Wright/Belinelli need to be considered. Stats from Marco's 15 game Run of Starter Minutes
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 6:39 PM PDT
277 comments
Marco Belinelli and Brandan Wright were the first new members to be added to our team after our 'We Believe' Playoff Run. They both were hyped as key contributors to our team. However, these two never got on the floor that season for many reasons. One of the main reasons was Don Nelson's reluctance to play Rookies. They basically had a wasted Rookie Year. I still believe these two have tons of talent(not potential, talent). They have not had a chance to show off this talent as much as they deserve to. In limited playing time, these two did very well.
Belinelli proved to be one of our few facilitators on offense and provided a much needed feisty-effort(or just effort) on defense. Wright proved to be our best low post offensive option with his baby hook which is unblock-able due to his superior length. He also proved to be an average to above average post defender. However, his rebounding was sup-par and with a Coach like Nelson, as a big man, expect to be the only rebounder on the court.
All the hogwash about players rebounding numbers being inflated by being the only big on the floor is not true. It would seem to make it harder to rebound. I.e.... If I am the Center and the power-forward(Maggs, Jackson, Buike) does not box out his man well it might as well be 2, or 3 on 1 in terms of rebounding. Thats why you need GREAT rebounders such as Randolph or Biedrins to make this work. Adequate or Above-Average Rebounders can't do it well enough for it to succeed.
From December 15Th to January 11th Belinelli got extended playing time. He averaged 31.7 minutes per game. This the actual amount of time per game to evaluate a player. With this playing time he averaged 14.5 points on 43% shooting from the field and 41.2% from 3 and 81% from the line, while having to guard the other teams best player (included likes of Kobe, Pierce, Granger, Redd, and Joe Johnson) and at a time the Warriors were playing without many of their offensive options besides Crawford, Belinelli, and Azubuike.
So how does he look to you all now when you don't look at his stats from the year which is filled with games where he plays 3 or 4 minutes at the beginning and when he first came back from injury. His numbers in the 15 game stretch where he averaged decent minutes are better numbers than Jackson when you consider Jackson played 40 minutes a game.
Are you all still so ready to give up on Marco and Trade him. Your thoughts and criticisms ?
I compiled these stats from Yahoo Sports and used a calculator by adding up amount of shots taken divided by shot attempts in FG, FT, and 3. Added up all the points/minutes and divided by 15(amount of games) to produce the average. If you don't believe me then do it yourself. Please don't say I'm wrong without doing the research yourself.
UPDATE!!!!:Did some more research on his assists and other facts.
His EFG% was 51% so yes he was very efficient.
True Field Goal % was 55%.
His per 36 in scoring was 16.0
His per 36 in rebounding was 4.2
His per 36 assist rate was 5.5 in that stretch. That surely comes out alot better than Jackson if he averaged 40 minutes.
His per 36 turnover rate was around 2.4.
His assist to turnover rate was 2.29/1. Pretty Good Haters.
His per 36 steals ratio was 2.02. Not to mention he was guarding the other teams best players pretty well.
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!
0 recs |
277 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If an all star is available, that would make any other team be forced to have a game plan for every time they play, I’m more than willing to move anyone on the team other than Randolph. Belineli is a dime a dozen combo guard, Wright is a decent growing forward that has shown no improvement in his strength (most point guards are stronger than him!).
Also, with our roster Belineli is essentially not needed.
Our guards that will play ahead of Beli:
Ellis, Curry, Jackson, Buki, Morrow, Watson, Law
Our starting PF will be Randolph. I actually would love to keep Wright to be our backup PF, but in any deal that will land us an All-Star he is always going to be a valuable trade asset for us to use.
People need to stop looking at our team like it is a great team. It simply is not. We need to make major changes in order to become an actual threat. In order to make moves we must use players that have value. Wright and Beli are decent, that’s why another team is willing to trade for them.
In my opinion, if we can trade them rather than other players it would be to our benefit seeing as one is a dime a dozen player that we are overflowing on at the guard position and the other is fragile, weak forward (weaker than most guards!).
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Jul 9, 2009 6:56 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Very nice and if that was all we were giving up it would be a no brainer, how ever throwing the best center that we have had in quite some time into the mix makes it a lot more complicated.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jul 9, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andris is our best center. He is the best center on a terrible, mediocre at best, team.
Like i was saying, anyone on a bad team should be considered for trading. We need to give up something major in order to get something major, and in this case we go from a spread of weak/decent talent to one All-Star.
One very limited center who is a very solid base + One dime a dozen guard + One fragile/weak full of “potential” forward on a team full of “potential” = For one of the top ten players in the league and a guaranteed All-Star seems like the right gamble to take for a team that is AT BEST on the fringe of being in the playoffs.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Jul 9, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For one of the top ten players in the league
I can name 15 off the top of my head who are better.
Lebron
Kobe
Cp3
Howard
Wade
Bosh
D Will
Kevin Garnett
Rondo
Pierce
Devin Harris
Nash
Carmello
Billups
Gasol
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry
but rondo is not one of the top 15 players in the league
by CSalMJS on Jul 9, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he is
Rondo is about the best player on that team now.RealGm agrees with me on that and his playoff stats and performance was from a top 15 player.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on Kidd puts up the same stats,and he's 36?also kidd is not on that list
I’d say Rondo is in the top 30-40
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 10, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in the playoffs?
his numbers were
17 ppg
9.8 rpg
9.8apg
Kidd did not ever put up those numbers. close? yes but never that good. and not at age 22 in the playoffs. rondo is much better than kidd is right now.
their regular season numbers are very different. Rondo is much more efficient in scoring . Kidd is a better rebounder by 1 board a game. But he also shoots a very low percentage.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 1:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in the playoffs?
what is you don’t understand about small sample sizes? Its very nice that Rondo upped his game in the playoffs but you can’t use 14 games to measure his entire worth.
his numbers were
17 ppg
9.8 rpg
9.8apg
Kidd did not ever put up those numbers. close? yes but never that good.
Actually he did. In the 07 playoffs Kidd averaged a triple double with roughly 14 points 11 boards and 11 assists. In ‘02 he put up 20/8/9 in the playoffs. There are at least 3 other years where his line was at least very similar to Rondo’s.
. rondo is much better than kidd is right now.
their regular season numbers are very different. Rondo is much more efficient in scoring . Kidd is a better rebounder by 1 board a game. But he also shoots a very low percentage.
Not really. In addition to 1 more rebound per game Kidd also averaged 1.5 more assists per 36 mins than Rondo and shot much much better from the free throw line and 3 point range. Thus Kidd’s true shooting percentage (a much better measure of efficient scoring than FG%) was BETTER than Rondo’s last season.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 4:23 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think the playoffs are a pretty important sample
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if a guy plays like crap in the playoffs? That does un-make someone a top 10 player?
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 10, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if a guy plays like crap in the playoffs? That does un-make someone a top 10 player?
The playoffs are what counts and most Superstars step up their game there. Thats what people remember most. Look at Vince Carter and T-Mac. They would be considered one of the top 10 players in the game if they had succeeded in the playoffs(before injury).
Look at A-Rod. He is considered a top 10 player in his sport but he has been a terrible postseason performer. That ruins someones legacy.
Averaging a triple double in the playoffs in 14 games should not be considered a fluke. He may not come that close next season but thats because the longevity of a season and the fact no one has averaged a triple double since the big O.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what if I told you that Tracy McGrady played as well in the playoffs in his career as he played during the regular season? What would you say to that? Because it’s true.
Just because his team didn’t win doesn’t mean we should downgrade him. He did what he was supposed to do, but he was either going against superior teams, or his teammates didn’t play as well as they could have.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 10, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha, if you are replying to someone’s comment immediately after them and you are replying to their entire comment you probably don’t need to quote it to clarify what you’re responding to
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You had me licking my chops with that “TMac sucks in the playoffs!” talk but I see markdash beat me to the point.
Barry Bonds had an awful postseason track record until his (steroid fueled) campaign in ’02. If that postseason had not existed would you consider Bonds to not be among the all-time greats.
I know Rondo was EXTREMELY close to averaging a triple double, but they don’t actually give you a triple double unless you, you know, get three categories in double figures so he didn’t actually quite pull it off. Jason Kidd, who you argued never put up a playoff line as impressive as Rondo’s DID average a playoff triple double average. Nobody is saying Rondo’s 14 games were a fluke, he put up enough triple doubles during the regular season for us all to realize that, we’re just saying a player’s entire reputation shouldn’t be staked to a 15 game hot or cold stretch.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its very nice that Rondo upped his game in the playoffs but you can’t use 14 games to measure his entire worth.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but those 14 games....
were against the best the league has to offer. and in addition to that, during playoffs, teams tighten up their loose ends in order to chase the ring. so…to be able to put up almost a triple double during the playoffs is pretty beast. o_o unless i read the stats wrong xD
by waterbottle415 on Jul 11, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m really not trying to say Rondo isn’t a really really good player or that his playoff performance wasn’t incredibly impressive, just that there were some major holes in the initial argument.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lebron
Kobe
Cp3
Howard
Wade
Kevin Garnett
Carmello
Amare
Gasol
D Will
To me that would be the top ten. (Not necessarily in that order)
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Jul 9, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO Tim Duncan is still better than half the players on that list despite his age.
LeBron James? I'm the only Ty Crane.
by misterjennings on Jul 10, 2009 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree, TD is better than Amare and KG (given his knee problems right now)
by rjnarayen on Jul 10, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yao, Duncan, Roy are all players better than Amare.
by tandy on Jul 10, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i seriously doubt law deserves more minutes over marco..
and jackson/buiki would be jumping back and forth from the 2 and 3.
by hellafornia on Jul 9, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So like, what am I missing about those numbers?43% fg with poor rebounding. Woohoo!
I like Marco. His numbers from last year weren’t terrible — but Kelenna’s, Monta’s, Morrow’s, and Jack’s numbers were all better. And CJ Watson’s were roughly equal. And our #7 draft pick, who has draftniks 100 times more excited than Marco did as a draftee, plays the same type of game, but better.
There are 96 minutes at guard in a game — do the math. Barring a big trade or a couple of serious injuries, there are very, very few meaningful minutes for Marco. It’s no accident than when Fitz rattled off the ten Ws rotation players in today’s interview w/ Riley (Biedrins, Turiaf, Wright, Randolph, Maggs, Jack, Buike, Morrow, Curry, Monta) he didn’t mention Marco. Heck, he mentioned free-agent CJ before Marco.
Marco is not an important part of this team. Get over it.
p.s. — why does Wright get stapled to Marco? Last I checked they were different people.
p.p.s. — where’s the poll option for “NO”?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 9, 2009 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I think he is stapling them together because they are said to be in the Amare deal (Wright + Belli + Andris), essentially trying to argue against the Amare trade because he thinks our guys are good, which they are not (they are only good for being trade fodder).
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Jul 9, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
43% fg with poor rebounding. Woohoo!
Thats actually Jackson except its around 41%
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. But Jackson is much better passer and rebounder than Marco, and miles better at getting himself to the FT line. .He’s also the team captain, which might not mean a lot to you or me, but means a whole lot to his teammates, and Nellie, and Riley.
Dude you’re the one who cited 43% fg as if it were impressive. It’s not.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 9, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
marco's true shooting was better than jackson
although jack shot a lot more FTs at higher percentage.
by farid on Jul 9, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jackson also forced TONS of Iso's last season.
I don’t remember Marco doing too many Iso’s.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Marco is a better passer than Stephen, Jack is just too careless with the ball sometimes. Marco usually makes the correct pass.
Jackson might get to the line more, but more often than not he drives and puts it up like a little schoolgirl and complains about not getting the foul call and leaves his teammates hanging on the other end of the floor. Which almost always results in a made basket. Drives me nuts!
by warriOs on Jul 10, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year Player A per 36 with Warriors
- 15.2 points (54.7 TS%)
- 3.6 assists : 2.4 turnovers
- 2.9 rebounds
Last year Player B per 36 with Warriors
- 18.4 points (54.1TS%)
- 4.1 assists : 2.1 turnovers
- 3.0 rebounds
Who would you rather take? Which guy is the more “unselfish” player with better court vision?
Guess who was also better than Belinelli last season.
A is Marco Bellineli and B is Jamal Crawford
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 9, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i never said i did not like crawford.
but atma put in his numbers from when he started and make it into per 36 because as i showed, with playing time he keeps getting better. in 5-10 minutes he contributes little.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Atma’s point is that Belineli is a Dime-A-Dozen and at best average, guard.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
by LostHawkGSW on Jul 9, 2009 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hes 22. give him a chance
crawford was a maxed out 28 year old guard.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not...
…really true, though. His point has ultimately been- as he’s claimed on numerous occasions- that Belinelli will be out of the NBA altogether (I forget precisely how long, but within his athletic prime). The NBA is full of dime-a-dozen guards who draw regular paychecks and chip in bench minutes. So unless I’m missing something, it seems like his opinion of Belinelli is that he’s decidedly below NBA-average, though I’m certainly open to a different explanation.
by Zack Vank on Jul 10, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year Player A per 36 with Warriors
15.2 points (54.7 TS%)
3.6 assists : 2.4 turnovers
2.9 rebounds
Last year Player B per 36 with Warriors
18.4 points (54.1TS%)
4.1 assists : 2.1 turnovers
3.0 rebounds
Who would you rather take? Which guy is the more "unselfish" player with better court vision?
Guess who was also better than Belinelli last season.
A is Marco Bellineli and B is Jamal Crawford
A good point. And, heck, I’ll throw in Player C:
- 14.0 points (56.4 TS%)
- 3.9 assists : 1.8 turnovers
- 3.9 rebounds
That’d be CJ Watson, who shot less often than either Marco or Jamal, but did everything else better than they did. Well, Marco was the better defender on the year, but he has the same defensive flaw — lack of lateral quickness — that CJ does, and I wouldn’t bank on Marco continuing to play credible D. He used smoke and mirrors and impressively, but he’ll be figured out if he ever gets consistent time. I have no doubt whatsoever that CJ Watson will be a better player than Marco.
Marco isn’t awful, but he isn’t good enough to merit a place in our rotation. And if we can get any value for him, it’s a win.
by onlxn on Jul 10, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
When you show...
…those numbers, I don’t think, “wow! Crawford was better than I thought! Belinelli isn’t even in his league!” If anything, those numbers combined with the fact that Belinelli actually gives a s—- on defense suggests to me that Marco the more worthwhile player to keep. Crawford does indeed play a better passing guard role than Marco, but highlighting the fact that Craw gets a tenth of a rebound more per 36 minutes doesn’t strike me as that impressive.
To suggest that Marco doesn’t fit with our long term plans is perfectly fine, as I’ve often found myself overlooking his presence on the roster. But he certainly showed enough last year for me to recognize that he’s a worthwhile role player at worst, whereas you seem pretty confident he’ll be out of the league within years. This is weird to me, simply because he’s still relatively young, he showed improvement on defense last year (suggesting at least a marginal work ethic), and there’s plenty of familiar role playing NBA 2-guards who are no better than he is.
by Zack Vank on Jul 10, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think fitz dont like belinelli
by Belinelli's the savior on Jul 10, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats obvious...Barnett loves him though. Thats all i care about.
Fitz is not the best basketball mind if you get my drift. He thinks Stephen Jackson is a superstar.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marco's 3 point shooting is better than Jackson's regular Fg%
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 7:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
That would be an interesting, albeit cherrypicked fact, if it were true. Too bad it isn’t.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 9, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Coincidentally, I was looking at Marco's numbers last night
My opinion of Marco hasn’t changed because I have taken his “productive” streak before the injury into account. I like Marco, I think he’s a decent to good player. I think he can be a role-playing starter for a team as long as he’s not the #1, 2, or 3 guy, sort of like how Derek Fisher is a starter but not a #1,2,3 guy. I like that he has defense on his mind. He has a bit of that tough “pit bull” mentality on the floor. He has pretty good court vision, but he takes too many high risk passes.
My opinion of Wright also hasn’t changed. He has a “nose for the ball” as Jim likes to say. He’s got some pretty good offensive moves like the hook, the unreachable jump shot, etc. But he has no defensive instinct to “keep going”, so sometimes I see him standing around waiting for the ball to come to him. (Randolph is the polar opposite where he doesn’t stop for a train.) He’s not that strong and gets pushed around easily. I don’t think he’ll make a good starter, but off the bench, he can help bring some offense vs an opposing bench’s players.
I don’t consider either of these players as complete junk that needs to be shipped out before the sun goes down. I think Patrick O’Bryant fits that description. :P They’re good enough to contribute and occasionally impact a game. But if they help us get a player that fills a gap in our team, then I’m OK with that.
If I had to choose between the two, I’m personally more inclined to let Wright go first. I’d keep Marco’s “toughness” over Wright’s “softness”.
by IQofaWarrior on Jul 9, 2009 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Marco’s ceiling is a league average shooting guard. Poor rebounding, mediocre passing, likely above-average offensive efficiency (thanks to the three-point shot).
You don’t hold up trades because of league-average players.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 7:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Off topic...
I keep noticing guys with similar screen names lately. LostHawk, LostHawkSJSU, LostHawkGSW, montadaboss, monta.da.boss.
I’m assuming these are the same guys. Do you guys keep forgetting your password, or have the previous screen names actually been banned? I know that GSoM is getting more strict about the quality of posts but as long as I’ve been here I don’t think there have been many outright bans.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 9, 2009 8:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
really?
warnings have been tossed around more freely lately, but they usually tell you pretty specifically why you’re being warned.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that doesn't mean he agrees with it
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes this is the new one
i got banned for saying we should trade jackson and maggette for dampiers expiring contract and josh howard on “OH GOD NO!” post by someone.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i got banned for saying we should trade jackson and maggette for dampiers expiring contract and josh howard on "OH GOD NO!" post by someone.
Really? Why would you get banned for proposing a trade? I don’t get it…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 9, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know me too
it said I hurt the quality of the comments previously done in the post.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what?I do that all the time...
don’t ban me though,please?:]
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 9, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I talked to Tony.psd
and he doesn’t know why i got banned either.
It doesn’t make sense. Who’s in charge of this stuff.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not that we don't like Marco and Wright
it’s that they’re the only trade piece that’s attractive to other teams!and we need a proven player…
Again I DON’T HATE MARCO OR WRIGHT.
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 9, 2009 9:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why are they attractive to other teams but not this one. Explain to me how they are so highly regarded by other teams and not us. Don't we need quality players.
It is not like this team is miles ahead of other teams in giving away prospects who turn into great players…..ahhh.
I’ve watched this too many times with the Warriors. And Stoudemire is not going to put us over the edge. Thats why I say keep what we have that is productive, young, and cheap(Marco, Ar, BW, Biedrins is relatively cheap compared to his output, Curry) not old and overpaid(Jackson, Maggette, Ellis is overpaid not old..lol).
Why can’t people realize my point is that Marco played better than most of our players we are so happy to keep when he actually got time.
It is funny how Morrow’s popularity soared in the last 8 games when he was one of the only perimeter players available and he was shooting terrible percentages besides the NO and Utah games. I can’t possibly teach the obvious fact held around the league that Marco and Wright are better players than Morrow, CJ, Law, Turiaf, and Azubuike(not by much, I love Kelenna but he has had alot more chances than MB and BW)
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still we have no room for them and trading them away for a impact player will only benefit us.
Belinelli is a 2 guard
We have Morrow and possible Stephen Curry at the backup
and as for Wright,I really don’t know,I guess Randolph ruined his career by outperforming him.I think Wright should start his career in a new place,he has a bright future.
This is my line-up with everyone on the current roster
Monta Ellis/Stephen Curry/Acie Law
Stephen Jackson/Anthony Morrow
Kelenna Azubuike/Corey Maggette
Anthony Randolph/ Jamareo Davidson?
Andris Biedrins/Ronny Turiaf
Rob Kurz/Cj Watson = unsure
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 9, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kurz for sure is not coming back, and though I like him, CJ really doesn’t have a spot to fill on this team either.
by rjnarayen on Jul 9, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haven’t seen much of law, but i prefer to resign CJ. He was an effecient scorer and capable backup off the bench.
by warriOs on Jul 10, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have at least 9 other players (Ellis, Curry, Jackson, Morrow, Buike, Maggette, Randolph, Turiaf, and Biedrins) that deserve more minutes than either Wright or Randolph. And thats not counting Watson and Davidson who both seem like pretty decent bets to be with the team next year. We have a lot of average to slightly above average type players but seriously lack really, really good players. I
WE NEED TO TRADE DEPTH FOR QUALITY.
Its really not a very difficult concept. Belinelli and Wright probably do have value to quite a few teams. They have less value to us because they won’t see much court time. They are our most expendable pieces that have some trade value. I really don’t get the ridiculous attachment to Belinelli. The Wright love is also difficult for me to understand, but at least the guy seems to have a pretty high ceiling. As markdash pointed out before Belinelli’s absolute ceiling seems to be an average to below average starting SG, why would we let attachment to that kind of player hold up a deal that upgrades the quality of talent on our roster?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We have at least 9 other players (Ellis, Curry, Jackson, Morrow, Buike, Maggette, Randolph, Turiaf, and Biedrins) that deserve more minutes than either Wright or Randolph
Thing A,
how does Randolph deserve more minutes than himself. And I think its a little early to say Curry has already deservedmore playing time although he has not played one game yet.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, deserves more than Belinelli…….ok maybe deserve wasn’t the right word for Curry, but I certainly would not want to see Belinelli sticking around if it means Curry won’t get off the bench
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Wright sticks, I see him getting about 20 per, which is around what Curry (and maybe Turiaf and Morrow) should be getting. Wright’s cool. Honestly I don’t remember him at all.
Marco though… as a lot of people have mentioned Marco is just not very good. He looks great on paper- great shooter! feisty defender! point-guard skills! Then you realize his stroke’s just okay, his defense is way overrated, and his point guard skills are subpar compared to actual point guards. If anything, we have too many Marcos- capable 8th-12th men, but nothing special.
by antihero on Jul 10, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Biedrins averaged about 30 minutes last year and Turiaf averaged about 20….neither one of those guys looks like they are gonna take a playing time hit. I think most of us hope Randolph will get at least 25-30 minutes per game next year. That leaves about 15-20 4/5 minutes for Wright. Ideally he would get all those minutes but I’m sure Maggette or Buike will probably get quite a few of them as well. …..Those spare big guy minutes are one of the main reasons why I’d really really like to see us trade Maggette+Wright for a Prince or Kirilenko type who is much more suited to splitting his time between the 3/4
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Its really not a very difficult concept. Belinelli and Wright probably do have value to quite a few teams. They have less value to us because they won’t see much court time. They are our most expendable pieces that have some trade value.
I’d actually call Azubuike a bit more expendable than Wright. Without Wright we have three bigs, all of whom foul at a fairly high rate… we’ll need a fourth guy to plug in some minutes here and there. (There is the possibility that Nellie will just slide a smaller guy over to do that, but that proved such a horrible idea that I’m hoping he learned his lesson.)
As swingmen go, though, you have Jack, Maggette, Azubuike and Morrow, plus Monta and/or Curry for stretches when they play alongside each other. That’s a lot of personnel, none of whom gets in much foul trouble; it may make sense to cap Maggette’s minutes for health reasons, but Jack can and (unfortunately?) will play about 38 minutes a game. There’s just no way for everyone to get time… even when Maggette’s inevitably hurt, one of ‘Buike and Morrow won’t see big burn. One of these guys could go, and the guy with trade value that we’d be willing to part with is ’Buike.
I’m not necessarily saying that Wright is better than ‘Buike, nor that Wright is indispensable. And there are some genuine questions about fit, as jae reports that the offense seems to stall when Wright and Biedrins are on the court at the same time. But I’d say the main reason that Wright seems expendable is that Nellie hates him, not because we couldn’t use a good fourth big. We definitely could.
by onlxn on Jul 10, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
true, but I’m sort of assuming that at least two of these will happen-
1) we get a big in return for a Wright/Belinelli package
2) we sign a Gooden-type big with the MLE
3) Davidson (or maybe Jamal Sampson :- ) ) will be on the roster
You’re right though, if we don’t make any assumptions about the player/position we are getting in return or in other moves then Buike probably is a bit more expendable. I’d say Turiaf isn’t far behind them either, though we’d probably have to be getting a Dalembert or Chandler in return or already have a center capable MLE signing on board.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Jackson to a large degree
He is not held too highly around the league besides around here.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Go Marco
I will always support Belinelli. I just like the way he plays. If he stays on the team and gets a chance to play, I think he’ll surprise a lot of the people who think he’s not important to the team.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 9, 2009 9:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You and I think alike.
I just like the way he plays.
Its called ball movement and productive possessions. And an actually attempt at Defense. All 3 of these are not present in GSW basketball.
If he stays on the team and gets a chance to play, I think he’ll surprise a lot of the people who think he’s not important to the team.
Well, when he and B Wright are putting up really nice numbers in PHX, they will have some excuse. I call it not taking into count how he plays when you watch him and you just look into the Stats.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ball movement? He put up average passing numbers for a SG, which is fine………except that he was playing a whole lot of PG. His passing abilities are well below average for a PG and his defensive ability is drastically overrated around here. He’s undersized at the 2 and not exactly Gary Payton.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, ball movement
Marco knows how to play team ball. It’s not about his passing ability, but his ability to see the court. Big difference. That being said, I think his passing ability is better than average. But whatever, it’s something that’s obvious to me (I play basketball and I play it well…not to toot my own horn, but I understand certain aspects).
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 9, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But whatever, it’s something that’s obvious to me (I play basketball and I play it well…not to toot my own horn, but I understand certain aspects).
I do as well and that is what stands out. People who play basketball realize Marco plays with the flow of the game so well, hes the perfect teammate to most. If this were hockey he would get tons of assists because he sets people up well for an open shot or an open lane to drive. People need to watch actual game footage. Thats why NBA teams have scouts and don’t just look at stats for whomever they are drafting or looking to trade for.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But whatever, it’s something that’s obvious to me (I play basketball and I play it well…not to toot my own horn, but I understand certain aspects).
I do as well and that is what stands out. People who play basketball realize Marco plays with the flow of the game so well
so is a game of 1 on 1 between us gonna settle who knows more about basketball and thus whether or not Marco will be a good PG or a starting quality player in this league? Seems rather ridiculous, but if thats what will settle it I’m definitely game …….or we could just force the entire GSoM community to pick a side, call ourselves the Sharks and the Jets and have a giant singing dance-fight to settle it. Seems like that would likely produce just as good of an answer.
Look, most of us play basketball, most of us probably like to think we play it pretty well and most of us think it gives us some classified “players only” knowledge of the game that everyone we confront on the internets isn’t privy to. I can’t remember the name of it right now, but there’s a pretty basic communications theory that pretty much sums up that way of thinking that seems to come so naturally to all of us.
Even the very best stat heads GSoM has to offer like jae and markdash will quickly acknowledge that there are many ways where statistical analysis falls short in basketball. However, it seems that the “stats don’t tell the whole/accurate story” argument is usually tossed out immediately after the stats accurately disprove the point a stubborn person was trying to make. As a very stubborn person with many basketball preconceptions that have been shredded with a deeper understanding of the value stats and a little prodding from jae and other GSoMers I’m very familiar with this phenomena and I’m pretty sure thats what’s going on here.
Again, if you still think playing ball well is the only way to truly understand or measure a player’s worth I’d be more than happy to humor you with a game of 1 on1 to “settle” this……….or we could just see what a guy who has played much better basketball and has a much better understanding of the game than any of us ever will thinks…..how about Don Nelson? (you know, that big, turtle-neck wearing guy who keeps Belinelli buried on the bench when 10 guys aren’t down with injuries? Rumor has it he knows a thing or two about hoops and was even a pretty decent player at some point)
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 4:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
okay...
I’m not challenging you or anything. I’ve made my statement about why I think Belinelli is a good player, regardless of what his role/situation is on this team. Sorry if you got your panties in a bunch because I said I can play basketball. I understand most people here probably do play bball. I’m not going to sit here and say I’m better than anyone, because I’m not. I’m too old to be making basketball knowledge threats. If it came across that way, I apologize. But, I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
From a players perspective I got the opposite impression of marco, he’s a guy I wouldn’t trust if he was on my team, he just seems to draw bad karma. so i’d be expecting something to go wrong when he had the ball.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 10, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't replying to you nor did I read what you wrote
But, you’re entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I guess we’ll agree to disagree :)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
why?
any reason?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
any reason?
he’s kinda soft, stiff, jerky, and has a bad habit of passing where he’s not looking. doesn’t seem like he’s be fun to play alongside? I like team mates that are tough and predictable.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 11, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well have fun losing
predictability is not the best quality.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t “get my panties in a bunch” I was just pointing out what a ridiculously stupid argument everything that follows “I play basketball and I’m really good so I think……..” usually is. Your argument was no exception.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alright dude, you’re right.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't care what his "passing numbers" were...
If you’ve watched Belinelli, then you know that he can pass. He can make a great pass & the recipient won’t necessarily convert or might get fouled. The dude can pass, anybody who says otherwise hasn’t watched him play much or just doesn’t like him.
by oldschoolish on Jul 10, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’ve watched Belinelli, then you know that he can pass
I’ve watched Belinelli and, yes, I know he is physically capable of passing the ball. I don’t think he’s particularly exceptional at it in anyway….perhaps slightly above average for an off-guard. I can pass a basketball too, but it doesn’t mean I should be trying to do it in an NBA game. Jamal Crawford was a better passer than Belinelli.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jamal Crawford was a better passer than Belinelli.
Sure. Assists wise….yes. But Marco has an passing ability that no one on this team has.
If you watched the warriors games you would see, he runs the pick n roll with Turiaf and Biedrins best on the team. He is also best at finding a man open after he penetrates.
I’ve watched the games and he very rarely gets conventinial assists that Crawford, Monta, CJ, do. He passes very much like Jackson except for the part he is not a ball-hog. But when Jackson passes it usually is contested and is very hard to do. But the selfish part is why Marco is a better passer and possesses better court vision than almost all of our players.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure. Assists wise….yes. But Marco has an passing ability that no one on this team has.
If you watched the warriors games you would see, he runs the pick n roll with Turiaf and Biedrins best on the team.
Thats simply not true. If Marco was the best passer on the team and had this great courtvision he would have averaged more than 3.5 assists while playing point guard. Again assists don’t tell the whole story, but I watched an awful lot of Warriors basketball last year. Find me a guard, preferably one who plays a significant amount of point guard, who possesses a similar court vision that isn’t apparent to everyone who watches him and doesn’t show up in the box score. Seriously, you’re basically arguing that the proof of this Marco’s PG ability lies in some quality only a couple of you can magically see and there is absolutely no evidence of? You know what they say about people who see things most people don’t and there is now evidence of right?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve watched Belinelli and, yes, I know he is physically capable of passing the ball. I don’t think he’s particularly exceptional at it in anyway….perhaps slightly above average for an off-guard.
His timing and awareness is better than a lot of SG’s in the league. His shot selection could use work. That would be one of my main criticisms for him.
I can pass a basketball too, but it doesn’t mean I should be trying to do it in an NBA game. Jamal Crawford was a better passer than Belinelli.
This doesn’t make any sense. Belinelli is in the NBA, so he should be trying to pass and do it well. Jamal Crawford? I disagree. He’s too in love with his shot to think about setting up his teammates first.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jamal Crawford? I disagree. He’s too in love with his shot to think about setting up his teammates first.
Then how do you explain that Crawford is able to create opportunities for his teammates in the form of assists at a higher per minute rate than Marco?
Marco makes impressive looking passes. He looks like a passer, keeping his head up when playing pick and roll. But the fact is that despite all these things when you put him on the floor he doesn’t create all that many scoring opportunities for his teammates. Sure he’s a pretty good passer for a SG, but it’s not nearly as much of a strength in his game that some make it out to be.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 10, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I give up.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You and I can't change their oppinion unless
Marco averages 10 assists and scores 20 points. They have something against Marco.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you have something against Rocky?
He’s like a superstar in Europe. I think his jersey was the highest selling NBA jersey in Europe.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Europe likes good players.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Europeans also have fetishes for David Hasselhoff and Jerry Lewis.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 10, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
How can you have something against Rocky?
I think if Atma read that I was accused of having something against Marco he’d probably fall out of his chair laughing. I don’t have anything against Marco at all. I have something against poor analysis.
It’s very easy to remember the highlight passing plays, especially when as a fan you are looking so hard to see a sign of hope that one of your role players could be something special. I don’t have anything against using your personal judgment from watching games to come to a conclusion about a players ability (I do it all the time) but when your personal scouting report flies is the face of all the evidence at hand, you have to question whether you are letting your personal biases effect your analysis.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 11, 2009 2:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think he was just saying in general
not to you specifically.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right...
it was you who said I have something against him.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 11, 2009 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
i guess so.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 2:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you have something against Rocky?
uuh..cause hes a fantasy? a movie character? and this is real basketball. If the best thing about euroslim is he looks like a short boring american actor then what’s the point of keeping him?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 11, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Marco averages 20/10, he’d need around 17 shots and 7 TOs according to last season numbers…. pass.
It’s cool to have your own opinion but please don’t pretend you have some exclusive knowledge of the game or that everyone who disagrees is an irrational hater. What it comes down to for me is whether Marco deserves minutes over Morrow and Azubuike, and at this stage in their careers I say no. I like Marco. I hope he gets a shot on a team that needs him, just not ours.
by antihero on Jul 10, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Its ridiculous to dismiss the rest of us with a “you can’t convince them” when we’re taking a pretty rational view of things. We all watched Belinelli play last year and we obviously reached different opinions about his worth. The statistics strongly favor the argument we’re making and you continue to blabber on about how you guys have some incredible ability to determine which players are good and which players are not. Apparently its an ability none of the rest of us, including Don Nelson and every single GM in the league who isn’t beating down the Warriors door to trade for Marco at a discounted price, lack.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m also not dismissing you guys nor am I suggesting that the other players who deserve PT get shoved aside. All I’m saying is I think Marco has game. Whether or not that translates to PT with the Warriors or not, it doesn’t matter.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone has game to a certain extent. I’ve got a deadly 2-foot set shot…. don’t leave me open or you’ll be sorry…
by antihero on Jul 10, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
I’ve got game too. PS3.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
If you are in the nba, we are obviously refering to game as in skill, some your 2 foot set shot doesn’t have.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeez...
grow a sense of humor. It was a joke.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 11, 2009 2:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
grow a sense of humor. It was a joke.
It just wasn’t funny. you can ask my friends and i laugh at alot but that was not funny because it is so literal and stupid.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then how do you explain that Crawford is able to create opportunities for his teammates in the form of assists at a higher per minute rate than Marco?
I have been racking my brain trying to figure that one out myself, because I do not think of Crawford as a play maker and passer, just a dribble-dribble-shoot guy. The only explanation I could think of is that he got to handle the ball more, so he had more chances to make a pass, so his assists numbers look higher. After all, Jack has 7.8 assists per 48, even higher than Crawford’s 5.5, but that’s because Jack handled the ball a lot.
As for “creating opportunities”, I really can’t remember Crawford doing it that much during the season. Crawford’s assists numbers may come from him simply passing the ball to the next closest open guy, but not because he created the opening.
by IQofaWarrior on Jul 10, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Belinelli played PG quite a bit last year and if Crawford can pick up cheap assists by “simply passing the bal to the next closest open guy” why is it that Marco apparently lacks the ability to do the same?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not always about assists. It’s about playing within the flow of the game. There are no stats for that. A lot of times, Marco didn’t get assists because A) he made the right pass to swing the ball around the perimeter to get it to say, Morrow, for the corner or B) his teammate didn’t make the basket. He spaces the floor exceptionally well when he doesn’t have the ball and he plays the angle game really well. He doesn’t need to have the ball in his hands to be effective. He’s like Biedrins. He brings a lot of intangibles to the table that are really subtle and that’s what I thought the Warriors lacked.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
except that Biedrins’ “intangibles” can be measured (and are thus fairly tangible) examined and are generally agreed upon.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Biedrins’ intangibles can’t be measured. That’s why they’re called intangibles…
Setting screens, rolling to the basket, catching the ball in traffic, boxing out his man, tipping the ball to an open man, not forcing his offense…
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and again most of those things can be measure in rebounding rates, PER, turnovers, and FG%…your list of “intangibles” are pretty tangible.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are there stats on who styles their hair the best in the NBA? I don’t think so. Although, if there were, I’d guess Chris Anderson might have the nod over Biedrins.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 11, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not all those things can be measured. Not forcing his offense could be that he doesn’t demand the ball in the post or passes the ball up for a better opportunity. Boxing out his man doesn’t always mean he’s going to get the rebound. It creates rebounding opportunities for others. If you want to nitpick, which are you, we could probably argue this for days. But, I think you know what I mean by intangibles and I know what you mean as well.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 11, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but offensive efficiency is a pretty good measure of whether or not he forces his offense. If you see a guy who doesn’t score a whole bunch of points but shoots a very high FG% like Biedrins you can probably guess that he doesn’t force his offense, no?
You can also determine if he boxes his man out very well. I can’t think of a guy who does a great job boxing his man out and doesn’t get a lot of rebounds can you? Or can you think of a guy who doesn’t do it well and still gets a lot of rebounds? You can also look at how well the team rebounds the ball when Biedrins is on the floor as opposed to how well they rebound when he’s out.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there are some intangibles in basketball that are very important, I just think there are a lot fewer intangible qualities than you want to believe.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but offensive efficiency is a pretty good measure of whether or not he forces his offense. If you see a guy who doesn’t score a whole bunch of points but shoots a very high FG% like Biedrins you can probably guess that he doesn’t force his offense, no?
You can also determine if he boxes his man out very well. I can’t think of a guy who does a great job boxing his man out and doesn’t get a lot of rebounds can you? Or can you think of a guy who doesn’t do it well and still gets a lot of rebounds? You can also look at how well the team rebounds the ball when Biedrins is on the floor as opposed to how well they rebound when he’s out.
Sure, good points.
I agree that there are some intangibles in basketball that are very important, I just think there are a lot fewer intangible qualities than you want to believe.
This is where I’ll say I’m not good enough at basketball to really quantify “intangibles.” :)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 11, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
find me a really successful NBA guard who did all those things you mentioned well but had low assist numbers and a pretty bad assist:to ratio.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the point
Marco hasn’t had enough time on the floor to be able to make comparisons. I’m vouching for his potential. I hate using that word, but he’s got it, IMO.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me correct
I’m vouching forhis potential.playing time
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anthony Randolph and Marco Belinelli have played almost the exact same number of NBA minutes. Anthony Randolph shows potential in the form of above average production in limited time. If you look at the entirety of Belinelli’s production it is below average for a SG and well below average for a PG. Again I just don’t think you should expect us to put a lot of faith in Belinelli just because you and da.boss think you see something none of the rest of us can. You’re not raising any new points or making your case any stronger by just reapeating “he’s really, really good because I can just tell despite all evidence to the contrary” over and over again.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are annoying.
Marco Bellinelli’s playing time has been more dispersed.In 2 seasons he’s played the same a rookie has played. He simply has not gotten enough of a chance then. You guys hate the euros beside Biedrins.
And no, I never compared Randolph to Belinelli because they are two completely different players.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are annoying.
It must be frustrating for you to repeat the same baseless theories over and over and still not have them accepted as fact. I’m sorry.
Marco Bellinelli’s playing time has been more dispersed.In 2 seasons he’s played the same a rookie has played.
Crazy thought here: maybe if he played better when he was on the floor he would earn more minutes….you know, exactly like Randolph did late in the year?
You guys hate the euros beside Biedrins.
ah, yes now I’m just prejudice. Clearly. What other Euros do I hate? Bargnani? He sucks, he just does. Others? I love Dirk’s game, Calderon is one of my favorite guys to watch. I don’t like Pau because he’s a Laker but I have a lot of respect for his game. Petrovic was one of my all time favorite guys to watch. It appears you have about as much support for this ridiculous claim as you do for your “Belinelli is really, really good because I say so schtick.”
And no, I never compared Randolph to Belinelli because they are two completely different players.
You’re right you didn’t. I did, because they have similar sample sizes and have displayed dissimilar levels of potential in their limited minutes.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was wrong about the Euro part. Bargnani's game does not suck to me. I find it to suck his first 2 years but this past year was very good.
If you compared AR to Morrow, CJ, and Azubuike they would look like Marco did as well. My point is I think AR is not comparable because he is a far superior rebounder to anyone besides biedrins and his potential.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Morrow, CJ, and Buike all have better numbers than Marco so how would they look like him when compared Randolph? I only used Randolph because he was the most similar warrior in terms of court time. I never said anything about Belinelli’s rebounding…obviously you would expect Randolph to collect far more boards, but then you’d also expect Belinelli to collect a whole lot more assists and steals and he doesn’t really.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with kajita/montadaboss
sorry to butt in guys, but i’ve watched every single warriors game this past season (except maybe 2?) and some games even twice with my DVR. And I will have to agree that Belinelli probably does have the best court vision/passing (ideas at least) of all the players on our team. There is a certain type of fluidity that comes with him in the game. He often will swing the ball when it needs to be swung, runs the pick and roll better than anyone on our team to start the offense in a half court setting, and is able to drive either way for the layup or jump shot depending on the defense. I’m not saying he’s a great player or anything, but as far as playing team ball and within the flow of the offense… he’s probably one of the best on our team at doing so. I mean there are many in the NBA who are like that and the ones best at it get labeled “glue guys.”
by dyun on Jul 10, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
almost all those “glue guys” have one skill they do exceptionally well. Belinelli does not. Guys who are decent at a lot of things, very bad at a couple things and ever so slightly above average at one or two things generally don’t find great success in the NBA.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
almost all those "glue guys" have one skill they do exceptionally well. Belinelli does not.
Shooting?
He almost shot 40 percent from 3. Thats exceptional. Not Morrow but you know… great.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
39% from 3 is pretty solid…above average…but I wouldn’t quite call it exceptional. And his TS% is right around average. If you want to argue that Belinelli could develop into an effective 3 point specialist off the bench its an argument I’ll definitely listen to, but you’re arguing for his potential as a starting guard, perhaps even point guard…..not the same thing at all.
Both players I’m about to present have been described as potential “glue guys” or guys that play well within the flow of the game.
per 36 min numbers
Belinelli
15.0 pts
3.3 ast
2.3 to
2.7 reb
3P%-.395
FG%-.429
FT%-.770
TS%-.535
Player B
13.8 pts
2.4 ast
1.6 to
3.3 rebs
3P%-.381
FG%-.405
FT%-.466
TS%-.520
So Belli seems to be a slightly better player overall than player B, but he certainly isn’t a whole lot better. Any guesses who this potential packed future star is?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
per 36 min numbers
Belinelli
15.016 pts
3.35.5 ast
2.32.4to
2.74.2 reb
3P%-.395.409
FG%-.429.434
FT%-.770.808
TS%-.535551
If you read my column, you would have seen these per 36 numbers put up in the games he was getting his consistent playing time or that 15 game stretch you call irrelevant.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t call it irrelevant. In fact those minutes carry the exact same weight as every other minute of basketball he’s played. 15 cherry picked games is too small, and too biased of a sample size to draw conclusions about a players worth. Sorry I used all of his minutes to present as big and unbiased of a sample size as possible. Seriously, do you not understand what sample size is? I’m getting tired of writing it but you continue to misinterpret what I’m saying.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
15
cherrypicked games? These were 15 games in a row where he got consistent playing time. Not random games where he put up good number and then put them all together.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is...
yes he responded well to getting more playing time, but when you are evaluating a player you can’t just look at the three weeks of the season that he played the best. I mean, you can, but it wouldn’t mean much.
Does anybody actually expect Monta to end up putting up career numbers that look anything like that magic month where he shot a ridiculous FG% and didn’t seem to ever make a mistake or miss an open midrange shot?
Is it reasonable to throw away all of CJ’s season stats and just look at the ridiculously good numbers he put up the last two weeks of the season?
Anybody can put a together a good string of games. You have to use as much information as you have available to you so you don’t get fooled by statistical outliers (aka “hot-streaks”)
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 11, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta's magic month was something that never happens
Belinelli’s numbers are able to be put up consistenly. and i doubt monta played in 15 games in one month.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you think about it...
Monta’s “magic” could just be a statistical outlier of a very good player playing exceptionally for a month. Marco’s could be the outlier of a mediocre NBA player having a decent 15 games…
Belinelli’s numbers are able to be put up consistenly.
Yeah, by other players. Not by Marco himself. At least not up to this point in his career.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 11, 2009 2:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how do you know
that was his only chance he ever got and thats how he performed. how can he not put up those numbers again. well i guess that is the thinking around here.
The thinking that he can’t replicate the performance he gives in his only chance so what the hell…. dont give him another chance? ha this makes me laugh but the ego filled people who comment on here say no one likes marco. while my poll suggests more people agree with me than them, that they don’t want to spend the time arguing like Dr, belli savior, and i have to go through with.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 3:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
its really not
that we don’t like him, its that we feel he’s clearly not among the top 8-9 players on this team and he shouldn’t get minutes ahead of other guys we have.
Also please don’t cite your ridiculously biased poll. You have no “NO” option. Do you really just not understand the concept of bias?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the last option is no.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, and a FoxNews poll that reads: “Who are you voting for?”
A. McCain
B. Obama, because I’m a stupid pansy who wants the government more involved in my life.
has two equally fair options that should produce accurate results too, right?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes he responded well to getting more playing time, but when you are evaluating a player you can’t just look at the three weeks of the season that he playedthe best.
Why not. That was his only opportunity.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw how do you put moving images there?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
same way you put a regular picture, just put a link to a gif in there instead.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where do you find a gif?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
B shoots 46 percent from the line. I doubt he’s ever been considered a glue guy
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Bruce Bowen a glue guy? Because he is a 58% career FT shooter.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh and B is the great J.J. Redick….. obviously a slightly better version of J.J. Redick who turns the ball over quite a bit more and rebounds quite a bit less is exactly what this team needs eating up minutes that Monta and Curry could be playing.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 12, 2009 3:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he will
but we have to give the players that work hard a chance,such as Morrow and Azubuike
Belinelli will never get decent minutes to prove himself on the Dubs,I will always love him as a Warrior though.
Its time for a change...
by RunNdGun on Jul 9, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
team record during 15 game period.... 5-10.
He needs to play more controlled, he has the skills, he needs to put it together in limited minutes to earn real time.
by tafkasam on Jul 9, 2009 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
also look at the teams we played. we played @utah, orlando(twice), lakers(twice), celtics, @miami, @portland, @atlanta,@indiana(good home team)
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
5-10 by most teams would be considered good against those teams
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
coming from you tafkasm
which is y, nellie drives me crazy
MArco was the only perimeter guy aside from jack committed to playing some form of defense. Another coach would have put marco on floor 20 mins a night alone for that, to let his players know "hey guys… if u try hard on D you’ll play" He had his momments on D. He is by no means a ‘defensive specialist’ but he is becoming a legitimate nba defender.
Not nellie!! Hey guys if u jack up 5 threes a half, i’ll put u in!!
I just know marco will end up in san antonio or houston or somewhere, and ac cell when put in an actual system based on defense and an offence that isnt 1 on 5 mentality
Why won’t you support what you have supported in the past but now hes no good. way to bow down to peer pressure.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or just bowing down to reality. He, like everyone else, is not saying Marco is destined to fail or is a terrible player, simply that he needs to show consistency in all his minutes not just a 15 game hot stretch where he performed adequately before we start demanding he be given more minutes.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is a good point tafkasam
however, look at the box scores of those games.
He was starting with CJ Watson or A
Belinelli
Crawford
Buike
Wright
Biedrins
with Watson and Morrow off the bench and Morrow was shooting it very badly. 3-11 from the field was pretty common.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 9:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you all still so ready to give up on Marco and Trade him. Your thoughts and criticisms ?
Yeah, He’s injury prone and so is wright. If they got in a fight it would look like the celebrity death match as parts came flying off.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 9, 2009 10:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you want to look at incredibly small sample sizes of guys who put up good numbers in starters minutes but have relatively unimpressive overall numbers lets talk about this guy:
Dude put up over 20 points per game while shooting about 58% from the field!!!!!!! Why isn’t everyone upset that we let him go and didn’t even get anything in return!!!! Maybe if he threw up 37 in the summer league he get this ridiculous level of attachment/obsession instead of being viewed as something of a joke around.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rob Kurz...
…didn’t score 37, but he did hit that buzzer beater, and enjoyed the requisite level of good cheer afterwards. My advocation for Belinelli (which only really goes so far as to say that he’s a perfectly acceptable NBA guard in a specific role) has nothing to do with his summer league performance
by Zack Vank on Jul 10, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Kurz
and because 2 games is a much smaller sample than 15
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thats why i'm higher on marco
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get when Marco was mediocre
Was it when he was benched by Nellie, or when he was out with an injury?
He’s been spectacular in most of the games he’s been in, and I definitely hope he’s going to stay and prove everyone wrong. I’d actually prefer for him to be the starting PG of the team.
And Wright…He needs to eat more meat.
by placid on Jul 9, 2009 10:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He’s been spectacular in most of the games he’s been in, and I definitely hope he’s going to stay and prove everyone wrong. I’d actually prefer for him to be the starting PG of the team.
He certainly wasn’t spectacular. He is not a PG.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s been spectacular in most of the games he’s been in,
spectacularly annoying?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 9, 2009 11:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I know
Its like everyone forgot . If Marco had played in the last 10 games like he did in those 15 games instead…. everyone would be all over him. But since it happened in a portion of the season that our “loyal” fans basically want to forget about.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 9, 2009 11:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
FOR THE LOVE OF PETE HE WASN’T EVEN THAT GOOD IN THAT STRETCH!!!
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 9, 2009 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
perhaps you need to read it one more time
HE WASN’T THAT GOOD IN THAT STRETCH AND ITS AN INCREDIBLY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bold fail
A good way to describe this diary.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 5:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Belinelli will be a good player in this league. HE just must not be able to do it with the Warriors. He at least tries to play defense so gotta give him that. I would just like to see him work on driving more to the basket and being more agressive.
by bushido on Jul 10, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think part of the reason why I praise Marco so much is because I feel he doesn’t get enough credit for what he’s done in the limited time he’s been on the court.
It’s not fair to say he’s done on this team when this team is full of young guys trying to make a niche for themselves. We don’t know he’s done. What if he comes out and outplays Azubuike, Morrow, Curry? At this point it’s a 50/50 chance that’ll happen.
Last season, everyone showed a little something to be excited about. For some reason, Marco’s play stood out to me because his play was what the team needed. He was the anti-Maggette, anti-Sjax (whiny, not getting back on D).
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think part of the reason why I praise Marco so much is because I feel he doesn’t get enough credit for what he’s done in the limited time he’s been on the court.
You could certainly say the same thing (and have better evidence to support your case) about CJ Watson and Brandan Wright.
It’s not fair to say he’s done on this team when this team is full of young guys trying to make a niche for themselves. We don’t know he’s done. What if he comes out and outplays Azubuike, Morrow, Curry? At this point it’s a 50/50 chance that’ll happen.
What if, what if, what if. When he comes out and outplays him then we’ll talk, but he hasn’t yet and until he does or shows quite a bit of improvement its completely unfair to the rest of those guys to say there’s a 50/50 shot of that happening. Unless you think there’s a 50/50 shot that Davidson will come out and outperform Randolph, if by 50/50 you mean “there remains a slight possibility of it happening,” then yes. Yes Belinelli played better defense than Maggette last year, but he still wasn’t a really good defensive player he was simply above average compared to the rest of our defensively challenged team. Plugging in an overall worse player because he’s a slightly better defensive option doesn’t improve the team….you may as well go out and sign Bruce Bowen if you want a guy who doesn’t move well laterally but will show effort on the defensive end.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of the fun in being a fan is to speculate. So, forgive me for doing that.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
speculate away, nobody is stopping you. I’m just saying its incredibly unfair to dismiss the superior production of those other players last season and say Belinelli has a 50/50 shot at being better.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suggested that given the amount of youth on the team and the surplus of wing players, Marco has a good of a chance as anyone to make it into the rotation. I guess 50/50 wasn’t the right choice of words. But basically, he either cracks the rotation or he doesn’t.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are saying that he has as legitimate a shot as anyone else because of his skill set and ability?
why were you being questioned about saying that?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all good
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
superior.... stats don't explain everything
I’ve asked you guys time after time to use Marco’s starting numbers with decent playing time to compare between Azubuike and Morrow because Buike got consistent minutes every night and Morrows stats didn’t go down when he wasn’t playing much because he wasn’t playing at all. He either played lots of minutes or none. Marco had tons of games where he played 5 minutes and that hurt his overall stats.
And if you compare his decent time production… he isn’t too far behind those guys in anything besides 3pg % to Morrow because Morrow is one of the best in the league. I’m going to put up his assists and turnover rates in those 15 games to further prove my point about his passing.
FYI
Look at the backup point guards around the league and you’ll notice that they don’t get too much assists because assists come with the flow of the game. Its hard to force assists if you get my drift. So more playing time equals less forcing the ball(turnovers) and more assists.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but that is an incredibly small sample size. sample size matters. sample size matters. sample size matters. I’ve said this to you at least as many times as you’ve asked us to only use his starter minutes sample. I suspect that if you compare those cherrypicked stats to 15 cherrypicked games from Buike or Morrow’s season you’d see an even bigger difference between them.
The backup PGs don’t pick up a ton of assists per game but almost all of them have much better ast per 36 minutes numbers and almost all of them have better ast:to ratios.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully sample size will become full course meal sometime in his career.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that if you compare those cherrypicked stats to 15 cherrypicked games from Buike or Morrow’s season
I did not just pick random games as you are infering. I’m using 15 games in a row when he actually got playing time.If you compare 15 games in a row where each of those guys played at least 30 minutes in almost every game.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i doubt they will be near him
but still i like all of those guys and the end of the season is a little different because they were the only players available and I remember those guys playing 40 ++++minutes every night.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry had superior production last year?
In what college basketball?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In what college basketball?
haha, the imaginary unreasonable expectations conference
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 11, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
…..yes no matter what they do in college we should never play rookies…….uggghhh, you guys berate Nelson for not playing raw kids like Randolph, or kids who don’t show much in limited time like Belinelli and then when a prospect who looks like he might be able to contribute a bit immediately you don’t think he deserves time over a guy who hasn’t proved himself to be anything more than an end of the rotation NBA player in two seasons.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not that. its because we have guys who didn't get a chance as a rookie or 2nd year player
and i don’t want a rookie who very well may not be even as good as those guys. I think Currys good but he will get his chance.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think part of the reason why I praise Marco so much is because I feel he doesn’t get enough credit for what he’s done in the limited time he’s been on the court.
I’ll say this: Marco proved a lot of people wrong last year. He’d looked like a bust, a guy who simply wasn’t NBA-calibre — he proved otherwise, with significant improvement on both ends of the court. He’s a viable player. He not only belongs in the NBA, he belongs in someone’s rotation…
…just not ours. There are too many guys who show more potential than he does.
It’s not fair to say he’s done on this team when this team is full of young guys trying to make a niche for themselves.
That’s true, as far as it goes. But Jermareo Davidson’s a young guy trying to make a niche for himself… so’s Acie Law. So are a bunch of unsigned guys on our summer league team. We can’t keep them all around, just waiting to see if they’ll become special. We have to prioritize the guys who show the most potential. Marco, unfortunately, just isn’t very high on that list.
What if he comes out and outplays Azubuike, Morrow, Curry? At this point it’s a 50/50 chance that’ll happen.
No, it’s not. Azubuike and Morrow both played significantly better than Marco did last year, both scoring more efficiently and rebounding much better than he did. Marco’s passing doesn’t begin to make up those differences, as it just wasn’t that good in practice… Morrow’s assist/turnover ratio was even better than Marco’s. (For all the hype about Marco’s passing, his A/TO ratio was just sixth on the team, behind Turiaf, CJ, Crawford, Jack and Morrow.) You can argue that Marco’s defense was so superior that he was still better, but there’s just no evidence that his defense was significantly better. We played better when Azubuike was on the floor. We played better when Morrow was on the floor. We played a little worse when Marco was on the floor. The odds are against Marco outplaying either of them. Possible? Sure. But you have to play the odds, and the odds don’t favor Marco.
You can’t make the same argument with Curry, of course, as he has no NBA track record to point to. But you’d have a hard time arguing that Curry doesn’t show more potential than Marco. Marco’s supposed strengths are passing and shooting… Curry projects to be much better at both, and it’s not likely that his rebounding would be any worse than Marco’s. Again, the argument for Marco would come down to some supreme confidence in the brilliance of his defense, a confidence I don’t have.
Marco’s a really fun player, a likeable player. Between his quirky shot, his clever passes and his savvy defensive tricks, he’s a treat to watch. But that quirky shot doesn’t go into quite enough to be devastating… those clever passes go awry often enough so that they don’t qualify as a real weapon… those defensive tricks can be scouted pretty easily once a guy’s on other team’s radars. And in between all those moments, Marco is just not grabbing enough free balls to be helpful.
None of this means he’s a terrible player. He’s halfway decent, and it’s a strange state of affairs when he’s the twelfth-best guy on your team. He’d be no worse than the ninth-best player on a bunch of teams, and you could probably find a team — Sacramento or something — where he’d be the sixth or seventh-best player.
But things are what they are. He’s our twelfth-best guy. Better to trade him for value than feel bad about it.
by onlxn on Jul 10, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
That’s true, as far as it goes. But Jermareo Davidson’s a young guy trying to make a niche for himself… so’s Acie Law. So are a bunch of unsigned guys on our summer league team. We can’t keep them all around, just waiting to see if they’ll become special. We have to prioritize the guys who show the most potential. Marco, unfortunately, just isn’t very high on that list.
I agree completely, which is why I said, regardless of what Marco’s role will be on this team (or not on this team), I still think he’s a good player for all the reasons I stated.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
onlxn
Really good, thoughtful post. I pretty much am on the same page as you. My arguments for Marco are totally biased because I simply like the way he plays. So, that probably gets in the way of more rationale thought.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s our twelfth-best guy.
Sorry, thats not even close. Even if you think 10 players on this team are better than him… explain how Davidson and Law just jumped by him.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, thats not even close
If he’s the 11th or even 10th best guy on the roster isn’t that pretty damn close?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he’s the 11th or even 10th best guy on the roster isn’t that pretty damn close?
Sorry, that is not close. I say 5th or 6th.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 3:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, good one! You do have a sense of humor, your friends were right.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're saying
than Belinelli is the 5th or 6th best player on this team?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They didn’t. I regard the following players as better than and/or more promising than Marco Belinelli:
1. Andris Biedrins
2. Monta Ellis
3. Anthony Randolph
4. Corey Maggette
5. Stephen Jackson
6. Ronny Turiaf
7. Brandan Wright
8. Anthony Morrow
9. Kelenna Azubuike
10. CJ Watson
11. Stephen Curry
If we let CJ walk, Marco will VAULT to eleventh on my list.
by onlxn on Jul 11, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see how you could argue for Belinelli’s worth over any of those guys except MAYBE Watson.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Andris Biedrins
2. Monta Ellis
3. Anthony Randolph
4. Corey Maggette
5. Stephen Jackson
6. Ronny Turiaf6. Marco Belinelli.
7. Brandan Wright
8. Anthony Morrow
9. Kelenna Azubuike
10. CJ Watson
11. Stephen Curry
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You guys had all the same hype for Marco as you did for Curry but guess what.... Curry is a better shooting, in weaker passing, defending, strength
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
Belinelli is better than Maggette? Explain. If he’s better than Maggette and Turiaf then he’s 5th not 6th. If he’s 5th and better than Wright, Morrow, and Buike why would you need to cross off the names of Watson and Curry?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Belinelli is better than Maggette in almost everything that this team needs
Scoring is not one of them.
1. tie between Monta, Biedrins, and Randolph
4. Jackon
5. tie. Belinelli and Buike
7. Wright and Morrow
8. Turiaf and Maggette
9.Curry
10. Law, Davidson, speedy
This is my opinion. I’m not telling you that you are wrong. I just think this is how are best players go in order.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
efficient scoring is something every team needs and its something Maggette does incredibly well while Belinelli is only average. Maggette is also a much better rebounder, is that not something this team needs? His assist numbers are shockingly (and pathetically for Belinelli) similar considering he’s a virtual black hole SF and Belinelli played a whole lot of PG.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't know how i can say this
but can you look at marco’s numbers when he plays. not his lowered stats from nelson benchwarming him until the last 2 minutes of the game. his numbers when he plays are very good.
This team needs passing and defense more than maggette getting 6 rebounds a game at pf(not his fault but the inevitable).
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’re obviously not using Belinelli’s stats when he wasn’t playing.
“Did you see that game on January 5th? Belinelli 0 points, 0 assists! That guy sucks!”
We are using average stats. Per minute stats. These things are accumulated by players whether they start and play 30+ minutes or come off the bench and play 10. Minutes are minutes.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just as dash said, minutes are minutes. Given a large sample size most guys don’t have crazy fluctuations in per minute production whether they come off the bench or not. As in any study, the larger total sample size you have the more accurate your ability to predict future events will be.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point it’s a 50/50 chance that’ll happen.
Here we go again…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 10, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
C’mon man, there’s a chance it will happen and a chance it won’t … ergo 50/50!
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you'd like that...
What do I have to do to get Tony.psd to make some sweet shirts that say “life is a coin toss”?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 10, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offer him some “PEK PEK”?
(I still don’t know what it means, just throwing it out there…)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way … what do I have to do to get a warning? I make pointless lame throwaway posts all the time. Did Atma grant me diplomatic immunity after our cease-fire?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want...
I can start flagging all your posts : )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 10, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should just keep posting one-liners till one of us gets a warning. Like cyber-“chicken.”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
Offer him some "PEK PEK"?
(I still don’t know what it means, just throwing it out there…)
I don’t know what it means either but judging by all the snickering I don’t think it’s something I want to be offering.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 10, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for posting the stats!!!!
I’ve always like beli and want to keep him. Everybody has him on the chopping block for a star but I think that he could develop into something special. He’s grown a lot and has a variety of skills that we could use. He’s not as solid as he could be, given time and some PT, I think he will.
I think everyone is impatient and wants to pick up a big star to win now. Thats understandable given the playoff drought we’ve had, but the west will get slow and old eventually. When that happens we will have a mid 20’s core of guys who will be dominating. I have faith in this team and enjoy watching them. I would have to lose a good guy who may be something special down the road. And we all know the warriors track record in letting go of good players.
by Butt Secks on Jul 10, 2009 11:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It has nothing to do with picking up a big star. Here’s a test: take 96 minutes per game at PG/SG — no more, no less — and divvy them up fairly to the following players:
Jackson
Monta
Curry
Morrow
Azubuike
Keep in mind that we have Maggette at SF, so you’re not going to be able to squeeze more than 15-18 minutes of SF time for Jack and Buike.
Now take the remaining minutes and give them to Belinelli so he can develop into “something special.”
Out of curiosity, how much time did he get?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
0 minutes
PG: Monta (24-30) Curry (12-24)
SG: Jackson (24-32) Morrow (12-24) Monta-(6-12)
SF: Buike (18-24) Jackson (6-12) Maggette (20-30)
This assumes
1. Maggette will play nearly 2/3 of a quarter at PF (probably a bad but inevitable thing)
2. Randolph won’t play ANY SF minutes (a good thing)
3. Law and Claxton will be end of the bench staples or not be with the team
4. If CJ Lawson returns his only significant minutes will be early in the year when Curry will likely be playing very few minutes.
Belinelli’s best chance to prove himself is with another team. The only ways he gets significant minutes this year is if he suddenly becomes a much, much better player this offseason or we get hit just as hard by injuries as we did last year.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CJ Lawson
haha, wishful draft thinking still. Watson, obviously.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Off topic
What’s with Thing A, Thing C, Thing 1, Thing 2? Is there a Thing B somewhere? Do you guys like to get together and do Things? Are you guys like the GSoM frat boys?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 3:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Started as a Cat in the Hat reference — Thing 1 (me) and Thing 2 (OlympicMike), littering the site with strangely similar posts, both running interference for JAE (The Cat, by metaphorical extension). Things A, B, and C came soon thereafter. I believe Thing B is WarriorsScore110.
But yeah, we are very much like the GSoM frat boys. You wanna pledge? ;-)
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ps
I’m renouncing the “Thing 1” handle for a while, but I retain copyright privileges…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 10, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Gotcha. I don’t think I’m up for the hazing ;-)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
it’s pretty hardcore. ; )
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 10, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay...
that got a pretty legitimate laugh out of me. Something tells me there is an actual story to go with that joke…
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 11, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, being an infantry marine fresh out of bootcamp wasn’t exactly a fun time….just the rumors of harsh hazing techniques forced several guys I knew to take the “easy way” and make incredibly bad decisions about putting boot edge dressing on their own body parts.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been saying this for awhile
the starting lineup is not set. There are only 4 guaranteed starters, Monta, Jack, AR, and AB. Morrow, Azubuike, and Marco all have a legit shot at being in the starting lineup. It all depends on who shows up with the best stuff at training camp, and where Nellie ultimately prefers to play Jack.
We don’t know what either of the 3 can do, they will all be improved from last season (particularly A-mo and Marco) because of how young they are. Marco could still start. If he comes to camp playing better D, with improved court vision and passing, Nellie would probably like playing someone with Belinelli’s ability, and size, next to Monta. There’s no guarantee this will happen, probably won’t but it could.
Although I put AR as a “guaranteed starter” BWright could come to camp much improved and snatch up that starting role. Curry could also start, but based on what I saw from today’s summer league game, he has a lot of growing to do before he cracks our lineup.
Most likely the lineup will look like this next year
Monta
Jack
Buike
AR
AB
Morrow or Belinelli could move into the SG role and slide Jack over to the 3 if they come to camp in impressive form. The same goes for BWright, if he comes to camp in impressive form, he could jack the PF spot. Nothing is set in stone, but it looks pretty solid.
by myk on Jul 10, 2009 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
there’s no guarantee this will happen, probably won’t but it could.
You remember Don " F#@$ Marco and Brandan" Nelson is coaching.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 9:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yes Don Nelson has a history of suppressing great talent………
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 10, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha yes
“I told B Wright and Randolph to keep their heads up.Just play hard. Don’t give in to Nellie’s mind games…….He is known to, you know, ruin careers.”
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly why Randolph credits Nelson with making him a BETTER player with those mind games. Whose career did Nelson ruin?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats why he can't win a championship.
He can make crap into average. Average into good. But he always underachieves with great talent. Something Great Coaches cannot do if they are to be considered great.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In Nellie’s defense, he hasn’t had the best teams to make a champion. I think Dallas blossomed after he left but I think that’s a credit to the players more than the coach and they never became a champion anyway (close but no cigar). And after all, Nellie did own Avery two years ago.
I wouldn’t consider the current team great talent. I would consider them young talent with the possibility of some players becoming great in the future (not near future). I don’t think Nellie will be around for that though, so you don’t need to worry ;-)
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jul 10, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you don’t need to worry ;-)
With him and his former self coaching…. thats pretty hard to do.
Nelson’s last coaching Job was the dallas series 3 years ago.
In 2007-08 we didn’t make the playoffs due to his insistence to play Jackson and Baron 48 minutes a game.
If he had played Belinelli(scored 16 or 17 points in his only real time at the end of the year), Azubuike, or Wright a tiny bit more… we would have won alot of games.
I don’t need to explain last year. It is self explanatory.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 10, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Warriors missed the playoffs in 07-08 because they caught one of the all-time screwgies in american sports history. They won 48 games (FORTY-EIGHT!) and still didn’t make the playoffs. Obviously, this was an NBA record.
Although I suppose there were some overtime games that season. Maybe if Nelson had played Jackson and Davis 53 minutes in those games, maybe the Warriors could have gotten another win or two…
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They won 48 games (FORTY-EIGHT!) and still didn’t make the playoffs.
I agree that that is unfair but they lost 7 of their last 11 games. Didn’t you remember JAckson shoot around 30% in that stretch. Same with Baron but how many minutes did they play a night. One of the worst coaching jobs. Buike, Wright, and Belinelli were fresh and did very well in their minutes. If you took away 5 minutes from Al, Baron, Jackson, and gave them to Belinelli, Wright, and Buike, we would have won 3 or 4 of those games.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name 10 coaches that would’ve gotten more wins out of that roster than Nellie did
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pop
Karl
D’antoni
Larry Brown
Bryron Scott(if he could tango with baron)
Rick Carlisle
Flip Saunders
Pat Riley
Adelman
Jackson
McMillan
Rivers
Stan Van Gundy
Jeff Van Gundy
thats more than 10
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugghh….you honestly believe all those guys are better coaches than Nellie AND they’d get more out of that smallish no-defense roster than Nelson did?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Umm no. Those coaches are better than Nelson. I'll take Bryron Scott off because he couldn't handle Baron. And if
we put a defensive coach in their he would implement an actual defensive system which would turn this ’no defense ’ squad probably into a good defensive team, while keeping our ’great offensive team into a average paced team. That would equal more wins.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah, so a defensive minded coach is suddenly going to make Maggette, Ellis and Biedrins into good defenders? The Mavs got worse in defensive efficiency when Avery took over despite the fact that he stresses a slower pace and more emphasis on d.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i said 2007-08
and yes. if you play two bigs at a time with everyone at their natural positions it will make them play better defense.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty much with sam on this whole argument, but I do have to disagree here. A defensive-minded coach can get better defense out of the same players, especially young guys like Biedrins and Monta. Players can be taught certain things, and motivation matters, too.
Not to say that Nellie’s not a great coach… he has been for the vast majority of his career, and was as recently as ‘07-’08. But his defensive results are not great… other coaches could’ve gotten more defense out of his teams than he did. (The Avery Johnson argument doesn’t prove anything to me, other than that Avery’s not a great coach.)
by onlxn on Jul 11, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
congratulations
on being able to name 10 coaches though….doesn’t seem like you put any actual thought into them, but at least you can name 10
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
explain to me how all those coaches couldn't win more
even though they have won more with less talent than our team had.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Byron Scott couldn’t keep Chris Paul from hating him, how the hell do you think he could deal with Stephen Freaking Jackson?
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
where did you get cp3 hates him.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s second-hand, obviously, but from Stackhouse and Bill Simmons, among others.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what coaches won more with less talent than Nellie?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what coaches won more with less talent than Nellie?
what coaches can assemble more losing teams than nellie? Isn’t he right near the top in lifetime losses?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 11, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
his career winning % is pretty damn good……much, much, much better than our winning % in the period between Nellie eras.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 12, 2009 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
his career winning % is pretty damn good
how is his rings per year percentage? That’s the bottom line
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 13, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who’s a better coach, Doc Rivers or Don Nelson?
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 13, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe if Nelson had played Jackson and Davis 53 minutes in those games, maybe the Warriors could have gotten another win or two…
He actually played Jackson and Baron 53 minutes in the loss to LA so i doubt they were winning with that method.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me a Nelson coached team that wouldve won a championship under another coach.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mavericks
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
they should've won a championship?
what year, and why do you think that?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think from 2001-2003 he should have won one championship at least.
Either in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.
He possessed a roster much better than the Spurs in both of those years and most definetly the Nets.
Spurs were basically Duncan and a developing Parker, Jackson, and Ginobilli. Along with a broken down David Robinson(not near above average center) and an old bench.
The Mavs had Juwan Howard while he was still good. Finley, Nash, and Dirk in their primes, along with a nice bench filled with Hardaway, Najera, Adrian Griffin, and Greg Buckner. Buckner, Griffin, and Howard were all good defenders, and obviously that Trio is one of the most potent offensive combos.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They lost to the Kings in 01-02. The Kings were a much, much better team than the Mavericks that year.
You can probably make the best case for 02-03, but look at some of the other contributors on that team. Shawn Bradley? LaFrentz? Adrian Griffin? It was a 3 man team that year. The Spurs had the best player in the series as well as a better cast of role players.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 11, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They weren't much better but they were better but
were the spurs even better than mavs. no. but they beat them. that seperates popovich and nelson in my opinion.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Spurs roster was significantly better than the Mavs roster that year, but even if you were right there you’ve proven that Nellie isn’t as good of a coach as Popovich. Thus Nellie must be terrible………
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not terrible
just not great
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Avery got them further than Nelson did.
And i think Avery is not a good coach.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
check those 2 rosters…..not exactly the same. any other reason? please put some thought into it, maybe do a couple minutes of research to support your case.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Avery got seriously outcoached by Don Nelson in one spectacular playoff series.
by tandy on Jul 11, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Avery was a bad coach
And he got the mavericks farther than nelli
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
with an extremely different roster.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 12, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
like I said,
I would rather have 3 big offensive superstars and a bunch of defensive role players than the roster Avery had.
Steve Nash>Jason Terry,Devin Harris
Michael Finley>J-Ho
dirk=dirk
Bench = Bench
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 12, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 different rosters yes. 2001-2004 and 2004-2007 were about the same to me.
but the quality were similar to. One year was an good defense with an amazing offense to a great defense and a good offense. pick your poison.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why was bellilaugh banned?
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 11, 2009 1:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If this posts then I wasn’t banned.
by belilaugh on Jul 12, 2009 3:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh lol
Your comments from this whole post disapeared so i thought atma might have banned you.
Cause Havoc. Bring Nash in and 120 point games will be very expected
by monta.da.boss on Jul 12, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
