGA + (0.44 * FTA) + TOV)
understand a statistic before you blindly throw it out to support your argument.
by homer simpson on Dec 15, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd for good info.
That’s a great point. If you want to use advanced stats you have to look into stuff like this.
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
Who ever said he was the problem? Sounds like a bit of a straw man.
He’s most handsomely paid and, nominally, our “best” player. There’s no question that his mediocre performance so far is one of the problems.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps that’s why he was laughing out loud? ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
well good thing we have other players who benefit our team more than him
OH WAIT WE DON’T.
So far this season:
Law
Hunter
Morrow
Jackson
Watson
Azubuike
Bell
Maggette
Randolph
Curry
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
of course
But then again, why am I even surprised? You think that Lebron is a better scorer and defender than Kobe.
ignore button anybody? please?
Is this some sort of strange performance art? What is your angle, here? There’s no way that anybody is actually this bad at reading a crowd.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
the purpose of debate is to clarify differences or create consensus. an intensely antagonistic style of commenting accomplishes neither. if you disagree with someone, explain why. “well you think this so everything you say is dumb” is a useless addition to a forum like this.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I know it is and I respect 99% of posters here
And I know you guys like to double team me with your Lebron loving/Kobe hating posts, but I don’t really care about Kobe, so I’m fine with that. I just can’t stand when somebody posts something as ridiculous as he posted :/
in fairness to the lebron/kobe debate, there were at least a couple people who agreed with you. it was hardly a matter of people ganging up on you. but i really don’t understand how kobe is considered better than lebron at this point in their careers and i’m one to jump to his defense as a player whenever possible. we all have things that will get us talking for days.
either way, i think monta’s been receiving a bit too much homer love around here recently. not that he’s a bad player, just that the points per game he’s putting up have made people overlook some pretty noticable flaws in his game. he might be our best player, but we’re a really bad team right now. it’s not crazy to say that our best player might not be a world beater.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
I posted a list of players who, statistically speaking, have had a more positive effect on the Warriors so far this season than Monta. I’m hoping the trends don’t continue, but we are more than a quarter through the season. It’s worrisome. Take a look at 82games, and try to find another “good player” with such a crappy number. (For fun, you could even check out the Kobester…)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 10:25 PM PST up reply actions
I agree, Sleepy, and with that said, there are some bright spots to look at:
Throughout the course of the last two years, Kevin Durant had one of the worst +/- averages in the history of mankind (quick search on ESPN will find Henry Abbott’s article on this), yet this year has exploded as a pseudo-superstar.
The reality is, on a horrible team like the Warriors are, it’s hard to use +/-‘s, etc., to determine a player’s impact on a team. Since we are a bad team, and Monta plays >40 mpg, it follows that he’s going to have some of the crappiest +/- numbers in the league.
Also, we are a statistically horrible team to start the half. First and third quarters kill us. Monta almost always plays the entire 24 minutes of those quarters, so he’s going to naturally get the poor end of that stick. A player like CJ, on the other hand, is going to have a smaller % of his playing time eaten up by quarters where we get annihilated.
Of course, the converse to this argument is that if Monta were better, we wouldn’t get crushed in the first and third quarters, but there are very, very, VERY few players who, at age 24 have already learned how to make their teammates better. I don’t even think Durant has really learned that yet.
So yes, Monta has pretty crappy numbers when you look at his affect on the team, but I do wonder how we would perform if he ceased to play. Someone else would have to step into his role, and pick up the unfortunate +/- numbers. I hope he learns to make his team(mates) better in the future, but for now, I hope he is comparable to Kevin Durant last year: a player with big individual numbers and crappy team numbers, who, when the team comes together and improves, will excel to stardom.
also worth noting that on John Hollinger EWA (estimated wins added), which i’m sure you could easily argue as BS, Monta leads the warriors. while his EWA of 2.8 is nothing beautiful, it is as good or above the likes of Pau Gasol and Amare Stoudemire.
Those numbers seem low – I’m pretty sure LeBron adds more than 9 wins to the Cavs, so i’m not sure how legit this is, but worth noting nonetheless.
Monta’s also 6th among SGs, (tied for 36th among all – tied with, among others, Baron Davis…)
EWA is a derivative of PER, which rewards high vol. shooters, even if they aren’t shooting particularly well. There’s been no study to indicate that the number has a strong bearing on how a player actually effects wins and losses. Until there is, and given that there’s a known flaw in the computation relative to those factors known to influence wins, it’s rather weak evidence of anything other than Hollinger’s clout with ESPN to have them post whatever number he comes up with.
Since we are a bad team, and Monta plays >40 mpg, it follows that he’s going to have some of the crappiest +/- numbers in the league.
It does nothing to explain why we aren’t as crappy when Monta’s on the bench. If we’re a truly terrible team and he’s one of the bright points, one would expect the team to do even worse when he’s on the bench. That has not been the case.
Also, we are a statistically horrible team to start the half. First and third quarters kill us. Monta almost always plays the entire 24 minutes of those quarters, so he’s going to naturally get the poor end of that stick.
Maybe it’s time to start thinking that there might be some causality there.
Plus minus is a noisy stat. It has some rather strange results from time to time that are likely not a part of a player’s doing. But it rarely gets things terribly wrong. Durant’s issue last year was that his team was terrible defensively when he was on the court and he wasn’t yet offensively potent enough to compensate. He’s improved quite a bit at both ends of the court. In contrast, Monta is not as good an offensive player as he’s been in the past. That really is part of the problem.
Also, we are a statistically horrible team to start the half. First and third quarters kill us. Monta almost always plays the entire 24 minutes of those quarters, so he’s going to naturally get the poor end of that stick.Maybe it’s time to start thinking that there might be some causality there.
Indeed. To be fair, there’s a pretty pronounced Mikki Effect to take into account; our worst stretches still match up pretty well with his stints on the court, and Monta’s almost always on the court alongside him. But other guys who play with Mikki don’t have plus-minus numbers as brutal as Monta’s.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
The difference then seems to be this:
Monta- we need him to play better
Mikki-we need him to play less
Ok, I think we need a bit less of Monta too in order to facilitate him playing better, but hopefully, you get the point.
Believe me, I agree with you… Monta has not been effective, with or without Mikki. I just do think it’s worth mentioning in the specific context of Monta’s plus-minus. (Also worth mentioning: the two huge CJ/Law-led garbage time runs that are still swelling our non-Monta numbers. I do believe we’ve been better without Monta, but I don’t believe that we have the best offense in league history without him.)
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
A quick plus-minus update, as 82games posted current numbers today: Monta’s adjusted plus-minus is 20.4, actually slightly worse than it was a week ago, and still by far the worst of any NBA starter. Only three other players who’ve played 50%+ of their team’s minutes - T.J. Ford, Shane Battier and Jeff Green — rate in the double-digits.
I don’t believe that Monta, even the current version of Monta, makes us 20.4 games worse per 48 minutes. There’s still tons of air in those off-court numbers; I don’t believe that we’d be a title contender without him.
But I do believe that something is very, very wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Sigh… the struck-thru stuff should not be.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I’m not trying to depict Monta as a stud, just pointing some things out. The reality is our first team’s 4-5 is VladRad and Mikki Moore, and our Second team’s 4-5 is Maggs and Randolph. I prefer the second line-up, and that’s part of why we do better without Monta.
Our second team is better relative to our opponents second team than our first team is relative to our opponent’s first team. If that makes any sense whatsoever.
The notion that 1st team plays 1st team and reserves play reserves is something that many people use in their reasoning, but it doesn’t actually reflect real-world substitution patterns. A year ago, I looked at the average number of starters on the court for all players. Aside from the first few minutes of the game when both teams, by definition, are playing their first string, the number of starters in the game for one squad is independent of the number of starters for the other squad. Reserves play against starters as well as reserves. The effect of “weaker opponents” on plus minus is very, very minimal if present at all.
True, how many games have we heard “now that (insert stars name here) is out of the game we should be able to make a move”.
There are times where one star will face off against another star for an entire game but the other 4 starters don’t come in and out of the game in tandem.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
In watching games, it looks like coaches match substitutions with an opponents bigs. (e.g. If Orlando sends Howard to the bench, you use that as the opportunity to rest your big as well.) But for guards and forwards it seems almost entirely random.
Good point...
You definitely see that more with big men. You will also see it with defensive specialists and the opposing team’s star wing, but not nearly as much (well there just aren’t that many of those guys starting anyway, and foul trouble is also a big factor).
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause."
Haha. I do think LeBron is (probably) a better defender and (without question) a more efficient scorer than Kobe, though I’m pretty sure you’re confusing me with cap’n hack.
It’s weird that you would want to ignore someone for having a different opinion than you — especially when that different opinion is pretty widely held.
[Said some other stuff, but Owen and the cap’n said it much better and more diplomatically…] ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
Ellis is a problem. Ellis is not the only problem, and he’s a talented enough player that he could be part of the solution. But his play this year has most certainly been a problem and the excuses for it seem to play right into the ball-hoggish style that is causing the problem.
Your use of irony is quite sophisticated.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions
It's like you're taking jae's critique of Monta
extremely personally. You might want to duck out of this discussion if you can’t separate yourself from it.
by Reverend_Randy on Dec 15, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions
the ball-hoggish iso style of play seems to be of warrior coaching design. This year there is no one else that can score the ball as well as Ellis does therefore it mostly goes to Ellis and we live and die with it. When he makes it people praise, when other teams close on him and he fails, he becomes the problem. If we have more depth and a different offensive style then I might blame Ellis more, however I think he’s made improvements, he’s just not the franchise caliber player we assumed he would be, the main problem is lack of depth and talent.
There is no one player who can score as well as Monta perhaps, but there are players who can, when given an opportunity, score a bit more, and can do it more efficiently than Monta has. Cut Monta’s shots a bit and it’s not like the shots disappear*, that somehow they vaporize. On a possession, someone is going to shoot. As it stands now, everyone knows it’s going to be Monta, the defense keys on him, he takes bad shots without seeing if someone else has a better look and the Warriors suffer. Passing 4 or 5 more times a game and it starts keeping the defense a bit more honest while guys who are shooting better than Monta is take a few more shots.
This notion that Monta has to take all the shots because no one else appears ready to take as many shots as him is a fool’s folly, but one that it seems that some combination of Monta and the coaching staff have fallen for, and more than a few fans are buying is the only option. It isn’t.
(actually, some shots may appear, as a side effect of Monta having the ball so much is his turnovers, denying *anyone the chance to score. Turnovers are about as bad as it gets in terms of hurting your team’s chances.)
I agree that one of the problems is the distribution of the ball and balanced scoring threats from more players but the main flawedness is the lack of a competent big man in the post – defense, rebounding, putbacks, post – scoring. When the perimeter shooting even when the ball is passed around dries up, there must be a more consistent option, which is post scoring, we dont have that.
It's the system imho
I would not want us to trade Monta but would prefer we build a team and system around his skill set that doesn’t make him into another AI. I know that comparision is around a lot and been discussed, but my fear is a team and coaching staff which completely over-relies on one player is doomed to fail. The NBA is so rugged and Monta is tough but not invincible (as we know). Ellis is not the problem; it is the head coach, his clones, the organization and the inane system created by Nelson in which Monta has to play. I mean how many 48 minutes can he play.
And that is one of the reasons I would not want to trade Ellis. Even if we could get what we really need and have for years (a really good PF), any good to great player will be doomed as long as Nelson is coaching the team, obviously in my opinion. All season long I’ve been rooting for wins, not just as a fan, but to let Nelson get his record in the hopes that he will exit “with dignity” and his stupid record which obviously mean nothing to us fans.
We Believe We Were Deceived
The NBA is so rugged and Monta is tough but not invincible (as we know). Ellis is not the problem; it is the head coach, his clones, the organization and the inane system created by Nelson in which Monta has to play. I mean how many 48 minutes can he play.
Exactly.
Monta is a good player who’s trying extremely hard, and yet he’s currently not making us at all better. We can speculate about his motives all we like — maybe he’s selfish, maybe he’s courageous, maybe he’s ignorant — but I’m not sure what the point really is; the question is not how Monta feels about it all. The question is why the coaching staff is not correcting it.
This season has conclusively shown two things:
1) Monta is not a point guard… the more he tries to be one, the less effective he becomes.
2) When the only offensive play your team runs in the fourth quarter is “smallest guy on the court tries to penetrate down the middle”, your opponents are going to have a pretty easy time stopping you.
These are both obvious truths; one could argue that both should’ve been obvious before the season started. The fact that the coaching staff has not responded to both of those truths is, frankly, some of the rankest incompetence I’ve seen in my fifteen years of suffering through this incompetent franchise. Fire Nellie, twice to make sure, and give Smart ten interim games to show whether or not he actually has a brain… if he continues to coach this stupidly, fire him too, and replace him with anyone. Once we have a halfway professional coaching staff in place, we can worry about players’ motives.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Fire Nellie, twice to make sure
I chuckled.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions
Some are claiming the team is really better without him?
Glad to see some valid input here.
This post really was only meant toward those who continuously bash Monta for some reason, or claim he somehow is a negative more than a positive.
Other than looking at only stats, watch the game and look at the inconsistent players around him. Take Monta off this team this season, and do any of you actually think the Warriors would be BETTER, as some have been claiming?
Other than the offense he creates, apparently some have failed to mention the one on one D he has played against the likes of Roy, Kobe, and Durant this year. While I am in no way claiming Monta is a top 10 player or an all-defensive team player, he did a pretty solid job of shutting down those much bigger all-star caliber players, while still having to be the go-to offensive guy.
And his shooting percentage, while not at the ridiculous level it was at while playing with Baron, is still better than Wade, Roy, Arenas, and just behind guys like Durant and Nowitzki.
by LarryEllisonSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 10:30 PM PST reply actions
Dude. Try to keep up? You won’t last long in this place by twisting and misrepresenting other people’s opinions and treating them as “ridiculous” or “invalid.”
I’ll repeat: so far this season, Monta’s presence on the court has been a net negative for this Warriors. That’s a fact, not a “claim.” You can spin it however you like. Being a fan of Monta, and an admirer of his game, I would spin it the way most others have: he’s trying to do too much; and, secondarily, playing too many minutes a game. Note that this is not remotely the same as saying Monta is a bad player, or the team is better off without Monta.
I guess I’m still not getting what your point is, beyond tearing down straw men. Would you actually not trade Monta, under any circumstances?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Dec 14, 2009 10:49 PM PST up reply actions
Some people just don't understand basketball....
Monta shoots too much?? Really Come on people, again, put down the subjectivity, look at the stats:
GSW shooting: 48%
Monta Shooting: 46%
I know that some people will blindly and not-so-intelligently say “see, he should stop shooting, he’s worse than the team!” but that’s not the case. How does that number reach 48%? Because when the defense focuses on Monta, there are open jumpers for CJ, Steph, Morrow, Maggs, etc.,
The Hawks shoot 46%, and Joe Johnson 44%….do you think JJ should shoot less?? Because there’s a reason you’re at your computer, not coaching a basketball team.
Also, to everyone saying CJ should shoot more, and he’s a better scorer than Monta, get real. Yes he has a higher shooting % than Monta, because the defense pays no attention to him and he gets wide open jump shots. Give Monta the shots CJ gets and he gets a better %.
Now, as Sleepy wisely just said, I’m a big fan of Monta, I think he’s good for the team. He has been a negative at times, though I think throughout the course of a 48-minute game, the team would fall apart without him.
However, for those of you blindly hating on him, look at the numbers. It’s not as simple as TOs and FG%. You have to make note of the setting. Unless you want to claim that Mikki Moore is a better shooter than Monta Ellis…..
Lots of strawmen here. Look to what jae said about monta getting teammates involved before assuming that people are saying that it should be CJ forcing shots instead of Monta or that Monta should stop shooting altogether. No one is saying those things. (I came the closest by saying that CJ should never stop shooting considering how effective he’s been, so perhaps I should apologize for my poor wording. The point was that he’s been making shots, we should get him more looks)
Watson has been shooting the lights out this year. Is this because he’s getting open looks? Of course that’s helpful, but do you really think we’re getting him involved enough? When someone is shooting like that, it’s fair to say he deserves the ball a little more often and that Monta should try to find him on drives. CJ has been very effective in his role this year and expanding it slightly at the expense of a few Monta drives into the trees ending with a forced shot would be a good thing. No one is saying give him 30 shots a game, just a few more than he currently gets.
Find me the person who said that monta should stop shooting. This was never said. What has been said is that if he deferred more often to his teammates, many of whom will hit the shots he creates for them, the team will be better off. Do you disagree with that?
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
whoopsy
the irony is, I have an exam in 8.5 hours focused mostly on logical fallacies, including strawman…
i kind of feel like an idiot for my post; it related to neither the subject matter at hand, nor any people’s replies.
My rant was really just directed at Monta haters in general – from some members to some of my friends, I feel like a lot of people recently have been suggesting that Monta is a player detrimental to our team merely because his fg% isn’t as good is it was two years ago, which is a ridiculous debate.
I do agree that CJ and Morrow should be shooting more, though I blame this more on our offensive gameplan than on Monta. It seems that our offense is based on Monta taking his man 1-on-1 and either scoring or creating. If that fails, he passes it to someone else who tries the same thing. A la JJ Redick or Ray Allen, we should have CJ and Morrow running around in circles endlessly, around 2-3 screens on every possession, with every player looking to get them the ball.
Again, my apologies for the rather stupid post. Hopefully my academic thoughts are better gathered than my athletic ones, as it’s gonna be a long night in the library…
Pure speculation incoming:
If Monta were to get injured tomorrow and be out for the season, There is some arbitrary percent chance that the team would start to play better than it currently is. Any increase would come from the coaching staff changing the system that is currently being used into something else that fits a Monta-less group better. Of course the talent on the team would be much worse, but talent level doesn’t always correspond to how good a team plays. While it makes it more likely for a team to be successful, it doesn’t guarantee it.
Now, if Monta were traded for someone useful (i.e. not a salary dump) then there’s probably a greater chance that the team would improve. Of course, this would probably also result in the coaches changing the system to fit the players that they have. The system they are using now just doesn’t seem to be working with the players that we have. A similar situation occurred last year, when we were playing isolation ball all game long, and losing all the time. Nellie switched to what he called a “more European” style of play, and we got slightly better. We were still bad, but the games were more watchable.
What we have clearly isn’t working. It might work better when we get players back from injury and the system changes to fit that. It might work better if Monta were traded for someone, and the system implemented then fit better with that group of players than the current system with Monta. The coaches and the GM are supposed to figure out what is wrong with the system and the players in it. Since the current system is not winning games or exciting to watch, there will more than likely be changes, since boring and unexciting = losing money = angry Cohan = time to try and create more excitement.
The best example of a failure of system to match the players is when Shaq was traded to the Suns. The Suns talent level improved, the system tried to change to fit the players, but ended up being a complete failure. Was it Terry Porter’s fault? Partially. Was it Steve Kerr’s fault? Partially. Was it Shaq’s fault? Partially. Porter’s system failed to work with the players, Kerr failed to get the right players for the team, Shaq failed to fit into the system. Everyone involved is responsible for the failure. The resulting questions were, do you get rid of Porter? Kerr? Shaq? They got rid of Porter and Shaq, and now have a coach with a system that fits the players well. The team very well may improve by just getting rid of Monta. It might improve by getting rid of Nellie. It might get worse, and even if that happens, the lottery is designed to help us get better with the worse we get.
Something has to change. The more a person is involved in the system, the more likely that the results will be very different without them compared to the current state. Getting rid of Nellie or Monta will result in a more dramatic change than getting rid of Devean George. People that want to see the system change a whole lot tend to pick one of those two, or even both. I had hoped that getting rid of Jack would have caused a change in a positive direction. As of right now, it seems to have been a sideways move (although better off money-wise in the future).
It is my opinion that moving Monta for someone else is the most likely way to make a positive dramatic change. It might not, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take. If you think that moving Curry or Randolph or anyone else is the right move, then you’re welcome to have your opinion. If you think that firing Don Nelson is the right move, you might be right too, although I would say that it is not likely to happen anytime soon, so have fun sitting around complaining about it for a long time.
And I wrote that while I should be studying for finals…
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Dec 14, 2009 11:29 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
+1/2
I partially agree. I think the overall answer is a better suited system will get us more wins. A tough scrappy defense combined with a quick offense but not a pure fast break(like the Lakers, Magic, Thunder etc.). We need a new coaching staff all together. Get a coach who will develop AR and Wright as post players, Curry as a point guard, Morrow as a better ball handler, and the incoming rookie. Also someone who will discipline but encourage as well. Constructive criticism. We need to stay healthy with all our talent, develop our young core, get a better system and coaching staff, get a good small forward (draft or trade, Caron Butler?Wes Johnson?) and chemistry.
Rookie: "Why did you bench me?"
Nellie: "You're a rookie"
The problem with the solution “Get a new coaching staff” is that it just isn’t possible. Nellie is the leader, and Cohan isn’t going to fire Nellie anytime soon, even if he is empirically proven to be the reason that the Warriors are having problems, because Cohan cares about his money. It could happen once Nellie’s contract is up, but should we really have to wait until the end of next season?
With that said, we’ll more than likely have to stick with these coaches for now. If this is the best system that Nellie can come up with for this roster, then some roster changes will need to be made. If you think that Nellie isn’t trying hard enough to get the system to work, or you don’t want to give up any players just because they don’t work with Nellie that’s fine, but that probably means the suckage of this team will continue until Nellie’s contract is done. If you take that path, all you can do is pray for Cohan to sell. Meanwhile, I’ll be hoping for the team to get a little bit better so the new owners won’t have to start from scratch and the price that Cohan is demanding will be more realistic.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Dec 15, 2009 1:27 AM PST up reply actions
Excellent, excellent post.
If you think that firing Don Nelson is the right move, you might be right too, although I would say that it is not likely to happen anytime soon
It certainly won’t happen as soon as I want it to, but do you think he’ll be on the bench next year? Because I really, really don’t, and I’d rather not trade four years of Monta just to shake up four more months with Nellie. I am not opposed to trading Monta, but a lazy, halfway-out-the-door coach shouldn’t be the reason why we do it.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
I honestly do think he will be on the bench next year, unless one of the following occurs: Nellie is too sick to coach, the team is sold, or Cohan determines that the money that he would have to pay another coach will be made up in revenue from an improved team under that new coach. I can’t see any way that Nellie leaves without getting paid.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Dec 15, 2009 1:07 AM PST up reply actions
The problem is, I don’t see this offensive style working for anyone
We obviously can’t just get rid of Monta. We don’t have anyone else even close to being a star. In order to win you need to be a good team, but you also need to have a semi-star. Unless you’re the Houston Rockets, you won’t break .500 with a bunch of role players.
So if we trade Monta, what do we get? Another wing player that’s very talented? If so, the same problem arises. Or maybe we get a talented post player? No way Nellie knows how to use him well.
The fact of the matter is, the offense Nellie runs only works if you have a ball-demanding PG who makes good passes but scores as well. Right now I think BDiddy, DWill, Nash, CP3 and maybe DRose are about the only players who fit well with our system (not counting Lebron, et al, of course…)
Unless you’re the Houston Rockets, you won’t break .500 with a bunch of role players.
Before the season started, I posted that I thought the Rockets would be a good test of some of the “conventional wisdom” in basketball. If they managed some success when their lack of “stars” suggested they’d be terrible, it would be good data that people give errant weights to factors involved in winning. So far, they’re providing strong support for that. Their success isn’t a surprise to their management, who went bargain shopping for undervalued skills that do factor into winning, but don’t get you star billing.
It’s not possible to win a championship like that, as the skills that the elite players who can win championships have are those underrated skills coupled with the widely recognized ones, making them even better, but it’s certainly possible to perform rather well without depending on a ‘star’, when the definition of star is almost complete overlap with “scores a bunch of points”.
Honestly, there are more ball dominant players that would fit the system, but none of them are as good or have as much potential as anyone here would want. Example: Andre Miller. He’s old, and isn’t going to get any better, but he is a ball dominant PG that makes good passes and has high basketball IQ. Would I trade Monta for Miller straight up? Of course not.
by samuraaaaiiiiiii on Dec 15, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
I can’t see any way that Nellie leaves without getting paid.
That certainly gibes with Nellie’s history. On the other hand, he will be 70 next year, and his health hasn’t been good; he doesn’t seem to enjoy coaching this team in the slightest. And the more he’s on the bench, the louder the catcalls about his lack of professionalism become. I think there are enough variables in play to change his usual calculus; I think he limps to the record and heads back to the beach for good in June.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
You think he will get the record this year?
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Probably, by hook or by crook. We’ve got a ton of home games left, and if Biedrins comes back, he’ll make a huge difference. We’ll stink, but we’ll get there.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Golden State Worriers.
Straw man
9 x out of 10, people who say trade Monta are talking about getting guys like CP3 & Bosh – in other words, getting players who are better than him. If you’re going to claim something as “ridiculous”, you’re better off saying that the idea that NOH or TOR would trade those guys for Monta is ridiculous.
I don’t get the Monta fan-boys (but I don’t understand any fan-boys). Suffice it to say that criticizing a player doesn’t necessarily mean you hate said player. I don’t read everything on here, but from what I have read, I can’t remember seeing anyone saying Monta sucks or whatnot. If you think things like “Monta isn’t a PG” are insults then you’re probably way too oversensitive.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
