RUMOR: Monta Ellis NOT on trading block, not even for Carmelo Anthony, Andre Iguodala, or Josh Smith- but should he be?
by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 7, 2010 8:52 AM PDT
in Rumors
Email
Print
Monta is having a fantastic season so far, but can he keep it up?
JUMP for the 411 and thoughts about Melo, Iggy, and J-Smoove on the Dubs in place of Monta.
MT has the insights for the Bay Area News Group in Golden State Warriors guard Monta Ellis well on the way to elite status:
Ellis has Warriors fans abuzz and, perhaps most important, management in awe. The Warriors still are interested in landing another difference maker, but, according to multiple team sources, there are only a handful of players who would make the Warriors consider trading Ellis.
...Just before the season started, when reports surfaced about forward Carmelo Anthony wanting out of Denver, Bay Area News Group reported that the Warriors were offering anyone but Curry to get Anthony. As early as October, rumors circulated about the Warriors dangling Ellis to try to get someone such as Philadelphia's Andre Iguodala or Atlanta's Josh Smith.
At this point, neither Iguodala nor Smith would be enough in return for Ellis. One source said the Warriors probably wouldn't part with Ellis even if it meant landing Anthony, who some consider a top-five player in the NBA.
ESPN.com's Chris Broussard also corrobates the Monta untradability (did I just make up that word?!) in his recent True Hoop blog post:
While rumors of an Ellis trade were rampant last summer, sources tell me the Warriors have no intention of moving Ellis.
Here's what we know about Monta Ellis based on what we've seen in his 5+ years on the Warriors:
- He can be immature. Exhibit: Moped Gate.
- He can be selfish: Exhibit: Ball hogging last season and haterism about the Warriors drafting Stephen Curry.
- He can be dumb. Exhibit: He doesn't exactly come across as the brightest guy in his interviews or with the logic fueling his often times public tantrums.
- He is NOT a point guard or someone you want running your offense. Exhibit: Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers.
- He can be a horrific defender. Exhibit: His turnstyle defense from 2007-2010 which led to superstar scoring nights from random guards.
- He can choke in the playoffs. Exhibit: 2007 NBA Playoffs of WE BELIEVE fame, but that was 3 years ago, so I'd expect better now. (I know what you're thinking though.)
Carmelo Anthony
The biggest worry of course is that Melo might depart after this season as free agent. The Monta of the past 2 seasons for a 1 year rental of Melo? Done deal.
How did Melo make this defender miss so badly?
Andre Iguodala
The Monta of the past 2 seasons for Iggy? Done deal.
Getting Iggy with it!
Josh Smith
The Monta of the past 2 seasons for Josh Smith? Yup, yup.
Josh Smith: "Do not pass me up on your fantasy hoops squad or in real life!"
308 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why are you even talking about this now?
Hells Belles, the Warriors are off to their best start almost in living memory and you’re talking moving their best piece?
Because once you hate a player...
No matter how well they perform after that, people are set… It’s all Monta’s fault last year we failed to be a good team. Not the injuries, or the d league call ups.. Thanks # 8..
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Monta made us worse, when he was on the floor. We would have been a bad team without him, but we were worse with him. In other words, he was terrible last year. That said, he’s made a seemingly miraculous turn around. He’s Montazing this year, like he was in his MIP season.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
The big question is:
When the hell are we going to get over last season?
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
When Monta proves he’s not that player anymore. It’s only been a few games. I’m quite optimistic, personally, but I don’t blame others for not being optimistic. A year of horrendous play is not erased by a few good games. He’s got to prove that he can keep this up.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
I can see where people might not be too optimistic but
there were so many factors that played into last seasons results that tend to get overlooked. I just feel like people are just waiting for him to be unsuccessful.
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
hyperbole alert
people exaggerate how “bad” he was on the dubs last season. he wasn’t efficient and he struggled because he often forced the issue. Plus, having curry on team made monta seem worse than he was.
Monta was a great scorer last season and if you all recall, was someone many here felt should have been an allstar. The second half of the season was worse than his first half, but we seem to forget this.
On the other hand….
People might be exaggerating how good he is now. I know I am because I really want him to be elite. But the truth is somewhere in the middle is my hunch.
Monta was a great scorer last season and if you all recall
No he wasn’t. You said it yourself- he was inefficient.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't talking in terms of efficiency
The first half of last year Monta was lighting it up! He was unstoppable. Kind of like he is now. Difference was we lost a lot of those games, he didn’t have the cast arround him he does now, and in his effort to force the issue to get wins he really hurt his productivity.
So, in other words, he was a great scorer – but not a great player
YOu can't be a great scorer if you're inefficient.
He scored a lot of points. That’s not the same thing.
A great scorer doesn’t miss that many shots, and turn the ball over that much trying to score.
The notion that the problem was the “Cast around him” misses the point that many of those players were better at scoring than he was, and he often neglected to pass to them when they were WIDE OPEN (and thus had a relatively easy shot) whereas he was double- or triple teams (and thus had a relatively hard shot).
just to play devil's advocate
Monta’s TS last season: .517
Allen Iverson’s career TS: .518
so Iverson was not a great scorer (you’re more than entitled to believe he was not. I’m just making a point)
Make your point if you’re going to make it.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn’t talking in terms of efficiency
You have to if you’re talking about a player’s scoring ability. Kevin Durant, Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki- those guys are great scorers. High volume and efficient.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
The first half of last year Monta was lighting it up! He was unstoppable.
He was stoppable if, what you wanted to do was stop him from being on the winning team.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
I don't see many people denying that he was inefficient..
But, why are people denying that the situation he was in could have been a HUGE part in why he was inefficient and why does it continue to a reoccurring theme around here still?
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
But, why are people denying that the situation he was in could have been a HUGE part in why he was inefficient
What? Apparently you are going with the recurring (and incorrect) mindset that Maggette, Curry, Morrow, and Reggie were apparently not viable offensive options last season and thus Monta absolutely had to charge into a 3 on 1 situation on nearly every one of his possessions. It couldn’t be further from the truth.
by WYK on Nov 7, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
Reggie didn’t show up to the tail end of the season, Morrow went through like a 2 or 3 month drought of having trouble shooting the ball (and as much as i loved the guy, he couldn’t do much aside from 3’s and jump shots) Maggette was hurt frequently, Curry took a few months to find his role and his shot. Plus, they were so destroyed by injuries they could hardly put enough guys on the court to not have to forfeit, not to mention no one to rebound the ball. throw in the fact that he wasn’t happy as a person on top of that, for a lot of season he WAS the only scoring option they could count on.
by dannyschmanny on Nov 9, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Because we actually watched him play.
We saw him force up lots of dumb shots when he had open teammates.
We saw him not pass to people who were better at putting the ball in the bucket when they were open than he was when double-teamed.
It’s really not that complicated.
great scroers are guys who can score in bunches and in many ways
If we are defining great scorers here – as some above seem to be experts on
Great players can score but also don’t turn the ball over as much as Monta did last year, find the open man, be efficient, etc.
Monta has always been able to put ball in basket.
As for the question about his teammates last year vs. this year – Monta’s view is what matters most of all. Obviously he has more faith in Curry now and he has more faith in DWright and Lee than cats from last year. He did average more than 5 assists a game last year – he wasn’t a total ball hog.
Keep Ellis.
Chemistry cannot be understated, and right now for the first team since WE BELIEVE we are playing with it. Thanks for expanding on my fanpost this is a topic that needed to be talked about further.
I don't know
I feel like he’s finally become the player we have all been waiting for. He’s shown leadership and he is passing the ball. Plus he is so awesome to watch.
Part of me thinks we should see high, but I really don’t want to.
I don’t want Anthony because theres no doubt in my mind he will go to NY or someplace else with a star player already there and we will get screwed.
I don’t know about Josh Smith. He’s a great player and locked up long term. He can’t shoot free throws or really shoot at all. He does everything. I don’t know what we would do with him though. He’s a liability playing the 3 because he can’t shoot, and will have to pass shots.
"You need to get real!"
Monta for Melo is possible but the Warriors dont seem to peek the interest of MELO whatsoever…
Monta for Iggy is NO DEAL…Monta is a better player than IGGY, despite Iggy’s defense.
Monta for Josh Smith is a HELL NO, Josh Smith isn’t even the best player on his team (Joe Johnson or Al Horford)
This shouldn’t be a story at this point, lets kick our feet up and enjoy the ride this year…
Why pick up Melo? D. Wright is a superior defender, and we don’t need more offense.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
I want him to go to NYC just to see the NY + National Media see 2 "superstars" not even make the playoffs.
They’d be looking for answers and probably D’Antoni would be fired, but maybe it would start a statistical revolution.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
Melo and Amar’e could be a disaster. Or they could reinvent their careers.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
D Wright
isnt in the stratosphere as Carmelo, you kidding me?
by Brothaplease09 on Nov 7, 2010 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
What are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about DWright in my post. My post was simply about New York.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
Besides the obvious reply fail, Natty’s statement was that Dorell is simply a vastly superior defender than ’Melo, which is what we need rather than get more high-usage scoring.
by WYK on Nov 7, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely not
Most importantly, Monta is finally happy here. He’s happy with the new ownership and coach. He’s happy with Curry and the backcourt. He’s happy with finally having a formidable frontcourt.
Everyone points to Monta’s attitude problems, that seem to be of the past. The 76ers had to trade Allen Iverson, a hall-of-famer, because Andre Igoudala couldn’t stand being second fiddle. The Nuggets are trading Carmelo Anthony because he’s bored and wants a change of scenery. And I don’t think I need to comment on Josh Smith’s maturity level.
If what we want is to get rid of a headcase, trading a seemingly-improved, incredibly maturated, and happy-to-be-here Monta Ellis for either of those three is nothing short of a disastrous idea.
There’s also the fact that, if Monta plays anywhere close to this well he is better than Iggy or J-Smoove, and more of what the Warriors need than Carmelo (both pure scorers, but Monta brings more defense and less technicals), and Melo isn’t guaranteed.
Any of these trades would be incredibly stupid, in my opinion, and would also lead to player backlash against management, as the Minnesota Vikings have seen. Steph likes Monta. David Lee said he wouldn’t have signed here if Monta was part of the trade. Most importantly, we’re winning.
We have new management. A new coach. A new lineup. and it seems, a new Monta Ellis. There is absolutely no point in abandoning that after five games (successful ones, at that), for a player who is as big of a headcase as monta was last year, and no better a player.
that's not why Philly traded Iverson
They traded him because they thought a short combo guard/ volume scorer with a propensity for trying to do it all himself wasn’t really helping the team win. They hoped that having a true PG in Miller would make everyone else better, which no one has ever accused Iverson of doing. It didn’t work for Philly, because Andre Miller isn’t an all star caliber player. Denver felt the same way, and traded him for Chauncey, and it was a stroke of genius, because Chauncey was a lot better than Miller.
by Uwe Blog on Nov 7, 2010 6:13 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
you're right
my bad on that detail. but he was still overtly upset about being the “other AI” and clashed the way Amar’e did with Nash about being top dog.
I'd trade him for AI^2
this might be the peak of Monta’s value…Iguodala could put us into the top tier of teams in the West with his defense.
You realize
that Igoudala has career averages of 15.8 points on 46% shooting vs. Monta’s 18.2 points on 48%? (yes, that includes monta’s horrible % last year). Iggy seems to be getting worse, averaging only 13.2 points while shooting 44%, vs. Monta who is improving at 28.6 and 52%. These are, of course, a small sample, but don’t be fooled by the impressive slam dunk performances: Andre Igoudala is not even close to an elite player in this league. He is a highlight reel, yes, but a very good player? No. 13PPG on a team where you are the first, second and third options? that’s sad. He is also a very overrated defender, and given that he’s had 2 more years in the league than Monta (that counts Monta’s injured year), you’d think Monta has more room for growth.
You think he makes us a top tier team in the west? Maybe…if we don’t lose Monta in the process. But if we give up Monta for Iggy, we get instantly worse.
Per 36, TS%
Career:
Monta: 19.1, .539
Iggy: 14.9, .558
Season:
Monta: 26.7, .584
Iggy: 13.4, .493
Looking at trends, Iggy is steadily decreasing, 2 years ago his TS was .560, last year .535, this year .493. Monta, on the other hand, is trending upwards.
To put it in perspective, Joe Johnson, who recently signed a 6 year/$119M deal, has a career 17.2, .527, worse than Monta’s.
Get this: Joe Johnson has had only 2 seasons where he has had a TS% higher than Monta’s CAREER TS%, which includes the last two seasons.
I repeat, Monta is a steal, and a much better player than Andre Igoudala.
Well, Andre is much better defensively.
And one needs to be really careful about juding Monta based upon this hot streak.
But if this is the new normal for him, I wouldn’t trade him. That’s the tough call. Is a hot streak or is this who he is, now? Not easy to say.
Joe Johnson is a bad comp because he’s one of the most overpaid players in the league. I mean, that contract is a joke.
I disagree that Andre is much better defensively
He is extremely athletic, and can be a good iso defender, but he is neither an exceptional team defender, nor a particularly smart defender. He is athletic enough to stay in front of the LeBron’s, but I don’t think he’s a much better defender than Monta, and Monta grabs more steals. Joe Johnson is overpaid, yes, but he’s also a perennial all-star, and that is well deserved. while overpaid, his numbers are still considered very good. Monta’s are equally good.
I don’t think it’s as tough of a call as some think it is, to determine if this is a hot streak or not. When Monta’s been happy, he’s been stellar. When he’s been vocally and overtly upset at the team and/or injured, he’s been horrid. That seems pretty simple to me.
and Monta grabs more steals.
This isn’t really true. Over the course of their career’s they grab steals at the same rate, and Andre has a higher per game average. Of course, it’s not like that is a meaningful way to judge defense anyway, but even as an aside it’s pretty much false, unless you are limiting your analysis to last season or the last 5 games.
In the last 4 years
Monta averaged 1.5, then 1.6, then 1.9, and currently 2.8 (these are per36)
Iggy averaged 1.9, 1.4, 1.6 and now 1.2
I think 4 years of trends, especially when Monta was injured for two of them, is a big enough sample to show that in the next 4-5 years, Monta will be a better ball-stealer than Iggy.
Like you said though, this isn’t a very meaningful way to judge defense.
Don’t use their numbers from this year. It’s just too small of a sample to matter.
Iguodala has no trend, Monta is trending up. On a team like the Warriors, who play higher paced basketball with a gambling style defense, I think the difference between them in that regard would be negligible. On top of that, Iguodala can legitimately lockup opposing team’s top perimeter scorers. He is on the short list of top perimeter defenders. Monta isn’t.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Well...
Andre is struggling at the moment, which is the only reason that this trade is possible. Over their careers Iguodala has been a more efficient scorer, better passer, better rebounder, and vastly better defender. The only thing Monta does better is score in volume. When you consider that we’d still have Curry and Lee I can’t imagine that putting up points with Andre would be a huge problem.
If you want to put all your eggs in the ‘recent trends’ basket, then yes Monta is playing better right now. But with 5-6 years of NBA data on these guys you have to wonder whether or not that’s a smart move. I’m not in a hurry to trade Monta or anything. I’ve been loving his play this season, and I think that the team is clicking and confident. If these kinds of deals are really on the table though, you have to at least consider them…
by olympicmike on Nov 7, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I disagree that Iggy has been better over his career
If you count the last two seasons as monta being injured (and he was visibly slower, which takes apart the biggest aspect of his game, his first step), he has a better TS than Iggy, while shooting in vastly higher quantities, and never having the luxury of playing behind Allen Iverson. He is only a slightly better rebounder, but he’s also a much bigger player, and is a SF, not a SG like Monta. Monta has much less experience in this league and is still developing more than Iggy.
I’ve spent way too much time watching both players, and I believe that Monta is a better passer, even though Iggy averages a fingernail more APG for his career. Since Monta is a better finisher than Iggy, he shoots at a higher rate once he penetrates the defense. But his ability to make a good pass is better than Andre’s (again, in my opinion). He is similar to Kobe in this respect: Kope is 25th in the league in APG, but he is easily a top 15, if not top 10 passer. APG and passing ability are different. Monta shoots more than iggy, so he gets less passes. Monta’s assists tend to come on penetrating and finding a big man for a dunk, whereas Iggy’s come on swinging the ball to a guy for a jumper. They both work, but one signifies a better passer.
I will say Igoudala’s the better defender, but I do think he is overrated in that category.
I'll say this...
Without going point by point, your analysis on this is incredibly biased in favor of Monta. You give him the benefit of the doubt for injury and attitude problem, but don’t afford the same luxury to Iguodala who certainly has played through many injuries over his career seeing as he’s hardly missed any games at all, and has also had a season where he was forced to step in as the number one option unexpectedly.
You say that Monta didn’t have the luxury of playing with AI, but neglect to mention that his best season came playing alongside Baron.
You bend over backwards to explain why you think that Monta is the better passer despite the evidence that he does not create as many scoring opportunities as Andre does.
And, last but not least you’ve completely ignored rebounding.
It’s an interesting player comparison, but I don’t think you are approaching it with an even hand.
by olympicmike on Nov 7, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
First off, thank you for the compliment.
I did, however, mention rebounding. I said Igoudala is a slightly better rebounder, but he is also a much larger player, and he is a SF, whereas Monta is a SG.
the reason I mention Monta’s injury is because the key to his success is his speed. His ankle injury severely and incontrovertibly cost him much of that speed, and therefore his offensive strength, rendering him inefficient. Similarly, the key to Igoudala’s success is his athleticism. While he has played through dings here and there (as all NBA players have), he has never had an injury severely hinder his athleticism. If he had, I think it would have been hugely detrimental to his offensive numbers, much the way Kobe’s knee problem hurt his FG%. So, yes, I don’t think Iggy deserves the injury benefit of the doubt the way that Monta Ellis does.
Yes, Monta played alongside Baron, but those were very different scenarios. Monta didn’t benefit much from Baron’s passing ability, because Monta’s want is to iso his defender, not run around screens. Iggy, on the other hand, played behind a 30PPG scorer, which meant that the defense often neglected him. Allen Iverson was double-teamed on a constant basis; Baron Davis was not.
I don’t know what to say about the passing, other than what I said in my previous statement. We can agree to disagree. As I alluded to: last season, Kobe Bryant averaged less assists per game than Jarret Jack, Earl Watson, Aaron Brooks, Mike Conley, and 20 other players. Is he a worse passer than those players?
I keep hearing that Monta is not a superior scorer solely because he averages twice as many ppg, but he’s an inferior passer because he averages 0.5 less assists per36 for his career? This is not a very consistent argument.
Monta didn’t benefit much from Baron’s passing ability, because Monta’s want is to iso his defender, not run around screens.
Elsewhere you charge that people should put down the stats and watch games and then you say this! I’m sorry. I don’t think I’ve read anything funnier in a while.
how is this funny? Baron specialized in driving to the hoop, and either dumping it off for Beans or Al, or dishing it to the corner for an SJax or JRich 3. Monta was a poor shooter then. He much prefers to create his own shot, then and now.
It’s funny because Baron was a good passer overall and set up many of his players. I
It’s especially funny because your idiotically simplistic presentation didn’t much resemble how Monta scored when Baron was here, so far askew from what happened that I can only conclude that you’re being intentionally misleading, have a defective memory, or did not actually watch games then. When Baron was here, more of Monta’s baskets were assisted than have been since. Baron helped everyone, including Monta.
He much prefers to create his own shot, then and now.
His personal preference is irrelevant compared to what actually happened. What actually happened was that Monta got a lot more easy baskets, a significant portion because he was set up by an elite passer. Seriously, if you were “watching” what you recall seeing is pretty far from reality.
Perhaps you should look at some stats. Your observations don’t seem to be particularly impressive.
since you called me out for not looking at stats
I looked at the Monta’s highest TS% season (07-08 .580) and Iggy’s (05-06 .598). I looked at the last 10 games they played with their respective star PGs. During that 10 game span, Monta made 99 FGs, and Baron assisted on 19 of them. Iggy made 32 FGs, and AI assisted on 5 of them. That’s 19% compared to 15%. Close, but favors monta (and you, in this debate).
The rest is immeasurable. I believe that a wing player alongside Allen Iverson will get better looks in isolation than playing alongside Baron Davis, because Iverson, who averaged in excess of 30ppg that season, demands so much defensive attention. I believe it more than makes up for that 4% difference in assist rate.
Of course, what else stood out was Monta’s 99 made FG to Iggy’s 32 in a 10 game span. It’s pretty obvious that volume shooters have a lower TS.
this is why I say we can’t just look at stats, as you seem to imply we should. Let’s look at career TS%:
Corey Maggette: .580
Ray Allen: .576
Andre Igoudala: .558
Kobe Bryant: .557
Carmelo Anthony: .544
Joe Johnson: .527
Allen Iverson: .518
I love stats as much as the next guy, but this is why I don’t think they should be the be-all, end-all.
by bradyk2 on Nov 7, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe all of those inefficient players aren’t as good as most people think? I am of the opinion that Melo, Joe Johnson and Kobe are among the most overrated players in the league today. I think AI is one of the most overrated players of all time.
this is why I say we can’t just look at stats, as you seem to imply we should.
He just got done telling you that it was idiotic of you to say that and yet continue saying it. Why? Why would you do that?
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
i don’t really invest much energy in what Jae thinks is idiotic. Saying something’s idiotic isn’t going to win any debates; i’m going to continue to make my point if I feel it’s a good one.
And you’re allowed to think those players are overrated. that’s your opinion, just as my opinion is that Andre Igoudala is not nearly as good as most fans think.
just as my opinion is that Andre Igoudala is not nearly as good as most fans think.
Most Warriors fans you mean? Most fans don’t think Iguodala is very good at all because he isnt’ much of a scorer.
And dude, just stop with this
this is why I say we can’t just look at stats, as you seem to imply we should.
It’s idiotic. No one does that.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
It’s idiotic. No one does that.
how do you know? even if so, am I not allowed to point out that I don’t think people should do that? Would you call me out if I said murdering is bad? of course not.
why would I stop with that? As long as people such as Jae are going to tell me that I need to look at more statistics, I have every right to defend myself and state my opinions.
even if so, am I not allowed to point out that I don’t think people should do that?
Okay, all of the statheads in this thread have given you crap for posting that. This should tell you that it isn’t true and that you should stop posting it and probably never post it again.
As long as people such as Jae are going to tell me that I need to look at more statistics, I have every right to defend myself and state my opinions.
There is a difference between “look at more stats” and the thing you’re saying. What you’re saying is that we don’t use anything but statistics. That’s just not true, okay?
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
There is a difference between "look at more stats" and the thing you’re saying. What you’re saying is that we don’t use anything but statistics. That’s just not true, okay?
What? There’re games on TV? I just box score watch and look up advanced statistics online.
The San Francisco 49ers, inventing new ways to lose every week!
by Badly Browned on Nov 7, 2010 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
As long as people such as Jae are going to tell me that I need to look at more statistics, I have every right to defend myself and state my opinions.
Would you please point out where I told you that you need to look at more statistics? I don’t recall telling anyone to do this. My memory is not perfect, but this sounds like a fabrication.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
Ah yes, once again sarcasm fails to come across. That was a mock response after your “but put them down once in a while, and try watching the game” idiocy. I don’t care if you look at statistics or not. I do care when you make some reference that strongly implies that people who use statistics don’t watch games.
Now, I’ve got to go watch a game, now that enough has elapsed that I can DVR through the commercials.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
I’m done arguing but seriously i never said you didn’t watch the games. I said when analyzing, we should use both the subjective and the statistical.
I said when analyzing, we should use both the subjective and the statistical.
That is not what you said. If you meant that, you should have said it. Instead, you resorted to a tired, oft repeated idiotic statement.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
I apologize if you didn’t understand what I meant, but here is what I said,
Stats are great, but put them down once in a while, and try watching the game.
I said stats are great. and I said we should put them down once in a while. I apologize if it sounded idiotic (you’ve made your point with that word), but I spelled out pretty clearly that I thought stats should be prevalent.
Cause that’s exactly what is implied.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
I apologize
that it sounded that way. but, as we just came to the conclusion, sarcasm failed to come across with Jae’s rude comments as well. so let’s call it even.
As long as people such as Jae are going to tell me that I need to look at more statistics, I have every right to defend myself and state my opinions.
Nobody has a problem with you defending your opinions.
Telling people that they don’t watch the game, when they do, is , however, NOT merely stating or defending your opinion.
can we get past this, please?
Please read the responses following the statement. I did not mean to imply that the way I’m assuming Jae did not mean to imply i’m an idiot though he called my comments that >5 times. Me saying he should watch a game is no different than he saying I should read stats. We were both apparently sarcastic without it realizing.
Saying something’s idiotic isn’t going to win any debates;
Saying that someone needs to “watch games” wins no debates either.
But that’s irrelevant. I wasn’t debating you. I was commenting on something very specific that you wrote, namely, the idiotic statement that people who use stats need to “watch games.” Perhaps you wrote it because you had no other argument. Perhaps you wrote it reflexively. It doesn’t matter why you wrote it. That statement was and continues to be an idiotic statement. I won’t debate that point. It’s just true.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
I wrote it, as I clearly stated, to point out that people should use a healthy combination of stats and subjective viewing/opinion.
I wrote it, as I clearly stated, to point out that people should use a healthy combination of stats and subjective viewing/opinion.
A redundant statement considering most of the people here who use advanced stats in context of the game watch a ton of basketball.
by WYK on Nov 7, 2010 3:24 PM PST up reply actions
just because you watch basketball doesn’t mean you analyze and form opinions. I watch almost as much football as John Madden, it doesn’t mean I get as much from watching it as he does.
just because you watch basketball doesn’t mean you analyze and form opinions.
Casual viewers like those you described here wouldn’t bother to look at stats anyway. Of course people who use advanced stats would watch the game with subjective analysis. Insisting otherwise would just make you look foolish.
by WYK on Nov 7, 2010 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
On the contrary -
Maybe Allen Iverson just didn’t play basketball that contributed to winning games -
- and people missed it because he was so fun to watch?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m pretty convinced that AI was more talented than Joe Johnson. But he played such a stupid game so often – taking dumb shots – trying to be teh man, that he often hurt his team.
I agree
I’m just trying to point out. If you want to compare two players using TS, which you’re more than entitled to do, you have to compare ALL players using TS.
Really? Every time we bring up TS% in a debate we have to bring up AI and Joe Johnson, as well as guys like Nicolas Batum and Nene? No. Most of us stat guys kinda know historically where guys like Allen Iverson and Joe Johnson fall in TS%. We’re familiar with the stat.
The main thing to do with TS% is to compare it to volume, not every other player ever.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
I never said compare all players at all times. I’m merely saying that if you use it to settle a debate between Monta and Iggy, you should use it to settle a debate between any players you’re comparing….such as the huge difference between the two AIs.
Sure. I tend to bring up TS% a lot when comparing players.
You’re arguing against a straw man because you are talking as if I don’t regularly bring up TS. But I do.
However, TS% is a far, far more important stat to talk about when talking about high-volume scorers than with lower-volume scorers. A guy who doesn’t shoot a lot doesn’t help his team as much with a high TS%, or hurt his team as much with a low TS%, as a guy who shoots a lot.
One of the worst things you can be is a bog hog who shoots a low percentage. This is doubly so because lots of fans see you make a lot of baskets and convince themselves that you’re helping the team.
I didn’t say you didn’t. In fact, I said that I agree. I was just stating that this forum sometimes isn’t great at continuity. Sometimes we compare apples to apples, and sometimes we compare them to oranges.
However, TS% is a far, far more important stat to talk about when talking about high-volume scorers than with lower-volume scorers
this is why I intervened in the first place. Monta is a high-volume shooter. Iggy is a low-volume shooter. it’s hard to compare them on TS for that reason.
it should be noted
that due to fun debates, you don’t need to make every post sound like I took something to an extreme and you’d like to wallop me on the head.
We’re all Warriors fans here.
Yes, Monta played alongside Baron, but those were very different scenarios. Monta didn’t benefit much from Baron’s passing ability, because Monta’s want is to iso his defender, not run around screens. Iggy, on the other hand, played behind a 30PPG scorer, which meant that the defense often neglected him. Allen Iverson was double-teamed on a constant basis; Baron Davis was not.
I’m not trying to insult you or anything. I know you understand the game and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts for year now, but this statement shows that you are having a hard time approaching this in a fair way. That season Monta led the league in fast break points, many of which came from Baron making great outlet passes. Monta was also a money mid-range shooter that season, and while plenty of them came off of iso situations, it was not uncommon for Baron to find him coming off a screen or drive and kick to Monta. Baron was also double teamed quite often when he posted up.
I’m not sure the number of times AI assisted Iguodala vs the amount of times that Baron assisted Monta, but from the sound of your position on it, I think you’d probably be surprised.
Anyway, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. It’s not like I have a problem with Monta, or love Andre. I’d really like to have an honest unbiased discussion about what they would do for our team, and I don’t think we are doing that here.
by olympicmike on Nov 7, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
fair enough. and the feeling is mutual about enjoying your posts. I guess my point was that AI drew the top defender, and often the top two defenders, whereas Baron didn’t necessarily. this was my weakest argument, clearly, I just feel like Monta and Iggy both excel offensively in isolation situations. In those situations, in their most efficient years (playing behind Baron and AI, respectively), I believe Iggy usually played against weaker defenders, due to the respect given to Iverson’s raw scoring ability.
Thanks
To get back to the main point here, I think that we don’t need to rush to make any moves right now. The team is winning, the future is bright, and there may be some nice opportunities for us at the deadline with our expiring contracts. If that means that we miss out on some higher than average trade value for Monta early in the season then that’s fine. There isn’t really a need to make a move right now. Making your team better is always a good idea, but I’d much rather see what we’ve got here for a few months.
Agreed
And I do think that given all the changes – management, coaching, david lee, lineup as a whole, supposedly monta’s attitude – that this team deserves a chance to show what it can do. I hope the mgmt stays away from a mentality of being bad that we have developed over the years. I believe we have a shot (pardon the pun) to be a good team this year, and I think, given how hard these players have worked, that they deserve a chance to prove how good they can be before we jump on any trades.
Iguodala mostly plays SG, actually, and is a much better rebounder.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
No dude. I’m using stats from last year. He got most of his minutes at SG. Kapono barely played last year.
82games.com, brudda
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
If you count the last two seasons as monta being injured (and he was visibly slower, which takes apart the biggest aspect of his game, his first step)
You misspelled “If you ignore data that don’t support a conclusion I had before analyzing the data…”
He is only a slightly better rebounder, but he’s also a much bigger player
2 rebounds per 36 is not slight. And given that there are no style points awarded for being smaller when rebounding, the latter part of the statement is meaningless with regards to rebounding.
Monta has much less experience in this league and is still developing more than Iggy.
Much less? Iguodala is in his 7th season, Monta his 6th. I will give that Monta is close to 2 years younger. Monta is real near peak performance while Iguodala is likely on the downslope, but let’s stick with reality when making comparisons. You seem to deviate from reality quite a bit.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
You misspelled "If you ignore data that don’t support a conclusion I had before analyzing the data…"
har har. let’s argue bball and keep the ad hom to a minimum.
2 rebounds per 36 is not slight. And given that there are no style points awarded for being smaller when rebounding, the latter part of the statement is meaningless with regards to rebounding.
how do you argue that? Igoudala is a small forward. Monta is a shooting guard. we’re supposed to play one of each at a time. the SF should outrebound the SG.
Much less? Iguodala is in his 7th season, Monta his 6th. I will give that Monta is close to 2 years younger. Monta is real near peak performance while Iguodala is likely on the downslope, but let’s stick with reality when making comparisons. You seem to deviate from reality quite a bit.
Andre Igoudala has played 492 games to Monta Ellis’ 301. That is over 1.6 times as many games as monta ellis. How is that not much more experience?
how do you argue that? Igoudala is a small forward. Monta is a shooting guard. we’re supposed to play one of each at a time. the SF should outrebound the SG.
At 6’6" and roughly 210 lbs, I’m pretty sure that Iguodala would (or rather, should) play shooting guard much more often if Philly didn’t have such crappy wing players at their disposal. You’re talking about a guy who had to start next to Willie Green for most of his career.
Additionally, using the positions argument to explain for rebounding rates is pointless, especially when arguing swing positions. Players usually keep their rebounding tendencies regardless of where they play. It’s like trying to claim that David Lee should rebound worse than Biedrins because he is playing a “smaller” position and a “center should out rebound a power forward.”
Andre Igoudala has played 492 games to Monta Ellis’ 301. That is over 1.6 times as many games as monta ellis. How is that not much more experience?
Well you can either blame Iguodala for being an iron man and missing very few games during the course of his career, or you can blame Ellis for his own “inexperience.” Had Monta avoided the whole moped incident, the difference in games played would be significantly less glaring.
Well you can either blame Iguodala for being an iron man and missing very few games during the course of his career, or you can blame Ellis for his own "inexperience." Had Monta avoided the whole moped incident, the difference in games played would be significantly less glaring.
whether it was monta’s fault or not is irrelevant. The point of that statistic was that Monta should have more room for growth….by the time he’s played 195 more games, he should be a better player than he is now. Should, of course, is different than will.
Their is data supports the notion that a player’s development is more tied to age than to time in the league. Iguodala likely won’t improve very much for the rest of his career, or at all. Monta will improve very little.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
depends on who you look at. Steve Nash and even Kobe Bryant are evidence for the converse. So it all depends.
Kobe Bryant is not evidence for the converse.
I think you could find better examples because Kobe’s been declining for awhile now overall.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
Kobe’s numbers may be declining, but in my opinion he peaked around the time he turned 30, when he won the MVP
CP3 shoulda been the MVP that year.
Also, when Kobe won the MVP, he was 29. That’s within a player’s prime years.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
who cares if CP3 should’ve won? that’s irrelevant. What matters is I’m saying that’s when Kobe peaked, in my opinion. So if you’re saying it’s not rare for a player to peak at 29, then Monta may not peek for four more years for all we know.
So if you’re saying it’s not rare for a player to peak at 29, then Monta may not peek for four more years for all we know.
I’m saying that it’s not uncommon for a player to be playing very well at 29. Statistically, his best year was probably when he was 27. Really, his years from about 26-29 were all similarly good. I don’t like giving a player’s peak year. It’s limiting. What I will say is that Monta will probably get slightly better. What usually happens is a player will add skills that will make up for his decline in athleticism until they’re about 30 or 31 when their athleticism stats to fall off too much. Kobe didn’t really peak at 29, but he did start to fall off after 30. 2010 (31) was statistically his worse year since his 3rd year in the league.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
But, conversely, it was only the second time he managed to win an NBA Finals MVP. As you said, you develop skills to make up for the declining athleticism. In my opinion, the skills Kobe gained were more imperative to his success than his athleticism. He has been a better player once he got smarter, even though his stats have declined.
He was only in the finals because he actually has a lot of good players around him. He probably would have won a Finals MVP in 07 if he played in the Finals.
I’m also of the opinion that Pau was the true finals MVP. I don’t put much stock into the journalist voted awards. I don’t really care if Dwight doesn’t win the DPOY. He’s still the best defensive player in the league. I don’t care if LeBron doesn’t win MVP (because they’re sick of voting for him), he’s still the best player in the league.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 4:20 PM PST up reply actions
well you’re certainly entitled to those opinions, and I, too, don’t put much stock in journalist voted awards. But my point being that sometimes players grow mentally as they fade athletically, and it makes them better players (in my opinion). I do think Kobe is better now than he was six years ago. He’d lose to himself in 1-on-1, but in the context of a team game, I think he’s as good of a player as he’s ever been, but that’s just my opinion.
I do think Kobe is better now than he was six years ago.
Wrong. Opinions can be wrong if they clash with reality.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
I guess that’s why I clash with the GSoM community at times. I didn’t realize the purpose of a 300 comment thread was to unanimously agree on something subjective. They should put a disclaimer at the top.
I didn’t realize that Kobe’s productivity was subjective.
I mean, if you told me that Lil Wayne was a better rapper than Nas, I would disagree, but move on. Same if you told me that you really liked Meet the Spartans. I might scoff, but I wouldn’t harp on it.
Telling me that Kobe is better now than he was 6 years ago is just wrong.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
NO
better is subjective. productivity be more objective, but better is subjective.
why do you think we VOTE on an MVP every year? it’s about most valuable player, not most statistically impressive player.
in 09-10 Kobe averaged more points with a worse TS but a better eFG than in 03-4.
in 03-04 he lost in NBA Finals, despite having the best offensive big man in the game. In 09-10, he won the NBA finals, with arguably the best offensive big man in the game.
I can tell you that my opinion is that Nas is a better rapper than Lil Wayne. I can’t tell you that he’s sold more records. but I can tell you I think he’s better.
In this case, better is a holistically subjective variable. Don’t tell me what I can and cannot think.
You can tell me his TS was better. You can tell me his APG and RPG were better.
I can tell you his team fared better.
But neither of us can tell each other objectively that he was a better player then or now. You believe then. I believe now. end of story.
Fine
Continue being wrong. That’s fine.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:46 PM PST up reply actions
Sir, seriously. let’s leave the attitude behind. better is subjective. end of story. there’s no more to that. you don’t need to be rude to me just because I have a different belief than you do.
That depends on what you mean by “better.” If you mean he’s a better scorer, the rational measure is to look at TS as well as volume. If you mean, “more fun to watch,” that is subjective.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
I don’t think he’s more fun to watch. I think he’s a better player. If I had 4 starters and had to choose which kobe bryant I wanted on my team, with the goal of winning an NBA championship, I would choose 2010 Kobe over 2004 Kobe. That’s just me. that’s subjective.
What is your definition of better player? My definition of better is contributing more to wins which is why I say Kobe has gotten worse over the past couple years. I would take any Kobe from like 06-09 over 10 Kobe. 04-05 was a less than stellar year for him.
He’s gotten smarter and is more willing to defer, but he’s capable of a lot less on the court.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
well that’s part of why better is subjective; we all have different definitions. I merely say better with, like you said, contributing to more wins, including in a playoff scenario. With a starting lineup of Derek fisher, Ron Artest, Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum, I would rather have Kobe from 08-09 or 09-10 than from 03-04 or 05-06. Yes, he’s less talented. But he admitted he didn’t learn to commit to defense until the 08 olympics. he defers to players, not just when it’s the right thing in the moment, but so they are more prepared and comfortable at the end of the game. he teaches instead of putting players down – that difference is evident looking at him now vs. when Pau first came. the guy Phil Jackson once called “uncoachable,” now sings his praises. If I have four guys and need a fifth for a season and a post season, I want the Kobe from the last two years. again, just me. It’s why we have GM’s – to make these tough decisions; they’re not objective, someone has to make them.
then Monta may not peek for four more years for all we know.
Yes, you’re right, he may not.
But if you had to place bets, the winning bet would most often be that he would peak before that.
You seem to be arguing that because exceptions exist, we can’t make any sort of meaningful prediction. That can’t really be what you’re arguing, can it?
To my mind, Monta doesn’t strike me as a player who’s going to have great longevity. He relies too much on his quickness. Now, again, there are examples of players who rely a lot on their quickness developing other aspects of their games (eg, Kidd with the 3-pt shot) but in general, a guy who relies on physical abilities is going to have to do something special to achieve longevity.
but isn't this the case with igoudala, too?
except that he’s older and has almost 200 more games in his legs?
Steve Nash
is an exception. He is like the ultimate exception for all of this.
Steve Nash is one bit of data for this study. If you look at, you know, all players, you get a better idea of how players develop on average. Bringing up exceptions doesn’t increase the strength of your point. It just makes it look like you don’t really understand the point being made. Players typically develop until a certain age (25-26), stay at that level of production for a few years (26-29), then fall off. Steve Nash was weird because he pretty sucked till he was like 30, when he became awesome.
These ages aren’t exact for all players, but it makes more sense to use the averages and trends than to hope Monta is a magical exception. You’ll also note that Steve Nash was never a player that really used his athleticism, whereas Kobe and Iggy are defined by their athleticism.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
whereas Kobe and Iggy are defined by their athleticism.
Should be Monta and Iggy.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
At 6’6" and roughly 210 lbs, I’m pretty sure that Iguodala would (or rather, should) play shooting guard much more often if Philly didn’t have such crappy wing players at their disposal. You’re talking about a guy who had to start next to Willie Green for most of his career.
Additionally, using the positions argument to explain for rebounding rates is pointless, especially when arguing swing positions.
not at all a useless argument. Think about it: suppose Monta and Iggy play on the same team (at the 2 and 3, respectively). Monta guards Wade and Iggy guards LBJ. When the shot goes up, it is more likely that LeBron is closer to the basket than Wade is, because he’s larger, and should play closer to the hoop (though this is not always the case). So Bosh puts up a shot, and misses…assuming they box out, who’s more likely to get the rebound? Iggy guarding LeBron 10 feet from the hoop, or Monta guarding Wade 20 feet from the hoop? Iggy, obviously.
The reason centers should get more rebounds than PFs should get more rebounds than SFs and etc etc., is not a matter of size so much as it is position on the floor when the opposing team shoots the basketball.
SGs and SFs are a lot closer in rebounding rate than SFs and PFs. Like, it’s really not that big of a difference. Another point is that Iggy actually plays more SG than he does SF. He gets time at SF, but not as much as you seem to think.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Think about it: suppose Monta and Iggy play on the same team (at the 2 and 3, respectively).
THe problem with this supposition is that the evidence doesn’t actually back up the point you’re making.
Logical theories that make intuitive sense are great. But when they run up against hard data, you need to let go of them.
Looking at trends
All due respect, BK2, but your trend-spotting skills seem pretty shaky. The 5-6 games this season are a very small sample size. Monta and Iguodala both are coming off poor/off seasons with respect to efficiency, but Iguodala was less poor. Over their careers, they’re both about average efficiency, but Iguodala’s better. I suspect any trends you perceive are largely colored by your affection for the Warriors.
Beyond that … Iguodala’s a much better rebounder, a better passer, and better defender. To say Monta is a “much better player than Iguodala” is just silly.
On the other hand … Iguodala’s almost three years older than Monta, and his contract is an escalating $2-4M per year more burdensome. And it gets tiresome typing out “Iguodala” all the time (’cos he apparently hates “Iggy”).
Tough call. Today I think I’ll decline and hold out for Paul. Ask me again tomorrow…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
Today I think I’ll decline and hold out for Paul.
I suppose I would settle for Paul, if we can’t get Wade ;). Of course, I’m not sure our back court needs improvement as much as our C and PF positions… at least judging by how they played against the Lakers. Still, they’re certainly good players, regardless.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
Iguodala’s almost three years older than Monta
It’s actually more like one year.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
My bad
I knew Monta was 10/26 (it’s my friend’s bday) but for some reason I thought it was ’86, not ’85.
Iguodala 1/28/84
Monta 10/26/85
21 months. Split the difference between “almost 3” and 1.
There will be no extra point!
Oh yeah
I was thinking a year and a half. Iguodala is 26 right now, Monta is 25 right now is what I was thinking.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
this year .493
Through 5 games. .560 to .535 is just variation. It’d be probably go up on the Warriors because he would be the 3rd or 4th offensive option. He’d mostly be getting easier buckets.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
You'd think this -
- but Berri actually made an interesting point, which was that there was a (very small) negative correlation between teammate’s production and an individuals production.
Being surrounded by better players wouldn’t make ‘Dre better, probably. It’d make him worse.
Wasn’t that about overall production and not scoring efficiency?
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
We shouldn’t be looking to make any big moves.. If we have a chance at even making the playoffs, we need to keep the core of that team intact for at least 1-2 seasons. I don’t want to see another team change so many players after making the playoffs. Also, we do have two pretty bulky expiring contracts we should be moving instead.. and with a better team, great fans, great location and new owner.. players will be coming to us.
I wonder
if its too soon to tell because its still very early in the season.
by Curry is amazing on Nov 7, 2010 9:24 AM PST reply actions
Ouch.
The best player on the team through five games, the team’s emotional leader … a guy who we all prayed would finally “get it” — and who seems to have “gotten it” beyond our wildest dreams…
Yeesh. That’s the problem with “selling high” … it’s really, really, really tough.
I voted “any of the three” but felt kinda dirty afterwards. Atma, my man, you really know how to twist the knife…
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 9:25 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Yeesh. That’s the problem with "selling high" … it’s really, really, really tough.
+ 1000
Just like with the stock market, it’s tough but you gotta do it.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | BayArea.SBNation.com | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 7, 2010 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
I said for none of the three, although Iggie is the most tempting. The reason for that is because Monta has had great seasons in the past and has proven he can adjust his game, earning MIP. It’s because of that that I believe he can play like this for an entire season. I would rather hold out for someone better than Iggie or just keep Monta and let him do his thing. Also, Iggie is aging, and Curry is not at his prime by any means. I don’t see a need for Melo, because D. Wright has better defense, and we don’t need offense.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
people don't understand...
Monta’s value. He is definitely a top 5 scorer in the league. Now he is efficient looks, to pass the ball to get his teammates going, and is the leader of this franchise. He is the one giving advice to his teammates while on the bench. He is the one that is getting excited when a teammate does something solid. Most importantly he is the one that everyone can count on.
He's not a top 5 scorer in this league unless you go by PPG, which is irrelevant mainly.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
What Method Would You Like To Use?
I swear I think Monta stole your dog. You have a personal vendetta against Monta Ellis and do not have anything credible to say about him ever. I understand your hate for him comes from his inefficiency but that’s not the case this year. Plus you can’t use the pace argument to thwart his scoring prowess this year, we are not scoring as much as last year either.
Where is the hate in my post?
I simply don’t agree he’s a top 5 scorer in this league. I say this because the last 4 years he hasn’t been able to go over 20 points per 36 efficiently ’til this year, which is a small sample size.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
guess
you wouldn’t have taken kobe in the playoffs then…
Against the Suns, yes. Against the other teams, not really.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
sad
this is why advanced statistics have done many poor things for sports.
According to the most advanced stats, the KC Chiefs are the best team in the NFL. anyone wanna make a super bowl bet with me?
Anyone ever watch Jordan’s final game against the Jazz? I just watched it the other day on youtube. Jordan was amazing. I’ve rarely seen such a show. they get killed without him.
He shot 15-35.
Stats are great, but put them down once in a while, and try watching the game. If it were as simple as statistics we wouldn’t play, we’d roll dice.
by bradyk2 on Nov 7, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
this is why advanced statistics have done many poor things for sports.
So you say with zero evidence to back it up. I see no evidence that you have sufficient knowledge to make such a claim. I suggest you do a bit more to understand what it is that you are being critical of.
According to the most advanced stats, the KC Chiefs are the best team in the NFL.
I am not sure that your claim is correct. Elsewhere in this thread you have said things that are demonstrably false, and as such, I’m not willing to grant you freedom to make such unreferenced claims. However, football and basketball are fantastically different sports with regards to the predictive power of statistics. Past statistical performance in basketball is a rather good predictor of future events. Past statistical performance in football is nowhere near as good. Your example (if it qualifies as such) has virtually no bearing on a discussion of basketball.
Stats are great, but put them down once in a while, and try watching the game.
This idiotic (yes, idiotic) line gets presented all too often. This seems to be a common throwaway by those like yourself who seem threatened by statistical analysis, this garbage inference that those who appreciate statistics “don’t watch games.” It’s false and meaningless. Those of us who think watch games and pay attention to statistics.
Those of us who think watch games and pay attention to statistics.
And I do the same. that is why i said “once in a while.” There is a healthy medium. It’s why extremely biased fans are rarely right in their predictions, and likewise, John Hollinger’s prediction success is equally rare.
All I’m saying – and you seem to take offense to it – is that Manu Ginobili generally has a PER very comparable to Kobe Bryant’s. Is he as good of a player? Does he contribute to his team’s success as much?
The problem with statistics, is they’re like science (which I am a huge proponent of, I should add): they are good, until we come out with something better that often disproves what we thought we knew. For instance, many people will look at the top-10 players in assists per game (or per 36) and assume they are the 10 best passers, in order, in the league, because that is how we gauge passing. But what if it were like hockey, and the pass that led to the assist also counts as an assist? our top 10 would look different. What if our assist rate calculated the shooter’s %, so we saw whether the made basket was consistent or an anomaly? again, we’d have a different top 10. What if assists counted free throws opportunities to score when the player didn’t shoot? what if you got half a quarter an assist for a jumper, half an assist in transition, and a whole assist for a half-court layup?
My point is that, right now we have PER, TS, etc. etc. that rank players 1-100, and so on and so forth. While they are good and useful, one day someone, maybe Hollinger, maybe you, maybe some guy at MIT, will devise an even better formula, and it’s not going to list those 100 players in the same order.
then what?
EDIT
meant “what if assists counted free throws OR opportunities to score when the player didn’t shoot”
Citing PER isn't going to win you a lot of fans around here -
- because it’s a bad statistic in a lot of ways. It is fundamentally flawed and those flaws have been amply discussed on this forum.
Just because one “Advanced statistic” is stupidly constructed (and, yes, PER is stupidly constructed) doesn’t make “Advanced statistics” bad.
With Manu and Kobe, however, there’s a larger point, which is that you’re not actually making an argument that Kobe is better. You’re just pointing out an example and saying “duh.”
But it’s not a “duh” – Kobe is one of the most overrated players in the league – for reasons which have been discussed ad nauseum on this board – and Manu is one of the most under-rated. If you want to claim that a statistic is wrong in it’s relative evaluatoin of two players, actually make an argument. Just don’t point at it and say “duh” because my response would be simple: in some of the past several seasons, Manu HAS done more to contribute to his teams wins than Kobe has.
For instance, many people will look at the top-10 players in assists per game (or per 36) and assume they are the 10 best passers, in order, in the league, because that is how we gauge passing.
For instance, many people will look at the top-10 players in assists per game (or per 36) and assume they are the 10 best passers, in order, in the league, because that is how we gauge passing.
The fact that some people don’t understand how to use statistics doesn’t mean that statistics are dumb. It means that the people who read too much into them are dumb.
But what if it were like hockey, and the pass that led to the assist also counts as an assist? our top 10 would look different.
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. You can’t just blindly assert such a thing. Present some evidence to suggest that it would.
While they are good and useful, one day someone, maybe Hollinger, maybe you, maybe some guy at MIT, will devise an even better formula, and it’s not going to list those 100 players in the same order.
Well, you know, one of these days somebody’s going to explain why Newton and Einstein’s theories of gravity are wrong. We KNOW they are wrong, because we have observations which are inconsistent with them. Which just have no idea why they’re wrong.
But you know what? When you want to launch a rocket ship, you still use them. You don’t say, “Oh, well, our understanding of gravity is imperfect, so let’s not use it to calculate how much thrust our rocket needs.” You use the best available tool for the job, and when you know the tool is imperfect, you account for that.
Citing PER isn’t going to win you a lot of fans around here -
- because it’s a bad statistic in a lot of ways
that was my point.
Just because one "Advanced statistic" is stupidly constructed (and, yes, PER is stupidly constructed) doesn’t make "Advanced statistics" bad.
I never said they were bad, merely that they were dangerous in that we are continually getting better and better and better statistics that contradict much of what we thought we knew. Statisticians used to think FG% was the best stat you could get for shooting, and judged accordingly. Then we figured out TS%. One day something even more accurate will come out, and it will not line up exactly with TS. That’s my point. I’m not disregarding it, it’s a great and very important statistic.
But you know what? When you want to launch a rocket ship, you still use them. You don’t say, "Oh, well, our understanding of gravity is imperfect, so let’s not use it to calculate how much thrust our rocket needs." You use the best available tool for the job, and when you know the tool is imperfect, you account for that..
that’s exactly my point though! we should use statistics, but not assume they are perfect. What’s important about gravity is that we KNOW it exists….we may only have theories for why, but we know that when we drop a basketball, it will fall to the ground. Fundamentally, that is more important than why. And historically, the ball has always fallen, though our opinions as to why have changed.
that was my point.
I’m confused by this- your point is that PER is a bad stat? Yeah, we know. That’s why none of us use it.
I don’t think anyone assumes they’re perfect, but I’d rather use stats than trust the opinion of someone who is telling me that Monta is a better defender than Iguodala.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
seriously?
find me a quote where I said monta was a better defender than igoudala. please don’t use the fallacy of the straw man on me. i never said he was a better defender.
Sorry, I thought it was okay to use that fallacy on you. You seem to have mastered it.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
Statisticians used to think FG% was the best stat you could get for shooting, and judged accordingly.
No, not really. FG% was – and is – what non-statisticians were using. Pretty much the moment serious statisticians started looking at the numbers, we started to see eFG% and TS% being used instead.
And historically, the ball has always fallen, though our opinions as to why have changed.
Historically, the guys who have played well according to metrics like WP and TS% have contributed to winning.
That’s MY point.
Statisticians used to think FG% was the best stat you could get for shooting, and judged accordingly.
Really? I don’t think that anyone ever made a claim that FG% was as good as you could get, and I don’t think that most people who charted FG% (a very simple ratio) qualify as “statisticians” in the sense of anyone who studies statistical modeling. In reality, models of points scored per possession employed (what TS% is) have existed for quite some time. Dean Smith employed one when he took over as coach at UNC in the late 1950s and he didn’t invent the notion himself. Don’t confuse what gets cited in newspapers and by the common fan with what a statistician thinks is best. The two don’t have to resemble each other.
I expect that models of basketball performance will improve. This does not mean that the models now are not worthwhile, and it certainly does not mean that a greater knowledge comes from dismissing those that don’t conform to popular opinion.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
I never said a greater knowledge would come!
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said we should be wary, that is all.
Stats are great, but put them down once in a while, and try watching the game. If it were as simple as statistics we wouldn’t play, we’d roll dice.
Silly, silly comment. We all watch a ton of basketball here. I’ve watched almost every single Warriors game since we drafted J-Rich (that’s around the time it became a sickness) and plenty before that, and I’m sure most of the folks here follow the team with a similar passion. If we didn’t passionately enjoy watching this game none of us would get to the point where we are spending time looking up stats online, and discussion the team daily.
You are better than making these kinds of cheap shots Brady.
I appreciate the comment and greatly apologize if it sounded like a cheap shot or ad hominem; that was not at all my intent. What I was merely trying to say is that we can’t invest all of our opinions in statistics, as some people (not you) seem to think. I merely meant to imply that it is not all about statistics (otherwise we wouldn’t be celebrating a beautiful World Series victory).
I did not at all mean to disrespect anyone and I sincerely apologize if I sounded as though I was questioning the integrity of anyone’s fandom. I merely meant to say that successfully diagnosing a player requires a healthy combination of statistics and subjective viewing.
No big deal...
Those comments are just thrown around too often here. I figured you didn’t mean anything by it, but it sounded worse than you probably intended. Go Dubs!
well, I'm sorry
they are thrown around, but I hate it when other people do it. thanks for pointing it out and I’ll try to make sure it doesn’t happen again
ONEDUB!
otherwise we wouldn’t be celebrating a beautiful World Series victory
As soon as my spreadsheet said the Giants had notched 11.0 Wins Produced in the playoffs, I broke out the bubbly. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
well at least it was only bubbly
god knows timmy broke out something else ;-]
I’ve watched almost every single Warriors game since we drafted J-Rich (that’s around the time it became a sickness)
I’m sorry man. I really am. It’s a curse I tell you!
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | BayArea.SBNation.com | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 7, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
Haha
Yeah, it’s hard to believe that I didn’t get burned out looking back on the low quality of ball. I did get a little fed up at the end of last season, but with the sale of the team, new jerseys, and all the roster moves I think I’m ready to bang my head against a wall for another ten years! ;-)
it's been a rough decade for bay area sports fans
hooray to the giants for ending it with one of the few high notes!
Mike.. I definitely
appreciate your comments vs Jae’s that say things like
This idiotic(yes, idiotic) line gets presented all too often.
Being a respected mod, it’s funny to see him get away with insults quite often. You respond to people with respect (silly vs idiotic) and it doesn’t go unnoticed. Jae seems to be here to prove everyone wrong or call out someone when they misspell a word or go on some unnecessary rant about stats that make him seem like god… There are people with opinions who use stats and there are people with opinions who don’t use stats. This whole post is just a flame war waiting to happen as this site seems to be split in respect to liking of Monta. I bet Atma is having a blast watching people go bonkers over this post. Ahhh to be a warriors fan.
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It is an idiotic line. It’s been presented over and over. It shows not a shred of insight to, without any evidence that people do not watch games. It’s not a new line. It’s one that gets paraded out all the time and it was no more worthwhile or accurate a charge the first time I read it than it was this time. It’s not a line that showed any respect and there is not reason to show respect towards such a statement.
I did not say he was idiotic nor that he was an idiot, but the line itself provides no intelligence to the discussion. It showed no thinking to write it and itself gets presented as an insult all too often. I’ll identify it as idiotic because it showed not a shred of intelligence as a charge against an opposing opinion.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 1:09 PM PST up reply actions
You didn’t call the poster, an idiot, so it’s not so bad. I’m a believer in honesty, so if there is an idiotic thing said, it’s okay to say it is idiotic. That said, there are so many things so much more idiotic in this world than being biased in favor of one’s own observations over statistics, I would tone it down. Maybe just say it’s lame or something. Idiotic is a pretty harsh term.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
Jae.(Jova)
I’m not willing to grant you freedom to make such unreferenced claims
You seem very bitter. I didn’t know this site was about trying to belittle people who have different opinions. Who says that people can’t form opinions based off just watching games without the use of stats.(YOU DO) Unfortunately, you have the power to do such things without getting warned or anything and it sucks. Are we not all rooting for the same team to win… You’re not god. You’re an intelligent poster who uses stats as your main purpose to analyze a player. You know what else is not a new line. People using the same stats to say player a is better than player b. There is more to the game than that. I think if you want people who take into account that stats are relevant, acknowledge the other side of it without calling one’s opinions idiotic. if you can’t do that. Go teach statistics.
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You seem very bitter.
Bitter? Whatever would I be bitter about? You’re rather incorrect in your perception here.
Who says that people can’t form opinions based off just watching games without the use of stats.(YOU DO)
I’ve never said anything remotely close to that. That’s a fabrication of yours, either intentionally or based on some rather poor inferences.
People can and do form opinions based on observation. I do it myself all the time. What I am not willing to do is let someone who does not seem to be viewing a reality that bears any resemblance to the one that it appears most see the freedom to make a rather specific claim (“According to the most advanced stats, the KC Chiefs are the best team in the NFL”) as ‘evidence’ of his conclusion without actually referencing the claim. What advanced stats say this? There was a very specific context to what I wrote. You have presented it without that context.
I think if you want people who take into account that stats are relevant, acknowledge the other side of it without calling one’s opinions idiotic. i
Again, context is important. Do note that I called a very, very specific statement idiotic. It was the “you need to actually watch games” statement. I didn’t make, as you seem to be misreading, a statement that people have to use statistics. I didn’t call the poster an idiot. But the claim that people who use statistics don’t actually watch games is simply not true, and the use of such a claim to refute a statistical argument does not refute the argument at all. It’s idiotic. It gets used all the time, but it wasn’t any more accurate nor more of an actual reason to distrust a statistical analysis the first time that it was this time. With no intelligent basis behind the statement, idiotic seems an appropriate description of the particular statement.
Now do note what I’ve actually addressed and written rather than addressing what you wish I’d written or what you perceive I’ve written. I chose my words carefully and deliberately.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
("According to the most advanced stats, the KC Chiefs are the best team in the NFL") as ‘evidence’ of his conclusion without actually referencing the claim. What advanced stats say this?
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2010/week-8-dvoa-ratings
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods
my point, as I have now said countless times, was merely that statistics cannot be the be-all, end-all. they are important, but they are neither the only thing that is important, nor something we should take as being fully true.
Comparing football stats to basketball stats is a bad comparison. They’re just at completely different levels.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
i'm not comparing football to basketball
I’m comparing advanced stats to advanced stats. the point stands. just because a statistic is “advanced,” doesn’t mean it’s god.
i’m not comparing football to basketball
But you are. You’re saying that advanced stats in basketball are flawed because advanced stats in football are flawed.
I could just as easily say that advanced stats in baseball are very very good, therefore advanced stats in basketball are very very good. The issue is that they’re completely different sports whose advanced stats have completely different levels of predictive power. You won’t see anyone on this site defend your claim about the Chiefs being the best team for a lot of reasons.
my point, as I have now said countless times, was merely that statistics cannot be the be-all,
Nobody has denied this point. Stop making it. It’s a complete fabrication.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
Nobody has denied this point. Stop making it. It’s a complete fabrication.
how can something that no one denies be a fallacy? that’s a contradiction.
I could just as easily say that advanced stats in baseball are very very good, therefore advanced stats in basketball are very very good
sure. if you’ll read carefully what I said, I didn’t use football statistics to say basketball statistics are bad I used them to say we should be wary of them.
how can something that no one denies be a fallacy? that’s a contradiction.
We shouldn’t have to deny it because nobody does it. It’s something made up to disparage those who like stats.
This seems like an okay place to put this: I haven’t really looked at the stats for any of our players this year. It’s too early to draw any meaningful conclusions from them. I’ve just been watching the games and forming my opinions on our players purely through my eyes.
sure. if you’ll read carefully what I said, I didn’t use football statistics to say basketball statistics are bad I used them to say we should be wary of them.
The argument is completely irrelevant.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
We shouldn’t have to deny it because nobody does it
John Hollinger gets paid 6 figures to do it.
The argument is completely irrelevant
we can agree to disagree here. Here’s an analogy. Suppose I buy a $2000 MacBook Pro. Suppose it breaks. This doesn’t mean that a $2000 Dell would break if I bought it. It doesn’t mean that at all. But it does mean that I could say “be careful, just because it’s $2000 doesn’t mean it will hold up.”
John Hollinger gets paid 6 figures to do it.
I don’t know what your saying here.
we can agree to disagree here.
No we can’t. Your argument can assessed to be terrible. It’s worthless.
We can’t assume anything about basketball statistics based on flaws from football statistics. That would be like applying injury rates from football to basketball just because they’re both athletes. You can’t make assumptions based on two completely sets of different things.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
it’s not about basketball and football! it’s about statistics. it’s about the saying “lies, damn lies and statistics.” that’s an exaggeration here, but it’s not about the difference between assessing two sports. It’s about what they teach you in a statistics class
and my point about hollinger was that, actually, some people do rely only on statistics.
it’s not about basketball and football! it’s about statistics.
It’s not about basketball and football! It’s about injury rates.
Do you really not see that analogy?
It is about basketball and football. You comparing advanced stats from basketball and football makes it about those two sports. If I compare basketball and baseball, I’m making it about those sports.
it’s about the saying "lies, damn lies and statistics."
Yeah, that wasn’t about sports. Sports stats didn’t matter back then. They had baseball (dis-integrated) and horse racing. Leagues weren’t integrated. Advanced stats didn’t arise until fairly recently. The reason stats are often misleading has more to do with their method of getting the data than what you do with the data.
and my point about hollinger was that, actually, some people do rely only on statistics.
Hollinger is a fool. He doesn’t post here. None of the people who post here only rely on statistics. To continue to insist that we do is offensive. Stop it.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
I never said anyone only uses stats. I said something that was misinterpreted, the same way Jae said things that were misinterpreted. please stop saying that I’m accusing you all of not watching the games because that’s simply not the case.
Actually, what you said was interpreted right. I mean, did you notice that there were like 7 people who read it the same way? What you wrote was not what you meant to say.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
you can interpret it how you want. but find me a sentence where I explicitly called out any one member for only using stats. it did not happen. I’m sorry if I was not clear and you misinterpreted, but no where did I say “member X doesn’t watch the games, he/she only uses stats.”
What you said implied that. I guess if you were being sarcastic, that’s one thing. As you know, it can be hard to tell on the internet. It’s impossible to insert or interpret tone accurately through text.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
oh, bull.
I didn’t use football statistics to say basketball statistics are bad I used them to say we should be wary of them.
Stop trying to split rhetorical hairs. You brought up the K.C. chiefs to specifically show how advanced stats could be misleading.
Everybody here is capable of understanding context. Stop trying to act like you weren’t trying to say what we all heard.
You brought up the K.C. chiefs to specifically show how advanced stats could be misleading.
which, in this case, is exactly the same as saying we should be wary
“We should be wary of them” (what I said) because “they can be misleading” (what you said). one and the same, I’m not splitting any hairs here.
Yes, maybe we should be wary. We should not be wary because football also has flawed statistics. There is no logical connection between basketball and football. They’re different games and their stats measure different things.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
i'm done commenting on this topic
we’re clearly not on the same page. you want to argue the former part of the phrases “football statistics” and “basketball statistics,” while I want to argue the latter half. there’s a reason they offer statistics classes at every level of education, not just football statistics or basketball statistics. I ask you to listen carefully because you seem to not understand what I’m trying to say, my point was:
statistics across the board, in any area, sports or not, are often flawed, even when they initially seem otherwise. this does not mean basketball statistics are flawed. but it does mean that we should heed them with caution, for we may realize they are misleading. also, we may not.
in a nutshell, let’s all be smart.
Ah, I kinda see what you mean to say now. I really can’t figure out a way to type out what I think you’re trying to say, though.
I still think you could have said “we should be wary” without complicating it by bringing in football stats. We should be wary simply on the merits of basketball stats.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
i agree with a lot of posters and think that you need to stop your attacks against other posters or stop being a mod. you are not setting a good example.
and i don’t know why you correct other people’s spelling errors. you may not spell anything wrong, but your grammar and sentence structure is just awkward.
by Won on Nov 8, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
+1
as someone who’s been reading on this site for a while I have to agree.
this coming from someone who leans to the statistics side of the argument.
Can we all just agree that evaluation is incomplete without seeing both the stats and the actual play. I agree with a lot of what JAE says, but it often does come out a little to hi and mighty. There is no reason to uniformly believe that your opinion is always unquestionable and thats the feeling I get from a lot of posts I read.
oh ya and my opinion on this trade thing, not that anyone particularly care. wait and see.
by AHR on Nov 7, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Can we all just agree that evaluation is incomplete without seeing both the stats and the actual play
We all agree on that and have always agreed on that.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
Can we all just agree that evaluation is incomplete without seeing both the stats and the actual play.
Well, we could, if people like Brady would stop making the idiotic comment that people who like statistics don’t watch the games.
That is, after all, why this comes up. Somebody who doesn’t like/know/understand statistics accuses the people who like stats of not watching the games. THat’s what Brady did here. When they stop doing that, we’ll stop having this argument.
Im going to have to agree with bradyk2
most of the time, everything that is written on GSOM is stats and efficiency. That’s mostly it. I don’t see a balance of statistical analysis and game-time analysis (aka how the player performed? saying X player was beast or X player played good, played defense, etc. isnt gonna cut it.
a good example
of this is how many times Monta has shot 3 pointers at the buzzer, or difficult shots as the shot clock fades. obviously this is going to negatively effect your statistics, but it doesn’t actually effect your ability, or your usefulness to your team.
of this is how many times Monta has shot 3 pointers at the buzze
We have stats on this. Fun fact- he didn’t actually shoot a higher percentage of shots in late shotclock situations than anyone else on the team.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
but, like always
there’s still always more. Take, for instance, Wright’s sweet pass to (was it Biedrins?) for the dunk as the shot clock expired. sometimes late in the shotclock is an easy shot, sometimes it’s a fadeaway, or a heave. I’m not saying monta took more of these. I’m merely saying that, so far, no stat can holistically define the worth or talent of any individual.
Actually, buzzer-beating attempts often don't count against your -
- the scorer may, at his discretion, not count them as a FGA unless they go in.
As for end-of-shot-clock shots, Monta didn’t take a huge number of them last year. His problem was that he was shooting too early and too often – standing midrange jumpers, and driving into traffic.
If you want to claim that he took an unreasonable number of end-of-shot-clock shots, and that hurt his shooting percentage, you can make that argument … but you haven’t done so. I’d like to see some evidence that it was the case beyond you just asserting it.
That's funny, because I've ...
… seen a lot of posts about Monta’s improved decision making, Biedrin’s quick hands and energy on defense, Monta not forcing his shots, Lee taking advantage of interior space provided by shooters, the unselfishness of the team, etc …
Since this season has started, I’ve posted far more comments along those lines than I have along statistical lines.
most of the time, everything that is written on GSOM is stats and efficiency.
I’d like you to go back and read this game recap. Please note the ratio of statistical argument to subjective analysis and what was used to describe the game and what happened. Note how much of the analysis did not cite statistics at all.
Be honest.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
a recap is by definition a summary, which is almost always subjective. I think he was referring to users arguments, not moderators recaps.
I was referring to user arguments like brady said.
not official moderator posts.
I have to agree
He might be evolving into a top 5 scorer though. He’s added so many moves to his game over last couple seasons. Skill wise, he is top 2 or 3 players. The biggest thing that will make him a top teir scorer though is maturity of thought process and playing intelligently. It’s irrelevant being so ‘skilled’ and not knowing how to properly use it.
Well I don't think anyone can call Monta a top 2 or 3 skilled players.
He has amazing skills around the basket for a player his size, but he is a poor free throw shooter for a guard, and is not a good 3 point shooter. His ball handling is atrocious for a 6’3 tweener.
Monta has skills but lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
However big props for this:
It’s irrelevant being so ‘skilled’ and not knowing how to properly use it.
Nice to see you’ve been listening to guys like MB when they’ve said things like that. +1
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
Just by saying
His ball handling is atrocious for a 6’3 tweener.
You lost some credibility. Atrocious? Seems like a very subjective statement that isn’t even really true. Ellis doesn’t have sound ball handling like Curry, but he certainly isnt atrocious. His handle is decent and he’s able to bring the ball down the court no?
It’s pretty atrocious, dude. One of the worse ballhandling tweeners in the league.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Like, maybe worse than Eric Gordon and OJ Mayo, but better than Ben Gordon?
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Haha.
Way to support your statement. I’m not blind. Monta can handle the ball. He can run set plays if he wants to. He can bring the ball up the court. He can crossover guys (and yea all he needs is one crossover because he’s so quick). He can drive the ball to the hoop. He can post up. What the hell do you mean by atrocious? Are you seeing something I’m not seeing? Yea he might not be the “good” ball handler if you want to reference him to the Curry’s, Nash’s, Kobes, Joe Johnson’s, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose’s, Chris Paul’s, etc. of the NBA, and I don’t feel extremely comfortable if he has to handle the ball end game (Curry is a much better option) but Monta Ellis’s handle is not atrocious. If Ellis were atrocious he wouldnt be running ISO’s or bringing up the ball from the end of the court at all. He would simply be a catch and shoot player if his handle were atrocious. Please spare me the trouble of what you mean by atrocious. In fact I don’t care what you mean by atrocious.
Again a great example the extreme subjectivity here in GSOM. Maybe if GovernorStephCurry or Reverend_Randy said “average or little below average handles” I would not have posted.
Did you support your argument in anyway?
I think Monta’s handles rate his as kinda bad for his size. He loses his dribble far too often. I’m not blind either so I can see him struggling with his dribble. He dribbles with his left hand like a high school player.
Maybe atrocious is a slight exaggeration. “Decent” is also probably too generous. It’s below average to bad.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
I am well aware
that he loses his dribble once in a while. Still doesn’t make him a bad ball handler. And you see him struggling? I’m sure he’d defer the ball if he felt like he was struggling which I don’t see at all.
And what kind of explanation do you want for "ballhandling"
Reverend_Randy?
He can place the ball in between his legs while making sure the tip of his fingers are at the edge of the ball..seriously. What kind of detailed explanation do you need? Only an illiterate person wouldn’t be able to understand my post.
by Jayd92009 on Nov 7, 2010 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Look at his turnovers the last 2 years. Pretty bad stuff.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
Turnovers don't necesarrily mean
bad ballhandling. Most of Monta’s turnovers come when hes driving and theres contact.
^^
this is the stuff I’m talking about. All statistical references. No coherent discussion about ballhandling ability.
for instance
Steve Nash is always in the top-5 in the league in turnovers.
Obviously that’s an extreme example, but it is not as black and white as high TO’s = poor ball handling.
atrocious-extremely or shockingly wicked, cruel, or brutal: an atrocious crime.
Bit of an exaggeration here. Perhaps we could just say it’s relatively poor. I suspect it partly has to do with how fast he is, making it harder to control the ball.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
Yeah
He could control his speed better. Some guys with better handles like Wall, Parker, and DRose can still control the ball while going very fast. Monta can’t, which is why he’s better off getting the ball in a place where doesn’t have to dribble too much.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
I would only do it for Melo
but only if he agreed to a contract extension beforehand.
Monta has been out of this world for the start of this season, but I would take consistency from Melo over a possible sporadic Monta.
by QualityOverQuantity on Nov 7, 2010 9:28 AM PST reply actions
I would never trade him for Melo. If he plays like this or 07-08 he's better than Melo.
If he plays like this I probably wouldn’t trade him for Iggy but once he regresses to the mean, I’d probably do it.
If he plays like this, I definitely would trade him for J-Smoove. J Smoove would greatly improve our defense, passing and rebounding (which is hard to say).
But there are about 20 players I’d still trade for Ellis. He just isn’t that good (like top 20 good).
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 9:46 AM PST reply actions
Do you mean Philly probably won't accept or we won't?
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
Philly won't
I think Monta’s value can’t get much higher than it is right now – with us winning and him coming off some great games.
I hope I’m wrong and he keeps it up all season. But even the last couple of games it looks like he’s starting to revert to 2009 form with too many forced shots.
But even the last couple of games it looks like he’s starting to revert to 2009 form with too many forced shots.
This too.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
Hmm
I think he trusts his teammates a lot more, which is why his efficiency is up. When you don’t feel forced to score and put team on your back, you play more naturally, take better shots, etc.
I’m not justifying his 2009, but it is fair to say, when he plays in the flow of the team instead of trying to be Kobe circa 2004, he’s much more efficient.
People forget he’s a young player still. Experienced but he’s really evolving from when he came to we believe team to now. There are growing pains long the way
It may be true that he trusts his teammates more -
- but one needs to be careful here because many of his teammaets were more trustworthy than he was, last year, when it came to taking a shot. His lack of trust of his teammates last year was a function of HIM, not his teammates.
Exactly..
That’s what makes this a really tough question. No one wants to think about this right now because he’s playing so well, and he’s so fun to watch, but the fact is that a month ago these three teams would have hung up on us if we called offering Ellis. Right now they might talk it over, and consider a deal, but there is no guarantee that things won’t go back yo the way they were in another month.
Atma, good job asking the tough questions. I think I’d have the easiest time trading him for Iguodala, just because I think it wouldn’t negatively affect the balance of the roster, and I think it would be such a huge upgrade defensively and I don’t think it would hurt the overall offense of the team that much over the course of the season.
I’m not a big fan of Melo’s game, so my heart has a hard time warming up to that one. Josh Smith is obviously a better player, but I have a hard time getting behind a move that would leave our backcourt so thin. Yeah, I’m sure if I could bring myself be objective about it I’dl do the Smith deal, but I’m having a hard time with that.
by olympicmike on Nov 7, 2010 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
The last paragraph mirrors my thoughts. I’d trade Monta for Iggy and Josh Smith, but not for Melo. I’ve watched almost every game of Carmelo’s professional career, and he is a very frustrating player. I like Iggy’s game a lot, though I’ve watched only 30-50 games of his. I have always been enamoured by Smith, as long as he isn’t chucking up 3s. I don’t see the undefeated Hawks trading him for a sg though, considering they just spent 120 million on Monta’s position.
by Uwe Blog on Nov 7, 2010 7:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Regresses
I think Monta has matured/got the message on efficiency(somewhat), needs to continue to work on passing decisions but now I dont think that he mistakenly feels like he has to carry the offense. I can see that he needs to keep thinking of AB and Lee as fellow offensive partners but this comes with play calling from Smart as well. If he lets other teams decide that he will always carry the ball into traffic rather than passing off then that is his point of regression in my mind as well as taking a deminsion from his game ie shooting himself in the foot.
All in all so glad that he wasnt traded for expirings this summer. Many were starting to call him out as a cancer to the team.
by Only In Fairfax on Nov 7, 2010 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
hmm
But there are about 20 players I’d still trade for Ellis. He just isn’t that good (like top 20 good)
Probably true. But he is capable of being top 20 or higher. It’s about finding consistency and right team. Right now this team is built to maximize his abilities.
If we could somehow get Iggy without Monta I’d be ecstatic, but I don’t see how it’s possible unless they just covet expirings
What's the point in getting Iggy while keeping Monta. They play the same position.
Unless you don’t want Dorell out there anymore?
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder how different the poll results would be if Chris Paul had been included among the trade possibilities. I suspect “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES” would still lead the pack, but CP3 might tighten things considerably.
Personally: Monta+expirings-for-CP3 is a deal I could approve with zero compunctions. We’d get a bit smaller, but no worse on the glass (perhaps even a little better), and we’d solve both our backup PG issue and lack of a Top 5 superstar issue in one fell swoop. And Monta would get to play in a cool city close to home…
Not happening, I know, but until Paul signs a big extension, he’s the one Top 5 NBA player semi-worth fantasizing about.
There will be no extra point!
Sleepy,are you saying that by taking in Chris Paul we move Curry to the 2?
by Only In Fairfax on Nov 7, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
I think you'd have to...
You could start him at SG, then slide him over to PG when CP3 sits. Paul would get Curry a lot of nice open threes.
CP3
Yeah, he’s in a class above the other guys mentioned here. He’s the kind of guy you just have to get if you can. You’d end up with either Steph or Paul guarding SG’s for much of the time, but I can live with that given the circumstances. ;-)
CP3
Yes, I would be more excited about Paul than Melo. Ha! The warriors would certainly get some major media attention with that move.
by Only In Fairfax on Nov 7, 2010 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
Only a fool wouldn’t trade Monta for Chris Paul. Paul has been a top 3 player in this league, without a doubt.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
Personally,
I can’t stand Paul. That has nothing to do with his game, but he just annoys me…
No electro, no metro, a little retro. Ahhhhhhhh.. perfecto
by Percie Harvin on Nov 7, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
No way to those trades
I still think we can get another very good player, if we eventually need to, without giving up our core guys. Iguodala isn’t playing his best ball, and I think we could maneuver a deal for him if they really felt like they need to add another piece. I think a combination of B. Wright (once he gets into a rhythm), Williams (once he plays more like last year), Vlads expiring, and a pick of some sort might be able to get a deal done at some point if Philly wanted to get Turner going in his development. Philly really has been wanting to clear cap space and get young talent on return and this would help. Williams would step right in as the starting 2, and Wright could possibly become their starting 4 at some point. Since Philly wants to play Turner at the 3, other than Iguodala, who they want to trade and who is best at the 3, they really don’t have a good 2. Williams would solve that. At the 4 they really don’t have anybody but Brand, who isn’t in their plans, so Wright would be a good piece for them. We would have a starting lineup of Curry, Ellis, Iguodala, Lee, Biedrins with D Wright as our 6th man.
I’d use Monta as the 6th man in that scenario.
by Uwe Blog on Nov 7, 2010 7:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Monta's a bargain
And the way he’s been playing, there is no reason to trade him. Wait to upgrade the roster via FA, not through trades. If they’ve stuck with him this far, might as well see what he can do for the team for a little longer (like this whole season). I wouldn’t say “trade him” at the first sign of Monta of last year.
The problem is the W’s are winning. You don’t mess up a roster when your team wins. If they’re going to be sub-.500 then we should think about trading him but even then, you should give him this season to see what rabbits they can pull out of their hats.
by Doctor Kajita on Nov 7, 2010 10:24 AM PST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
if monta plays 2/3s this well all season
his contract is a total steal for us.
Monta's a bargain
Agree, that is a major factor for us.
by Only In Fairfax on Nov 7, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Wait to upgrade the roster via FA, not through trades.
Well, I don’t see a way that we can expect to really upgrade this roster through free agency. Even when those expiring contracts come off the books we shouldn’t have enough space to snag a major free agent, not to mention the looming uncertainty regarding the new CBA. If this team is anywhere close to as good as they’ve looked so far then we almost certainly won’t be landing a high draft pick. So if we are serious about improving the roster that only leaves making a major trade. I’d expect that at the deadline our expiring contracts will be pretty dang valuable once owners start getting nervous about the possibility of a lower luxury tax threshold, or any other restrictions to help hold player pay down. There will probably be some team with a very good player that’s looking to dump him for salary relief.
That doesn’t mean that Monta will have to be included, but I think we need to keep an open mind and consider all the options. We’ll see how it all pans out I guess. Either way, if it’s me I’d likely wait until closer to the deadline to do anything.
I’m not suggesting signing a major free agent, but I think the Warriors biggest deficiency is their bench. I’m not convinced that B. Wright, R. Carney, Charlie Bell, or Vladimir Radmanovic are a good core off the bench. I do believe in Udoh and I do believe in Amundson…and to an extent, I believe in Lin.
by Doctor Kajita on Nov 8, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
That’s implied in the expression “the grass is always greener.”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
just ‘cause somethings implied doesn’t mean people are thinking.
Sports fans are excellent examples of this.
Haha. Dude, what do you think the expression “the grass is always greener” means?
The idea you’re trying to convey by saying “sometimes the grass isn’t always greener guys” is much better expressed by simply saying “the grass is always greener.”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
we’re spinning semantical circles. It can go either way. I could say “the grass is always greener,” implying that the grass always appears greener, but I was using the literal counterpoint, saying that it appears greener, but it isn’t. I know it’s implied if I just say the grass is always greener, but I was trying to stress it. the saying can go both ways, just hard to convey the way you want it through the internet.
the saying can go both ways,
Not really. There are no “semantical circles.” The original saying has a very specific meaning and usage. It never means the grass is actually always greener on the other side. It means:
Other people’s circumstances seem more desirable than one’s own but in reality are often not.
That’s what you meant to say, right? To say “sometimes the grass isn’t always greener” just seems like an unnecessary and confusing negation of a perfectly clear, well-accepted proverb.
There will be no extra point!
allow me to rephrase
I see where we’re caught up.
What you would have said (and I could have said) is “the grass is always greener,” which references the notion that people tend to find other circumstances more desirable than their own.
What I said was “the grass isn’t always greener,” which was a direct statement to the hypothetical people who believe their circumstance is less desirable.
It’s hard to explain via the internet, but it is an acceptable alternative with a slightly altered meaning. It may be regional.
A slight difference in the two is that “the grass is always greener” refers to people believing the other circumstance would be more desirable. “the grass isn’t always greener” is more reflective, as though you’ve tried the greener pastures, and realized they weren’t actually greener. That may not have made sense, but, like I said, hard to describe through the internet. Your usage (and the more common usage) tends to refer to the words you put in bold “seem” and “but in reality,” whereas my usage tends to deal more with experience. “I thought the grass was greener……but it actually wasn’t.” see?
The problem with all of these trades:
One of the things that’s so great about these warriors it that they’re working really well together as a team.
Even if you say Josh Smith is an upgrade on Monta, how does that affect the overall composition of the team? You can’t really run a SMith-Lee-Biedrins frontcourt out there. You’re taking minutes away from Dorell, who, maybe you haven’t noticed, is playing fantastically.
Lee and Biedrins are thriving in part because of the space created down low. What’s creating that space? The dynamic wing play and 3-pt shooting. Take away Dorell’s three-point shooting, replacing it with another player who’s more comfortable closer to the basket, and all that wonderful space our bigs are exploiting starts getting shut down.
Furthermore, it really looks like the extra time this team spent together before training camp is paying off. THese players seem to enjoy playing with each other, and are very unselfish. Do you really want to mess with that? Josh Smith is a very good player, and pretty unselfish, but do you think he’s going to mesh well with the rest of the guys very quickly?
But most importantly, why mess with what’s working? Assuming Monta regresses to the mean a little, but keeps playing with the attitude he’s had so far this year (unselfish, picking his spots, only carrying the team when they need it) it’s easy to see how one could see Smith as a talent upgrade, but it’s not so easy to see how he makes the team better.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 7, 2010 11:01 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I agree about Smith
but Iggy would fit right in at SG, and not take away from anyone’s playing time. He would be a huge defensive upgrade.
He'd also be a major offensive downgrade if Monta continues to play anywhere close to this good.
I’m not sure I make an offense-for-defense trade there, with this team, the way it’s playing now.
if
he had a couple of brilliant games to start the season, and I think it’s clouding everyone’s vision. He’s already started regressing back to 2009. Look at the TS for the first 5 games:
0.786
0.625
0.479
0.568
0.443
I’m not sure the “anywhere close to this good” is even true after the first two games.
I'll disregard Lakers game
Cause it was without Curry and v a team of that Caliber he can’t be expected to be an efficient PG. So otherwise I’m looking at 3 out of 4 good games…
"regressing back to 2009"
No. He’s regressing back TOWARDS a lower number, but we have on idea what that number is going to be.
There is no particular reason – given the clearly visible improvements to his decision-making on the floor, to expect it to revert TO last year’s number.
let me say
I have no doubt his attitude appears better, I’m just not sure his shot selection is any better. He’s still trying to force a lot of bad shots, as far as I can tell.
How would Smoove even fit into our starting 5?
"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2
by golden_solitude on Nov 7, 2010 11:15 AM PST reply actions
but would you trade Lee for him? (if Lee is hypothetically tradeable)
Golden State trades/receives: Lee/Smoove
Atlanta trades/receives: Smoove/Prince
Detroit trades/receives: Prince/Lee
"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2
by golden_solitude on Nov 7, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
We’d instantly give back a whole ton of the rebounding edge we gained with Lee. As a rebounder, Smith is closer to Maggette than he is to Lee. I think I’d pass.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
last pointless proposal:
maybe Beans for Smoove? Atlanta finally gets their C to play opposite Horford (and guard D.Howard in the playoffs). The defense we lose by shifting Lee to C is made up by having Smoove at the 4.
"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2
by golden_solitude on Nov 7, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Nahhh…
The fact that I want to say no to 99% of the trade proposals I hear these days just shows how well Riley has constructed this team.
Or at least it says, “We’re 4-1, babyyy…”
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Nov 7, 2010 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
He did a shoddy job with the backup point guard however.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions
Josh Smith isn't that good of a defender.
by Spider Jerusalem on Nov 7, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
I know Synergy doesn't think he's good, but he's a great off ball defender.
by GovernorStephCurry on Nov 7, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
What's the point of being a good off-ball defender if your man can just drive past you at will?
He doesn’t even bother to get into a defensive stance most of the time. Pretty embarrassing to watch, actually.
by Spider Jerusalem on Nov 7, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Have you noticed how much better we are this year when Beans is on the floor?
In every game I’ve watched (and I missed the Laker game) our overall interior D has gotten much worse when Beans sat.
It makes it hard to understand why people and in a huge rush to upgrade him. Having a real center is an asset. We shouldn’t throw it away.
Monta didn’t like Nelson and Cohen like so many other players .maybe Monta being hurt the last 2 seasons and playing so many minutes last season effected his play ,if you were a g.m and traded Monta for Iggy or Josh Smith you’d be out of work
Monta didn’t like Nelson and Cohen
Let us not slander innocent Cohens by misspelling Chris Cohan’s name.
by jae on Nov 7, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
Monta's been the best Warrior so far.
If Monta can keep it up then he’ll be good enough to either win with or to bring back a bona-fide all-star. Trading him now when his value to the organization as a player & as trade bait just doesn’t make sense.
I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR TWO YEARS
i knew this kid would jump to be one of the best. he’s here to stay and has to be. straight outta high school, he’s so young still and stil has years to perfect his game for even more. he’s still hasn’t even reached his prime yet. he’s gonna be a household name for the next couple years.
d-wright got the same story. straight outta high school, finally getting his chance to shine. i wouldnt be surprise if he explodes in some way also. he could turn into a bruce bowen that could put up major buckets
Must have been pretty hard to say it when he was one of the worst players last year.
I believe that ghosts are like dogs. They just do things arbitrarily.
by Reverend_Randy on Nov 7, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't say worst
I mean, we did play Mikki Moore…
The San Francisco 49ers, inventing new ways to lose every week!
by Badly Browned on Nov 7, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Monta has been playing lights out but...
Does anyone really expect him to keep this up for the whole year? I look at it this way…when Monta is on fire and is carrying the team with 30+ while hitting a high % of his shots, then he’s a great guy to have. But on the days where he’s not shooting the ball particularly well, that’s when his flaws really become apparent. This point has been banged on a ton but his size really is a problem when it comes to our perimeter D. He’s been making better decisions this year but he’s still not a guy you’d really want running your offense. He also doesn’t have a great secondary skill to go along with his scoring either; when he’s not getting his points, he can’t really make a huge contribution on a game. Compare this with someone like Josh Smith, who may not score a ton of points in any given game, but can still heavily influence a game with steals and weak-side shot blocking.
Personally, I’d trade Monta for Josh Smith first, Melo second, pending how long he would actually stay. Monta is fast becoming one of the premier scorers in the league and he’s a lot of fun to watch, but if the Warriors really want to take it to the next level, we need to get a bigger backcourt, end of story.
by Tom Huddlestone on Nov 7, 2010 12:02 PM PST reply actions
If we immediately try to make trades, or show willingness to trade Monta, people will see that we’re not confident that Monta will continue to play as he is. I don’t think his trade value is as high as people think. It’s been a short season so far.
The Golden Glow is the only way to reach the upper level.
Atma:
you mentioned:
A huge plus in my mind is that Melo has never missed the playoffs in the Wild Wild West. That’s mighty impressive.
it should also be pointed out that in those seven years of not missing the playoffs, he’s only made it out of the first round once.
As much as I love Monta's growth and maturity and would say no to these trades...
The idea of Iguodala + Wright on wings is mouthwatering defensively. Really only Miami and maybe LA can claim to have superior wing defenders.
Well hell, make it happen Riley!
The San Francisco 49ers, inventing new ways to lose every week!
by Badly Browned on Nov 7, 2010 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Iggy is the only player I'd even be tempting to include a Monta trade at this point
Even then, not quite the fan of his contract compared to Monta. If Monta continues to produce as he has been through 5 games, I see no reason to let him go, unless it’s for a superstar like CP3 or Durant or something.
The San Francisco 49ers, inventing new ways to lose every week!
Atma's Post is biased and laughable
Yes everyone has their right to exercise their opinion on GSOM, but really Atma? Diss Monta Ellis without even providing positive facts about him? Let me be more specific:
Here’s what we know about Monta Ellis based on what we’ve seen in his 5+ years on the Warriors:
* He can be immature. Exhibit: Moped Gate.
* He can be selfish: Exhibit: Ball hogging last season and haterism about the Warriors drafting Stephen Curry.
* He can be dumb. Exhibit: He doesn’t exactly come across as the brightest guy in his interviews or with the logic fueling his often times public tantrums.
* He is NOT a point guard or someone you want running your offense. Exhibit: Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers.
* He can be a horrific defender. Exhibit: His turnstyle defense from 2007-2010 which led to superstar scoring nights from random guards.
* He can choke in the playoffs. Exhibit: 2007 NBA Playoffs of WE BELIEVE fame, but that was 3 years ago, so I’d expect better now. (I know what you’re thinking though.)
But guess what? Through 5 games this season we’ve haven’t seen any of that really. Well there’s the 5.2 assists : 3.0 turnovers, but I can live with that given his improved defense, leadership, and scoring. I’ll take this version of Monta on my squad- very happily. Ellis has looked flat out unstoppable out many times this season.
Yes Atma lets talk about Ellis’s negatives the past 5+ years without talking about anything about Ellis’s positives the past 5+ years (And that last paragraph about what Ellis has done the past 5 games doesnt cut it). This is the kind of stuff that is written on bleacher report and has been detracting from the overall objectiveness and quality of GSOM as a whole.
by Jayd92009 on Nov 7, 2010 2:51 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
The way monta has been playing and the way GSW is winning. i doubt Monta will be traded anytime soon.
by Jeffrey Thompson on Nov 7, 2010 4:22 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- A closer look at a big night for Brandon Bass, who ate well because Rajon Rondo kept feeding him
- Kevin Garnett takes a little shot at Philadelphia’s ‘fair weather fans.’ His words, not ours (VIDEO)
- Eight wounded in a shooting as fans spill out into the streets surrounding the Oklahoma City Thunder’s arena
- Behind the Box Score, where a special Oklahoma City Thunder team is moving on
- Russell Westbrook hit an impossible and-one shot to beat the Lakers (VIDEO)
