2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Final Report Card: Combating Grade Inflation

Let’s just get this out of the way early: Dr. JAE does not give away grades. There is no generous "curve". He will not succumb to this era of diminished expectations that is reflected in feel-good touchy-feely gift grades where every excuse somehow bumps up marks a letter grade for fear of someone’s ego being bruised.
Find out after the jump.
OK, no one got an A. No one deserved one.
Stephen Curry: B+
It is also an anomalous grade on this squad.
That is what the game is about, isn’t it? Winning?
We’ve seen the excuses. "He had no one to pass to." This is neither true, nor would such an excuse warrant much forgiveness for the ball-hoggedly play. Good players are supposed to "make their teammates better". Good players ‘take over’ and will their teams to win. Monta did neither. Perhaps Morrow and Watson and Curry and Maggette would have missed that extra shot attempt a game a pass from a triple teamed Monta should have resulted in. Perhaps <scoff> the rest of the team had hit their optimal ledge beyond which any addition FGA was more than certain to miss. It seems unlikely that these guys, all of whom were significantly more efficient from the field were maxed out such that every additional shot was going to be case of significant diminishing returns. Perhaps <scoff>, but with Monta’s head-down drive style and tunnel vision focus on his own shot, we never got a chance to find out. The team did not fall apart when he was off the court and actually performed significantly better when he was on the bench or in street clothes. That might be a result of small sample size of non-Monta minutes, but it certainly doesn’t lend the slightest bit of evidence to the misguided notion that he was the only thing keeping the Warriors from losing by 20 ever night. He was, however, a significant part of the reason we were losing by 6 most nights. Finishing in the bottom quarter of the league in scoring efficiency, tops in the league in turnovers with an assist to turnover ratio that ranks as poor for an off guard, let alone a player who for large sections of the season was running the point, watching his rebounding slip to below average for an NBA point guard (and quite a bit below average for an off guard) and there’s not a whole lot left to like. In sum, he’d have to conjure up favorable comparisons to Michael Cooper, Alvin Robertson or the late Dennis Johnson at the defensive end to offset these negatives. He didn’t.
Andris Biedrins: D-
The end of 08-09 saw
Incompletes
Raja
Kelenna Azubuike: Derailed by injury early.
Brandan Wright:
Coby Karl: The most interesting thing about Coby Karl was seeing his first name misspelled as "
Looking back at it, I still think I'm being generous.
Also see: 2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Midterm Report Card- Injuries, injuries, and a whole lot of suck
232 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Radmanoscrub
F. straight up. I’m furious that you gave him a C-
Way too harsh on Monta. a D? give me a break. C/C+ in my book.
And Steph should have gotten an A-
No, Radman was bad, but was hurt and not expected/ should have more than 5-10 minutes of PT of bench unless he is hitting the 3.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 27, 2010 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems like there's some degree of "performance compared to expected performance" in these grades.
You don’t give Miki Moore a bad grade because he’s Miki Moore. You give him a bad grade for not doing the things well which he, in theory, should be able to do well.
Radman was bad, but he was pretty much bad in exactly the way we knew he would be bad because that’s who he is as a player. There’s a limit to how much you can punish him for that.
Evaluating Radman’s grade more than I did would have required thinking about him more than it’s worth doing. Consider his grade the equivalent of “social promotion”. Now if we can just “graduate” him on somewhere else where they need a 6-10 stationary 3 point shooter who rebounds like he’s considerably shorter and winds up being one of the least interesting players to watch.
Nice work man
Haha you make FoxSports.com’s Charlie Rosen look like the nicest guy in the world- and that’s quite an accomplishment.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 27, 2010 11:23 PM PDT reply actions
Offtopic
Does anyone else see a sudden change of color for clicked and unclicked links? They’re a lot brighter and noticeable than before.
I see it too, i just thought it was a glitch for me.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 27, 2010 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
My grades
Steph Curry : A+ , he had a good of a rookie seasona s you could have asked. He needs to bulk up but thats nitpicking as of right now, when he got confident he just went off
Monta Ellis : A- , I’m going to get grief for this , but what the guy went through taking all the punishment he did, playing as many minutes per game as he did, expanding his overall all game and trying to lead a a depleted young team after getting ridiculed by some fans. He’s as tough as they come. He was forced to play out of his comfort level the entire year as well (initiator)
Maggette : C , After getting booed he changed up his game slightly. He passed a little more and drove a little more instead of settling for jumpers. He played out of his comfort level a lot this year as well and was a good locker room guy. He’s basically what we thought he was
Morrow : B , Another tough guy, although he’s one dimensional the guy has heart. At times this year he was unstoppable and other times he looked like he couldn’t handle a ball better than a AAU player. He is the best shooter in the NBA to me no doubt
CJ Watson : C+ , Like Morrow at times he was great and other times not so great. He’s your basic role player who can come in and score a bit. I like how he became a ball hawk on defense this year as well.
RadVlad : D- , I have to say watching him play 15 or more minutes a game while we had AR made me mad. He can’t do anything on offense anymore and is a average defender. At times he played good defense but he can’t guard a PF or a center for his life. He looked scared as well which I hate in a player
Tolliver : B , He started off slow on offense and struggled from 3 but really picked it up. A solid rebounder and a solid defender. Just solid all around
Biedrins : D , He regressed badly this year on offense. He was scared of getting touch cause he didn’t want to shoot a free throw. He still rebounded well and he should have played more when he came back but of course he got hurt again. I had high hopes for him this year as well….
Turiaf : D+ , He’s a good passer on offense and thats about it when it comes to that. On defense I love the energy but his rebounding has always been bad. If he shot his free throws better and got near 65% he’d probably be around a C but since he had such a dramatic drop off from the line it hurt him in my eyes. He always seemed like a good FT shooter to me until now
Mikki : D- , He tried really hard but was awful. On both sides of the ball. I remember I went to the Portland game at home this year with my step dad who isn’t even from this country and isn’t a big fan of basketball and asked me " who’s the guy in the long socks?" , I said Moore and he quickly said back he was garbage. I laughed so hard at that
Hunter : C- , Worked hard on a bad leg and had some nice defense. Decent offense but not great by any means. A nice call up who should stay in the NBA
Williams : B , The shiny new toy. He came in and right away made a lasting impact on us as a scorer. His defense could improve but it’s fine right now. Him and Buike are best call ups ever I think
George : C , He was patient and when he got in he wasn’t all that great but brought stability. He shot 3’s well and played good defense but if we don’t bring him back this may be his last year. Those last 2 games are a good note to go out on
Rndolph : B- , He played great for a 20 year old in my mind. Great shot blocker, improved shooter and good rebounder. Should have been playing so much more than he was. It was so sad to see him go down in person , you can just hear him in agony and it was a awful feeling. I hope it isn’t too bad of an injury where it hurts him down the road
Cohan : A+ , He put the team for sale….. Enough said
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Attacking others only attacks yourself
I won’t give you much grief, but I’d change Curry to A-, Monta to D+, Maggette to B, CJ to B+, Radman to D+/C-, Biedrins C+, Turiaf C, Hunter C, and Cohan a big huge F.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 27, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
My grades
Hey not too bad, I’d lower Stef to A- and Montay to B-, lower Morrow to C+, CJ to C, Tolly to C, ReggieWTF to C, and raise Rony to C .
Obviously you understand the game better than JAE who gave Montay a D? a frickin D for our almost replacement of the replacement allstah?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 27, 2010 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, “a frickin D.” Had he made the all-star game, it would have been the crowning example of how it’s a popularity contest based almost entirely on scoring average, decided by people who, despite their jobs in the industry, are no less the fools that the common fan (who most clearly votes according to scoring average). Monta’s game was the sort of ball-hoggedly tunnel vision shot happy turnover fest that loses games. The way he played actively contributed to losses. There are many, many times that I think people forget that winning is still the objective.
weak
whatever, stat guru. i’d like to see how close they would have gotten to getting don nelson the all time wins title with no monta. yeah, monta’s game was flawed last season, but a d…get outta town.
by fuller over bryant on Apr 28, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
“Stats guru”.
Yawn.
With Monta, they were terrible, not terrible in spite of Monta, but terrible because Monta’s play was the sort of play that generates losses. That’s true without any reference to stats. Charging blindly into double and triple teams without the vision to get it to the open man will result in losses.
still weak
“Yawn”
really?
in the words of the mad hatter, “you used to be much muchier. you’ve lost your muchness.”
if all was left to you we’d have a team of luke ridnour’s.
by fuller over bryant on Apr 28, 2010 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
*ridnours
didn’t mean to make that possessive. my bad.
by fuller over bryant on Apr 28, 2010 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
if all was left to you we’d have a team of luke ridnour’s.
Yawn. It’s so utterly sad that you’ve comprehended so little and are left with only your (rather incorrect) hypothetical strawmen.
gah, you've now graduated to that rarefied position of "super weak"
look, mate, i don’t agree with your analysis of monta ellis. simple as that. qualitatively speaking he remains one of the better players we have. i’m not disputing that his game has flaws, what i’m disputing is that he in no way deserves a d from the stats guru. there were times where his drives to the rim produced contact yet went unwhistled, where his turnovers were a result of a teammates fumbling a pass, or where injury or illness prevented him from being 100%. if you still have an issue with that then i suggest you get over your own smugness and arrogance and realize that differing and wavering opinions on a public forum are gonna occur.
by fuller over bryant on Apr 29, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
there were times where his drives to the rim produced contact yet went unwhistled, where his turnovers were a result of a teammates fumbling a pass, or where injury or illness prevented him from being 100%.
Is there any player in the league who the above paragraph could not be applied to?
Also, usually when a guy fumbles a pass, the fumbler gets the turnover, not the passer.
i’m not disputing that his game has flaws, what i’m disputing is that he in no way deserves a d from the stats guru.
The “stats guru” didn’t assign that grade. The “fan who would like to see winning basketball but knows that ball-hoggedly driving into triple teams and turning the ball over often or putting up terrible, contorted prayer shots far too regularly doesn’t contribute to winning” assigned that grade.
if you still have an issue with that then i suggest you get over your own smugness and arrogance and realize that differing and wavering opinions on a public forum are gonna occur.
And not only do they occur, but they get posted. You are acting as if I’m not allowing other people to write what they feel, that I’m deleting posts, censoring opinions. I am not. If you post that you thought he had a great season, I don’t agree with you in the slightest, but the posts are there. Are you upset that I’m disagreeing with you? That I don’t buy the excuses (and have voiced why I think the excuses have some logical inconsistencies given the play of others on the team) for his performance? That I voice that the sort of play he engaged in doesn’t tend to lead to wins? If you are upset that I’m saying that, and replying to people, then it appears you’re having real trouble with the responses coming both ways.
You appear to want denigrate my opinion and analyis. Did you really expect referencing what I wrote as coming from “the stats guru” as something other than a means of marginalizing my opinion? Referring to me as the “stats guru” is a poorly veiled jab; it suggests that you don’t respect it and that my opinion is drawn just from statistics. It isn’t. If you’ve read what I’ve written carefully, you’d notice that. If it was all drawn from statistics, Andris Biedrins, a player who still rebounded very well and still didn’t miss many shots, would have fared better than the team-low mark I gave him.
I sense this as a problem. People are taking it personally that I did not find Monta to have had a good season. They are taking it personally that I have said that he had a lousy season. This is something I do not understand.
I sense people are taking it personally because the responses to my poor grade assignment include statements like “Obviously you understand the game better than JAE who gave Montay a D?”, “weak…get outta town” (that sort of statement looks like the poster didn’t want my differing opinion), that I was “Waaaay too harsh on Monta” and should “[g]ive him a "B" and give him a break. All this haterade is creating bad juju for next season” (as if what I write has any effect on any of the players), asked if woke up “on the wrong side this morning?” that and was “[w]ay too negative, dude”, called “ridiculous”, seen it asserted that I “argue[d] that [my] grading system is fool proof” (something I never argued), told “screw you! you dont even like the warriors!”.
Now are those sorts of statements none of which did I delete or silence or prevent from being posted. (That one was hidden by someone else. I did not hide it.) Many implied or outright stated that my opinion wasn’t just different, but was outright wrong. I’ve had people imply or state outright that I don’t actually watch games (I haven’t seen how many of these posters engage in game open threads, something I never do as it interrupts my ability to watch games and a computer nearby would probably just serve as a projectile when the inevitable infuriatingly lousy play gets to me — better to keep solid objects out of reach).
This notion that I don’t allow others to disagree with me is simply false. The disagreement happens, clearly. But I’m not going to coddle those who disagree, pat them on the head and give them a thumbs up “Good job!” either. Where I disagree, I express this. If someone cannot handle having their opinions challenged, if they don’t like data being presented that goes against what they said, why are they bothering to post here?
Then why...
The "stats guru" didn’t assign that grade. The "fan who would like to see winning basketball but knows that ball-hoggedly driving into triple teams and turning the ball over often or putting up terrible, contorted prayer shots far too regularly doesn’t contribute to winning" assigned that grade.
if that is so, then how could Curry not have at least an A-?
if that is so, then how could Curry not have at least an A-?
Read what I wrote.
by jae on May 1, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
"Monta's game was the sort of ball-hoggedly tunnel vision shot happy turnover fest..."
Sounds like the sort of player who’s been coached by an older,’ the game has passed me by’ Don Nelson his whole career.
I can’t say I disagree with Monta’s grade, but I think that is more a reflection of the coaching staff than anything else.
Nellie has 2 jobs for Monta, score and guard the other teams best perimeter player. Monta did everything Nellie asked of him this year.
With that many As and Bs
we shoulda been a good team.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm taking into account how we battled through the injuries with certain players
That counts for something
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Attacking others only attacks yourself
Those may be contributing reasons to poor play, but the play was still poor.
That counts for something
That may explain why the grades were bad, but it doesn’t justify gift grades, saying that the players played well when they did not.
So your saying playing as hard as some guys did doesn't count for anything?
So all it comes down to is numbers and stats? I find it hard to believe that I can’t boost someones grade because of how tough they were and how hard they played. Like Kajita said below, if your going to give 1 guy credit for going hard you might as well let others get credit for going hard
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Attacking others only attacks yourself
You know, people keep saying how Monta played hard every night, but it's not true.
Let’s take the example of the great defensive job Monta did on Roy in that game his fans love to talk about. It was an impressive performance, no question.
But where was that defensive effort the rest of the season? It showed up a few times, but often it just wasn’t there.
So I have a hard time with the claim that Monta brought consistent effort. I don’t think he did.
by Ronaldinho on Apr 28, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The guy played hard every night. Maybe it didn’t result in great defensive stoppages, but at no point did I ever think he was being lazy. I don’t know if he lead the league in minutes but we know his mpg was up there. When you’re playing that much, you can’t always “bring it” on defense, especially against bigger players, when you’re also asked to score the most points on the team.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Not always "bringing it" may be understandable ...
in the circumstances you describe. Absolutely. I have no problem saying, “You know what, it’s not reasonable to expect consistent effort from a guy who the coaches are running into the ground.”
But you can’t say that AND say that he always gave consistent effort.
You seem to be saying, “Well, he always brought consistent effort, and those times when he didn’t it totally is understandable.” And that’s a bit of a contradiction.
He was out there doing what he can. That’s what I equate to him giving consistent effort. Throw me a bone man.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
, "Well, he always brought consistent effort, and those times when he didn’t it totally is understandable."
If you’d ever played you know it is understandable, the same amount of effort doesn’t always guarantee the same results.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions
You know what's pretty lazy?
Taking well defended 22 foot jumpers.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Jae,
what do you give Nelson and Riley?
I give Nelson a C- and Riley a B .
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 27, 2010 11:36 PM PDT reply actions
Ellis grade too harsh
I’d give him a C/C+. Noticed you gave him no credit for his obvious improved 3 point shot and defensive play. many of the complaints you have about him could apply to Kobe – one of the best players in the NBA.
Grade for Turiaf too harsh as well – he played through injuries when he could and left it all on the floor. He is second or third center on a good team – why penalize him for what he is not?
Beidrins should get an F if Turiaf gets a D+
many of the complaints you have about him could apply to Kobe – one of the best players in the NBA.
So does Kobe have one of the worst 5 adjusted +/-’s in the league, and not get to the line much? Kobe at least shoots around 54-55 TS %…
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 27, 2010 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions
many of the complaints you have about him could apply to Kobe – one of the best players in the NBA.
If Kobe had been in the bottom quarter of the league in efficiency (he wasn’t, he was still above average), had seen his rebounding dip such that it was below average for any position (it wasn’t), had seen his team play appreciably better when he sat (they didn’t) and had guided his team to a bottom 4 record, then that might be true. Those things were what colored Monta’s grade and none were true about Kobe.
Kobe
also wasnt trying to chase done the all time turnovers in a single season like Monta Ellis did with a passion all year.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Apr 28, 2010 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've been thinking
I’ve been thinking about Corey Maggette’s “efficiency” numbers. On paper, he looks very efficient. He scores a lot of points in a small number of “shot attempts”. But part of that is because often times when he drives, he gets fouled and goes to the line. The drives doesn’t officially get recorded as a shot attempt unless he makes an and-1, so he gets a free chance to increase his total scored points anyway, thus increasing his efficiency.
So theoretically speaking, is there any way to calculate efficiency by taking into account “possession of the ball” or maybe “physically attempting a shot”? I suppose that would be hard, because it’s difficult to judge if FTs came because Maggette really was taking a shot attempt, or if he is required to shoot FTs because the team is “in the bonus”. Or maybe there’s a way to subtract FT points from total points and only count points scored directly from the fgs.
Thats what TS% is for. It shows how many times a guy scores successfully out of 100 possessions.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 27, 2010 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Like GovStepthCurry said,
TS% takes into account FT attempts, and Maggette had a very good .615 TS% this season. Maggette even managed a career high season FG% at 51.6%. It’s a shame really, because Maggette improved on almost every facet of his game from last season, but we had to stick him as our starting 4 most of the time. I do not think we can expect Maggette to get any better from now on. I actually liked Maggette this season, but I still hope we sucker another team into picking him up.
Take my bags, not my top 3 pick!
"Winning is not enough. All others must lose." - Larry Ellison
by Badly Browned on Apr 28, 2010 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s a shame really, because Maggette improved on almost every facet of his game from last season, but we had to stick him as our starting 4 most of the time.
Did it occur to you that maybe his improved offensive efficiency is a direct result of being matched up against slower moving opponents at the 4?
by WheresMyChippy on Apr 28, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps. But I remember a stretch where Nellie played Maggette at the 3 and still continued his efficient play.
Take my bags, not my top 3 pick!
"Winning is not enough. All others must lose." - Larry Ellison
by Badly Browned on Apr 28, 2010 2:34 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
No love for Cartier “Chucker” Martin eh? Oh well, not that he was that much more relevant than Coby Karl. >_>
And I’d have to agree with the “tough” grading assessment for the team, though I too would be much less generous to everyone aside from Curry and Maggette (and maybe Morrow had Reggie Williams not temporarily made him a forgotten man). It’s really a shame that after an injury-riddled 29-win season led to an even more injury-riddled 26-win season.
Dude We Sucked....
I was feeling good about this season on many levels but then I read this. Guys…we suck…. and the fact that we suck….sucks….
I mostly agree with these grades, although I would lower a couple of people’s grades a bit. That said, I would not give the Warriors an F. From me, they get an Incomplete. This team was ravaged by injuries, and there is no way to know if it is somehow the fault of the organization, the injury prone nature of our players and/or really bad luck. Not enough data to judge this team, IMO.
Go Andris's free throw shooting!
Waaaay too harsh on Monta
Blame Nellie for Monta ball-hoggish tendencies.
Sure Monta didn’t pass enough, but he’s not a point guard, and Monta played better when Nellie stopped trying to make him one.
Monta improved his three pointer, and played valiant defense in spurts.
Give him a “B” and give him a break. All this haterade is creating bad juju for next season.
And with the 11th pick of the 1996 NBA draft, the Golden State Warriors select...
by ToddFullerBaby! on Apr 28, 2010 6:58 AM PDT reply actions
Give him a B for playing terrible?
What kind of school did you go to?
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
OT: But did SBNation change/update their UI or something?
The colors are a bit different and things are underlined. Me no like.
Take my bags, not my top 3 pick!
"Winning is not enough. All others must lose." - Larry Ellison
Agreed
The underlining isn’t as streamlined as before.
Did we wake up on the wrong side this morning?
Way too negative, dude. Your apparent assumption that only 26 wins means everything must have sucked is wrong. Which means the players must have sucked, right? Actually, no. 400+ games lost to injury and trying to win with a depleted squad is what sucked.
Also, this team was way more entertaining than most of the teams boring us all in the playoffs, and sports is entertainment.
Your apparent assumption that only 26 wins means everything must have sucked is wrong.
Injuries hurt considerably. I don’t grade on the freebie curve that so many favor though. Players play games. Games were lost. The players who played those games were the ones who lost those games.
Also, this team was way more entertaining than most of the teams boring us all in the playoffs, and sports is entertainment.
I find winning entertaining.
I find winning entertaining.
Incredibly simplistic, which is amazing considering how over the top the analysis seems to be in the original post. There are teams out there that have good records and are not entertaining except for the fact that I root against them because they are so boring. SA Spurs is right on the top of the list. Jazz are up there as well.
This year we were far from good or entertaining but when you start 3 D – Leaguers expectations were not that high to begin with.
And I love how your polls do not allow for any criticisms, nice touch.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Apr 28, 2010 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Or you can say why am I not a Spurs fan? Because there not entertaining.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Where do you live? Where did you grow up? I suspect that this explains most fan allegiance. You may be different. You may be the exception, but there is a reason San Antonio papers cover the Spurs and Bay Area papers cover the Warriors.
I like the Spurs
because they are everything the Warriors should be.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Allegiance yes but I do enjoy watching other teams other then our woeful Warriors.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
I think most Spurs fans wish their team had more spectacular plays, and possessions for that matter, in much the same way most of us would like tha warriors to get a defensive stop…ever.
bring back warriors roundtable! warriors weekly is a pretender to the throne of warriors themed TV shows!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Apr 29, 2010 2:03 AM PDT up reply actions
But Spurs fans are probably okay with “boring” basketball as it has given them 4 championships. And no its not boring if you are great. The spurs are fun to watch even for fair-weather fans because they have Ginobilli, Duncan, and Parker. Pretty exciting trio there.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 29, 2010 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
The Spurs’ inability to sell out home playoff games up to and including the Conference Finals would indicate that many of their fans are actually not all that entertained by their winning.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
But they're also a small-market team.
San Antonio has 1.3 million people, compared to 7.4 million in the Bay Area.
The Spurs’ inability to sell out home playoff games up to and including the Conference Finals would indicate that many of their fans are actually not all that entertained by their winning.
Where did you hear that? Do you have a source for this? It appears that they sold out their home games in the series vs Dallas. And it looks like they had identical attendance figures at home for every playoff game the last year that they were in the conf. finals as well (a ridiculous coincidence if they weren’t sellouts). I’m seeing no evidence that they had an inability to sell out those games as you’re claiming.
And it looks like this year they were close to sellouts most of the time. If you have other information, I’d be glad to look at it, but the notion that they aren’t able to sell out games doesn’t
Also, this team was way more entertaining than most of the teams boring us all in the playoffs, and sports is entertainment.
I have to agree that I got way more excited catching glimpses of the Warriors this season to see how Curry/Monta/Reggie were doing than watching much of these playoff games but I’d much rather be winning than having 10-0 scoring streaks followed by 5-30 scoring streaks every game.
by Throw up the Dub on Apr 28, 2010 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, this team was way more entertaining than most of the teams boring us all in the playoffs, and sports is entertainment.
You can choose to watch the NBA for whatever reason you want, but the playoff teams as a whole are exciting and I am really enjoying the games. I prefer a solid consistent winning product than a gimmicky team that can sometimes catch a team unprepared for the lunacy that a Don Nelson’s 2009-2010 squad was good at.
Thing B
by warriorsscore110 on Apr 28, 2010 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: I prefer a solid consistent winning product than a gimmicky team
Maybe you should change your user name to “warriorsscoremorethantheiropponentoftenenoughtoqualifyfortheplayoffs”
How is trying to exploit mismatches is “gimmicky” rather than just common sense? I agree that the defensive effort was inconsistent and mostly bad. I don’t think that’s a gimmick, they just don’t have a lot of good individual perimeter defenders.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Apr 28, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think that’s a gimmick, they just don’t have a lot of good individual perimeter defenders.
what makes it a gimmick is that nellie selects and grooms those type of players to play his gimmicky system. If he was a post up kinda guy we’d see big strong gimmickless defenders.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: nellie selects and grooms those type of players to play his gimmicky system.
Based on everything you’ve read and heard form Don Nelson’s mouth, who do you think he’s actually selected and groomed? I’ll start:
Stephen Curry
Reggie Williams
Rony Turiaf?
Who else? Deavan George as the 15th guy?
I’ll say he likes, but did not select:
CJ Watson
B Wright
Azabuike
Morrow (pretty bad defender but would have a role on a championship team)
Tolliver
Randolph???
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Apr 30, 2010 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions
lso, this team was way more entertaining than most of the teams boring us all in the playoffs, and sports is entertainment.
You know, two or three years ago I would have agreed with this. The Warriors, then, were a genuinely exciting team to watch.
But that was a few years ago. Now? What’s particularly exciting about them? With the exception of Curry, this team plays selfish, ugly, ineffective basketball.
this team Ellis playsed selfish, ugly, ineffective basketball last year. Maggette was arguably effective. The team was not, but the shared the basketball when Ball Hogs A and/or B were off the floor.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Apr 28, 2010 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, this team was way more entertaining than most of the teams boring us all in the playoffs, and sports is entertainment.
Since everyone else is quoting it…
The playoffs would be exciting if you were rooting for one of the playoff teams like you root for the Warriors. For example, if the Warriors had Popovich coaching Duncan, Manu, Eva Longoria’s husband, and the rest of that squad, I’d be excited to watch them right now in the playoffs. Heck if we had Sloan, Boozer, Deron, etc, I’d be excited to watch them too. It’s all a matter of who your favorite team is.
Golden State of Mind: Unstoppable Baby!
by Fantasy Junkie on Apr 28, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But even non-Warrior fans enjoyed watching the "We Believe" team -
There is something to be said for that. We were a great offensive team that tried to gun everyone out of the arena. There is something “exciting” about that.
But now? We’re not a good offensive team any more. We score a lot of points, because we play fast, but there’s a difference between playing fast and being good offensively. We’re a bottom-third offensive team.
Monta "D" grade
While we shouldn’t make excuses for anyone, especially Monta, who A) got hurt two years ago and maybe or maybe was the reason that season was ruined and B) who acted like another entitled punk in the beginning of the season and C) who played very inefficiently based on +/-, which I see that is what your grade is based on ©, I still think the grade is a bit harsh especially when +/- stats shouldn’t be used as the be-all-end-all. It should be used to give an example, but not to make a blanket statement about a player.
You gave Morrow a B- when I think he probably should have gotten a C- or D+. You’re right, not much of a statistical drop off from last year and yes, the effort was there throughout, but he failed to adapt his game to take advantage of his shooting genius. Teams this year closed in on Morrow giving him very little time to shoot. He was forced to put the ball on the floor, IMO, one of his biggest weaknesses as it takes him a long time to dribble while getting nowhere. Instead, what he should have focused on (and what his teammates and coaches should have focused on) is to use staggered screens and move better without the ball. Perhaps this is a flaw in Don Nelson’s system as he often ran to the corner or the wing hoping to get an open shot, both in half-court and in transition.
So to circle back to Monta, if we’re going to reward Morrow for “effort,” which was flawed given that he didn’t really improve the parts of the game he should have, then why can’t we do the same for Monta?
IMO, Monta’s effort was there every time he stepped on the court. While his effort was flawed, it was flawed in part because he tried to do too much. Of course, some or all of that is self-inflicted because he probably felt the pressure to be “the guy” after spending the previous year in crutches after signing his multi-year contract. He probably felt the pressure because his best buddy Stack Jack left or his wife told him to be the man. In that respect, I think he handled the pressure pretty well by scoring a lot of points in often spectacular fashion. And I do think he gave consideration to his teammates throughout the season given his pretty good assist numbers, albeit marred by high turnover numbers, but just not to Curry until later in the season. Monta’s inefficiency is a result of not only his flaws as a player and person but the roster of injured/inactive and young players he was surrounded by. So, your omission to not grade the coach and specifically the front office is a little odd, as that should factor into the team’s overall F grade.
While Monta’s overall stats were marred by inefficiency, he did have some nights to give the doubters who say he can’t be part of the team’s future some pause. We can argue that Monta’s on-court presence resulted in “worse” losses but the fact is the team lost, period, with all that played. It’s debatable and a little ridiculous to blame Monta for "6 point losses." There were a handful of games that the Warriors were either in the game or won because of Monta, particularly because of his defense. And it wasn’t the reaching defense, it was the hold your ground defense. So while we can argue that most of the season he was inefficient (selfish and playing lazy defense), there were some performances where he stood out as a player I’d be comfortable watching going into the future.
He didn’t have those performances consistently, which is a concern I agree. But to say the team played better without Monta is debatable in a season where the roster was totally defective.
In essence, this season was Monta’s "rookie" year as a leader. Good teams will surround their leader with complimentary players. Did the Warriors do that? Perhaps with Curry they did, but the appearance of getting another small guard who wasn’t generally known for his PG skills took him aback (at his own admission) and the fans aback. That took a season to get use to and it started to work towards the end.
For all of that, Monta deserves a C.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 8 recs
rec'd this tough love post.
One of the few posts that made me want to read every word carefully. I would agree with Doc K’s take on Monta and push him up to a C for the effort because I believe was really trying what he “knew” (hope that he is able to self analyse in a multi-layer way). I think he is trying to find his “way” but no excuses next season if we dont see mostly “Portland type game effort”.
Clamoring for Cousins
by Only In Fairfax on Apr 28, 2010 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
So to circle back to Monta, if we’re going to reward Morrow for "effort," which was flawed given that he didn’t really improve the parts of the game he should have, then why can’t we do the same for Monta?
Morrow was not rewarded for effort. He was rewarded for being singularly excellent at shooting the ball, being adequate on the boards, and not turning it over. These are things that help win. He can be commended for trying on defense and as such, not being abysmal when he could have been but the grade wasn’t based on his defensive effort. It was based on those things that go into winning basketball that he did, things that Monta did not do.
by jae on Apr 28, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It was based on those things that go into winning basketball that he did, things that Monta did not do.
Yes, but they didn’t win more games. Perhaps you’re saying Morrow did more things not to hurt the team based on stats. Morrow actually got plenty of opportunities to showcase his excellent shooting at key moments but failed to either shoot or make the shot but the only stat to show for that is his FG%.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, there are a couple of ways to look at this.
If you go by the most-recent WP numbers we have, which are here:
http://www.wagesofwins.com/GS740910.html
(this is after 74 games)
you can make some conclusions.
One, Morrow contributing more to winning than Monta did. Two, he did that by about one game … but also playing many fewer minutes.
So clearly Morrow’s grade should be higher than Monta’s. The question is how much higher?
Morrow had a much better defined role, and he played within himself, and played that role pretty well. To me, that’s worth some bonus to your grade: you don’t try to do things you can’t do, you don’t take anything off the table.
Monta, on the other hand, had a much more broadly-defined role (“whatever you want to do with the ball, give it a try”) and didn’t fill it anywhere close to as well. While Morrow did something int he ballpark of what you might reasonably expect of him, Monta did much worse than might be reasonably expected of him.
That has to affect grades somehow. And that has to mean that if Morrow is a B-, it’s a stretch to call Monta even a C.
Fair enough.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Not to start an argument because I know that neither of us will convince each other,
But I don’t think that Morrow (who had a lot of his minutes taken away by a d-leaguer) should have a higher grade than Monta. All I know is that if I were starting an NBA franchise and I had to choose between Player A, a one-dimensional 3 point threat, who has not shown the consistent ability to do anything else above average, or Player B, who can be too much of a ball hog takes too many shots, but shows a rare ability to drive and finish, can find his teamates, and can score in bunches, and has shown the potential to play good defense, I am going with Player B.
by freerandolph on Apr 28, 2010 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions
He should definitely have a higher grade that Monta
just probably not as high as jae gave him. I’d have given him a C or C+.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
The funny thing is - I might agree with that hypothetical
… but that hypothetical “you are starting a team, and get one player” situation has almost nothing to do with Monta’s play this year.
The simple truth is that there is something that every basketball player is told to do by every coach his has from the time he’s in high school: when someone is open and you’re not, give the ball to the open man. Monta didn’t do that this year.
You can’t give a guy a good grade who screws up that one fundamental so consistently.
Clearly Monta has the ability to play better than he played this year. There are few players in the league with his skill set. On this, we agree.
However, I think Monta’s high level of skill actually LOWERS his grade, because what he actually did, compared to what a player of his talent should be able to do, is depressingly meager.
It was based on those things that go into winning basketball that he did, things that Monta did not do.
one of those things that wins games is being able to play enough minutes to justify a high rating by something such as WP. No matter how efficient the guy is he’s not better than the guy who can actually play those minutes(money talks bullshit walks).
Efficiency doesn’t win games, points win games.If they scored the league by efficiency we’d then take it more seriously, as it is just add up the season points, rebounds, assits etc. scored per player and rate them on that makes more sense, then you could curve grade our players based on the whole NBA with some legitimacy?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I sense that you have absolutely no idea what efficiency means. Since possessions are essentially equal between teams (by definition, when a possession by one team ends, another starts for the other team) the team that is more efficient wins the game. Make better use of your possessions and you score more points.
the team that is more efficient wins the game.
No the team that scores more points wins the game, it don’t matter if it takes three attempts to put it in or one. It don’t matter if the winner gets 2 chances every trip due to rebounds the points still count. A high efficiency player who can’t stay on the floor for whatever reason can sit and polish his numbers all he wants but he’s not gonna win the games for you. A guy like Montay might not be statistically efficient but he makes up for it by being very good at what he does best, finishing and putting up lots of points for lots of minutes.Until we have a player who can take those minutes instead and give us more points, Montay’s doing his job. On a better team Montay’s numbers would look pretty good, certainly above a D grade.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
No the team that scores more points wins the game, it don’t matter if it takes three attempts to put it in or one.
I no longer sense that you have no idea what efficiency means. I am positive that you do not know what it means.
I no longer sense that you have no idea what efficiency means. I am positive that you do not know what it means.
But I know that rebounding, defense and points win games no matter how inefficiently they are amassed. and although we are not very good at rebounding and defense Montay is up there in points per game( actual real points not theoretical points per minute or pre possession or per wet dream)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
You don't know that
because inefficient points don’t win games unless you make up for it in other ways. Monta is a one dimensional player who was unable to handle that dimension of his game last season.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
And again, it’s clear that you don’t have the first iota what “efficiency” means. It is not possible to win if you are less efficient than your opponent.
It is not possible to win if you are less efficient than your opponent.
Then why bother talking about efficiency, if the winner is always more efficient there is no reason to bring it up, the final score would be the efficiency rating. In the real world it’s possible to be a less efficient shooter but make it up with better team rebounding and defense. Rebounding can turn one possession into two or three effective possessions. Iverson scored lots of points, won lots of games, and made lots of playoff appearances with a low shooting percentage so witht he right supporting cast Montay could likely do the same.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
In the real world it’s possible to be a less efficient shooter but make it up with better team rebounding and defense.
It is statements like this from you that indicate that you don’t know what efficiency means.
In the real world, rebounding and defense are part of efficiency.
In the real world, rebounding and defense are part of efficiency.
but we’re talkin about Montay frickin Ellis here, his specialty is spectacular scoring. If he scores a lot with mad spin moves thrown in he’s done his expected job and should get a decent grade based on a comparison of his points to other shooting guards around the league. The lack of rebounding and defense is a failure of the supporting players. How many rebounds did Iverson pull down per game compared to his team mates? Efficiency is a team requirement not an individual player goal, a team is not a homogeneous structure. Get the picture now?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 29, 2010 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
If he scores a lot with mad spin moves thrown in he’s done his expected job
These expectations alone allow him ample room to play the sort of game that pleases the fanboys, but allows the losses to mount.
No one’s job should simply be to score a lot in spectacular fashion. That’s an incomplete job description. There are no style points awarded for the spin move. There is a cost to the team if it takes you too many shots to get your points.
Comparing points scored alone is a lousy way rate players. If you do not consider how efficiently one scored points as well, you’re not getting a good picture of the worth of a player. You’re allowing yourself to make mistakes, huge mistakes, where you get someone who scores a lot of points but will contribute to losses along the way because his points come at the expense of others on his team scoring, often at a better efficiency.
Yes, I know that I’ll take grief for not just letting this horridly uninformed opinion just ride, but it indicates a real, real, real poor understanding of the game of basketball.
I am curious through what magic process you believe that a team can be efficient when the players who are playing on that team are not. It’s a bizarre disconnect.
Get the picture now?
I “got the picture” a long time ago. The picture is that you don’t really seem to understand what efficiency is or why it’s important.
I am curious through what magic process you believe that a team can be efficient when the players who are playing on that team are not. It’s a bizarre disconnect.
Much like tools in a tool box the players have roles, Iverson was a scorer so they surrounded him with rebounders. Like a finished project the team efficiency was an average of the different players roles.
Montay was told he’s our Iverson but they haven’t surrounded him with rebounders so it’s not working.
Our team is a box full of saws but no hammers to pound it together.
Montay is doing what he was hired to do and should be graded on that instead of being graded for what he was never expected to ever be able to do? Not too many players could have stepped in and put up Montay’s points on this disfunctional team? That alone should earn him a B?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 29, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Iverson as a comparison
The problem with saying that Monta should be compared to Iverson is that Iverson never won anything.
He made it to the finals once, in a particularly weak year for the eastern conference (at least four, and possibly as many as seven, western conference teams would have been favorites in the finals over the 76ers).
And that’s even ignoring the late career shenangians where teams seemed to consistently get better when they traded him.
sorry to butt in but...
Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Chris Mullin, Jason Kidd, KJ, CWebb, Elgin Baylor.
Nuff said
Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Chris Mullin, Jason Kidd, KJ, CWebb, Elgin Baylor.?
What? Guys JAE gave D’s too also?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
"Nuff said?"
Actually, no. Let’s make some comparisons:
Barkley only made one finals, and would have been favored over anyone but the Bulls that year. There was nothing weak about their finals appearance. They then took the dynastic powerhouse Bulls to six games in the finals. Furthemore, nobody ever says somebody should choose to play like Barkley – even at the time his lack of defense and other limitations were constantly noted.
Malone and Stockton? They made two finals, and neither of them came in a denuded conference like the East of 2001. (Seriously, the East sucked in 2001). They took the best team of recent memory to six games, twice, in the finals and were only beaten one of those years by one of Jordan’s most memorable finishes (heck, arguably his best GAME overall) in game 6 of the 98 finals.
Chris Webber is mostly remembered for never living up to his potential. Hmm. Also, when playing on a team which played to his strengths, he never missed the playoffs until injuries slowed him down. (Washington basically put him in handcuffs). And, again, put that 2001 team in the Eastern conference, and they make the finals EASILY.
(You might remember, but everybody was talking about how the WCF were the de facto championship that year. The Kings clearly gave the Lakers more of a fight than the 76ers did).
Kevin Johnson’s time with the suns coincides with their sustained run of playoff success, even thought it didn’t win them a championship. Iverson’s teams frequently missed the playoffs.
Kidd has two finals appearances, although they’re both out of a weak east. Also, count how many times his teams missed the playoffs, despite being on some epiccally weak teams.
Mullin we all have lots of sentimental attachment to, but it seems clear he wasn’t good enough to be the best player on a championship team. Bird’s Celts, Magic’s Lakers, Jordan’s Bulls had better supporting casts … but they also had Bird, Magic, and Jordan.
During his prime, the Warriors made the playoffs just as many times as the 76ers did with Iverson, and who knows what would have happened if they’d ever had that kind of cake-walk to the finals. (Really, the East was really bad in 2001. I’m not making this up).
Elgin Baylor? He was the best or second-best player on a team which reached the finals EIGHT times, going up in the finals against the greatest dynasty in sports history (Russel’s Celts). It’s an insult to compare Iverson to him.
Mullin is the only one of those players who won the same or less than Iverson did. If you had a chance to draft one of those guys, or Iverson, and have their career unfold for your team, do you draft Iverson over any of ’em?
Not too many players could have stepped in and put up Montay’s points on this disfunctional team
I do not believe your opinion is correct. I suspect that a larger number of players could put up big point totals in losing causes if given the green light to do so, to ignore the many, many missed shots and to allow the rest of their game to disintegrate in the process.
He was a large part of the reason it was dysfunctional.
He earned his D.
if given the green light to do so
This is pretty key though. If he wasn’t given the green light this year, we fans and more specifically the coaching staff, may never know what his potential and deficiencies are going into the future. So to make your argument that he earned the D, he most certainly did, but maybe he had to earn it to hopefully get to C, B, and so on (notice how I didn’t include A).
Rather than reigning Monta in after a year of not playing, the staff decided he needs to experiment and test the limits of his abilities.
I use to race road bikes (motorcycles) and I went to a motorcycle camp called Rich Oliver’s Fun Camp. Here is his BIO
Anyway, the camp teaches riders of all disciplines to learn how to control a bike when it reaches its limits of traction. You basically fall a lot and eventually learn how to “back it in” with proper braking and throttle techniques. Without this camp, my riding would be far worse than it is. It was my “green light” to get to the next level.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 29, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
And yet ...
We don’t see that kind of learning curve with most players, even most very good ones.
Quite frankly, the opposite seems to be the case: one a guy is convinced he’s the man, if he’s not he very rarely takes the hint.
(I’m thinking of Vince Carter, late-career Iverson, etc).
I also can’t help but notice that Nellie let Jackson do pretty much the exact same thing last year. It seems much more consistent with the available data that Nellie is no longer, at this point in his career, willing to reign in his player’s destructive tendencies.
(I wonder if this goes back as far as the Webber situation. In Dallas, he never urged Novitski to play closer to the hoop, which improved his game considerably. Maybe post-Webber Nellie just lost his desire to stand up to his players?)
Certainly Nellie deserves some blame, too – but it’s worth pointing out that other players who appear to have had exactly the same green light that Monta did (in particular, Mags and late-season Curry) didn’t make the same dumb decisions that Monta did.
So you can criticize Nellie for not doing more to reign Monta in, absolutely, but that hardly absolves Monta.
by Ronaldinho on Apr 29, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can’t argue with that (despite me being a Nellie “fanboy”).
Here are my final thoughts on the Monta “D” grade. Grading is subjective, even if you bring in stats to and a specific criteria to grade it on. I feel that jae’s multiple comments now about Monta show that he doesn’t tolerate Monta’s deficiencies whereas I have learned to do so. I take into consideration – what jae might define as a “grading curve” – other variables, that I believe resulted in Monta’s performance this year; that has given me the ammo to debate that Monta deserves a C.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 29, 2010 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I feel that jae’s multiple comments now about Monta show that he doesn’t tolerate Monta’s deficiencies whereas I have learned to do so.
I don’t tolerate them because if uncorrected, they will again result in a whole lot of losses, unless everyone else plays better.
And that’s part of the problem I have with labeling him as the “best player” if he’s so heavily dependent on others to perform well. It usually the case that player performance isn’t all that heavily tied to teammates, but when we’re trying to explain teammates as a causal factor,it seems like what happened is the opposite of what you want in a ‘best player’. They’re the ones who are supposed to be the rocks, to hold it together and bring the other guys up.
Maybe I should just get used to him being a very low grade “best player”, the sort that will only be the best if your team is terrible.
Were injuries really that big of a deal?
How many wins does this team get if Wright, Kelenna, Randolph, and Biedrins are healthy for the entire season? 30? 35 tops? It’s 50 wins to make the playoffs. Do those 4 players double our win total? No. So no playoffs. Randolph and Biedrins were pretty awful this year and I doubt they help that win total that much. They just help Maggette not have to play the 4 so much.
Golden State of Mind: Unstoppable Baby!
by Fantasy Junkie on Apr 28, 2010 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
We can make the playoffs if we trade Monta for a good big.
According to the Portland announcers, ever since Curry moved to the point in Janary, and started being agressive, we’ve been a .500 team.
What big would we trade Monta for?
And if everyone is so convinced about how bad Monta is, why would we ever be able to trade him for a good big????
by freerandolph on Apr 28, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
because
lots of people think like you do. They think Monta’s flashy play and big per game numbers are good.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Re: How many wins does this team get if Wright, Kelenna, Randolph, and Biedrins are healthy for the entire season?
I don’t know but I don’t understand what the value of arbitrarily coming to conclusion that a fully healthy team would win “35 tops”.
A team playing with 3rd string PFs and Cs for almost the whole year is hard to evaluate against having those positions filled with starters and backups. Nobody knows.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Apr 28, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
And considering our Pythag record was 32-50 with this terrible injury fluke, I could see around 40 with a healthy Biedrins and Randolph.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 29, 2010 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Ok so I have one major gripe.
I think Monta should at least be a C. The reason that you gave him such a bad grade was because he didn’t contribute to winning. If that is really why you gave him such a bad grade, than everyone including Curry should have a bad grade. Also, I don’t see how you could ever give CJ, Toliver, and even George! better grades than Monta! Ridiculous.
by freerandolph on Apr 28, 2010 10:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It was encouraging watching the Golden State D-Leaguers with Curry, but that isn’t a team to take into the future. The concept of teamwork and effort is something to take into the future, with Curry at the helm.
Was Monta the Anti-Teammate? IMO, no. He was trying to be the guy on a team that didn’t have a guy to begin with. The guy now is Curry. Monta can be the guy too, he just has to learn to play with and off Curry.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t see how you could ever give CJ, Toliver, and even George! better grades than Monta! Ridiculous.
Haha, Welcome to the wonderful world of constructed stats. Like Madison ave. they can get you to believe anything?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also, I don’t see how you could ever give CJ, Toliver, and even George! better grades than Monta! Ridiculous.
The grades aren’t based on talent. They’re based on performance and results, something that goes beyond points per game. Knowing how to play within yourself, to pass up bad shots helps to win games. The results on the court were better with CJ and Tolliver than they were with Monta. Results matter.
by jae on Apr 28, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The grades aren’t based on talent. They’re based on performance and results, something that goes beyond points per game.
But the performance and results you’re basing your grades on are not adequate unless you factor in other things.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Read the long comment I posted above.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Eh.
You’re falling back on the “he had bad teammates” argument, which doesn’t explain why other players didn’t suffer the same problem. Curry and Maggette should have seen a similar negative effect on their performance, and they didn’t.
That’s a pretty strong argument against the “Monta’s bad numbers are a function of his teammates” argument.
That’s not the only thing I considered. Anyway, I don’t think I’m asking much by raising his grade from a D to a C and lowering Morrow’s, for example, from a B- to a C.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
And including a grade for the front office and coach. It’s all related.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I certainly appreciate the effort you put into your posting. I obviously don’t expect you to change the grades you’ve given or add grades for the front office My comments are not necessarily to contradict with your grading system, but to add another element that I thought would be good for discussion. But, I’m sorry you feel that your effort isn’t worthy of acknowledging any of it but instead argue that your grading system is fool proof.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the write up was very good JAE. You do one of these every year don’t you? I appreciate the zero spin you put on it. Keeping it real.
That being said I think a note should be made regarding how your scoring system works. In the recent NFL draft everyone was an A, B or C but I understand C to mean average, B above average, and A excellent. D below average and F as in fail. So shouldn’t the average grade be a C? If teams equally improve, isn’t that a wash?
Okay, on to my main point. Monta in that sense probably should be a D but you know how I feel about him. There seems to be some disconnect to how he actually preformed verse what kind of compassionate grade he earned. I think you already know I give monta a lot of credit for effort this year too. Personally I think he did a B (above average) job of handling his New Role. Let’s remember, he didn’t necessarily earn the Captain, go to guy, team leader, etc. role. It was handed to him by default. Personally I didn’t think he was ready for it but he picked it up and did way better than I expected in this Free-Reign role. That to me is the context for my support but we need to remember JAE, being a Volcan, is strictly looking at performance. Monta’s was below average as it relates to league wide comparison.
I do have a grip about Morrow. I’m not arguing his efficiency but he sucks. I really hope they don’t pay him big money this summer. He’s looks slower that Beidrins and has so many holes in his game. He is a defensive liability, has no lateral quickness, fouls too much, is a terrible ball handler, not a good passer, and he picks his nose. We’ll not the noise part. He’ll be more valuable to a team with dominate big men than us. I bet that the Clippers scoop him up, they need outside scoring. He’s the type of guy you add to a team who already has the other pieces in place. Paying him even decent money will result in a Vujachich result.
So Toliver contributes to wins more than Monta?
We’ll see if the league agrees with you, when one of these players isn’t playing in the NBA in 3 years…
by freerandolph on Apr 28, 2010 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course it's gonna be Monta
he scores points and has like 4 years left on his contract. Tolliver is a D-leaguer, who is also pretty bad, just less destructive than Monta.
What does matter, though, is that Monta was really bad this season. Tolliver was just kinda bad.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
i’m not sure these effeciency discussion particularly here when you talk about monta in comparison to tolliver relate to more than just shooting percentages. PF, and Centers typically average a higher FG%.
Centers and PFs typically average a higher FG%
but the difference between a SG and PF in TS% is really small.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Cartier Martin
I don’t see him mentioned anywhere. I liked him enough for what he was brought in to do.
C-
Like miss a ton of shots and not get signed for the rest of the year?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 28, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
He played good defense and rebounded well
He went hard but couldn’t hit a shot
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Attacking others only attacks yourself
I liked him enough for what he was brought in to do
what? Give us a classy name that makes us think of jewelery and cognac instead of the suck unfolding before our eyes?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Dr. JAE does not give away grades.
Uh oh! Third person reference alert!
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Apr 28, 2010 11:55 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Dr. JAE does not give away grades.
but Dr. J would love Montay’s game.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
He would?
Dr. J’s career-average TS% was .558, which is better than all but one of Monta’s seasons.
He has ten seasons of more than 10 win shares. Monta has zero.
Dr. J was also an effective rebounder.
RonaldMcDonald, did you really think he was talking about Julius Erving? I think he mean Dr. J(AE).
Ha, ha. Hilarious!
And please don’t ever, EVER, compare Monta Ellis to the Great Doctor J.
It seemed to me like he was making a point, specifically, about Mr. Erving as opposed to Dr. Jae.
But I could be wrong.
With Skep, it’s often hard to tell exactly what he means. I suspect he may not always know himself. :)
But I could be wrong.
naw, you are right there, Montay is a DR. J type of guy. flashy SUPASTAH.
DrJAE is just the opposite, he won’t go even take a clear path to the hole without first consulting the %stats efficiency bible to pre authorize the outcome.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
He may be flash-y
but Dr. J’s game did have a lot of substance as well.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, then, my point stands:
Dr J. was flashy … but he was also very efficient. He was an efficient scorer in addition to being a flashy one. And, as a result, he was a winner. He was the best player on multiple title teams and multiple finalist teams.
There’s nothing in Dr. J’s career to suggest that he thought the flash was more important than the substance of his play.
Let’s see if Monta can manage to be so much as the best player on a playoff team before we even think about making comparisons between him and the doctor.
He would?
definitely, Dr J loves flashy play and Ellis to the RIM !!
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 28, 2010 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Whom ever the genius is that boosted the blue color and underlines please dial it back!
Its unbalanced visually, hard on the eyes! Where’s our graphics man? Sleepy get in here ! They need help.
Clamoring for Cousins
by Only In Fairfax on Apr 28, 2010 2:25 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think it’s a CSS issue. It should be fixed shorty. Thanks for your patience.
Golden State of Mind :: Always keeping it... "Unstoppable Baby!" | SBNation.com
by Atma Brother ONE on Apr 28, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Question for Jae
Why is Curry only a B+??? Just because you don’t believe you can give an A considering the end result of the team?
Curry didn’t play “A” basketball over the course of the year. It’s not a grade based on the 2nd half. It’s based on the year. A 2:1 A:TO and <6a/36 is not “A” material for a point guard. It’s the low end of acceptable for the ratio and the low end of acceptable for a PG. I don’t think that it’s “A” material there. It’s good. It’s not top of the league.
I also suspect that the plethora of sportswriter grades with the free distribution of As has people confused. A “B” is an above average grade. A “C” is “average” play. “A’s” go to the best, guys playing at the top of the game. Curry was good. He’s not that good yet.
Great stuff.
Golden State Worriers: Angst & Analysis
No one derserving an A was a good choice
Curry should be the only B. A B is given to a player who had an above average year, no one but Curry did. Morrow should’ve been a C flat, Reggie should get the same grade as Tolliver, which was a C+. Reggie was a boss against horrible teams, but disappeared against the better teams.
Monta was the opposite, he had a typical Monta year in terms of stats, except for turnovers. Now that he trusts Curry, I expect him to handle the ball less, and get less t.o’s. Lets hope steph brings his t.o’s down as well. But for his bad attitude at the beginning of the year, Monta gets s C-.
Radmanovic played bad, bottom line, he did absolutely nothing. The things that he was said to be good at never surfaced. Just poor, I would give him a D-.
As for the grade on the team I, incomplete, is definitely the appropritate grade.
We needed to see what we had at the PF position, and what AB;s full talents are. These issues that needed to be resolved after training camp this year will still be at training camp next year. At least we got to see than Curry is legit, and that Nellie should probably go.
Monta was the opposite, he had a typical Monta year in terms of stats, except for turnovers.
In addition to the rise in turnovers, his rebounding was down. His scoring efficiency was down. Both are important to the team.
Could some of this have been do to the quality of the team around him and what was asked of him?
I know you have broached this subject before but if were looking at the overall quality of a player this also needs to be addressed.
Rebounding down: playing out of position?
Efficiency down: been over it ad nausuem
turnovers: being asked to do to much (ball handling when that is not his strong suit).
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
Monta played out of position?
He was a below average rebounder for PGs and SGs.
Jae went over it in another thread- quality of teammates has a very small effect on an individual player’s performance. Also, wouldn’t that have affected Curry more? Monta got to play with awesome Curry. Curry had to play with crumby Monta.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 28, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Could some of this have been do to the quality of the team around him and what was asked of him?
If he was asked to rebound less, then that person who asked that of him is a moron. If he was asked to shoot less efficiently, the same applies. Could the quality of his teammates have mattered? Yes, but strangely, it had very little effect on Morrow’s shooting or rebounding, on Maggette’s shooting or rebounding. Curry found a way to shoot well. The one player who shot much, much worse than his best season was Monta. Was he being asked to do too much? Maybe. Did he feel he had to shoot as often as he did? Perhaps, though if he thought that was helping, it wasn’t and that disconnect with reality should not be rewarded or excused.
That we’ve gone over the efficiency in the past makes it sound as if having gone over it, it’s ok, that it’s somehow excused and that it somehow shouldn’t effect the evaluation of him. Having discussed it doesn’t make it less egregious.
by jae on Apr 28, 2010 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
"turnovers: being asked to do to much (ball handling when that is not his strong suit)."
The problem is that this was Monta’s choice as much as it was Nelson’s.
Nelson didn’t tell him not to do it, but the nature of Nellie’s offense is that he let’s players choose when to initiate the offense.
When you have a clear offensive alpha dog, like Baron, that works. Everybody else defers to him most of the time. When you don’t – like the Warriors on the last two years – it becomes about what player wants to dominate the ball the most. Last year it was Jackson, and this year it was Monta.
So it’s not that Monta was asked to do too much – it’s that he was allowed to, and being allowed to, he chose to. In other words, his own decision making was part of the problem this season.
Pretty much agree on all counts
You might have been too easy on Biedrins, Turiaf, Vlad, Mikki, Hunter and Tolliver, but that’s mostly a minor quibble. Having solid defensive play from your inside is probably the most important part of having a solid team defense, and none of our bigs got it done.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
Good read, rec'd
"I tell him straight, 'If you're going to lead, you have to be the first to practice. You have to come in, get your work down and be prepared for practice,' " assistant coach Keith Smart said. "He needs to figure out why he is having stomach problems and he's got to watch how LeBron (James), Kobe (Bryant) and D-Wade (Dwyane Wade) work. He needs to mimic that if he wants his teammates to speak volumes about him." -Keith Smart on Motna Ellis
Im with you and Coach
Monta needs to be there before and he needs to be the last person in practice.
by goaldenstateboy on Apr 28, 2010 11:14 PM PDT reply actions
pretty close
I might give Steph an A- since he continued to improve as a rookie, but I can see a B+. Maggette seems incredibly undervalued by the fans here, and Ellis is seriously overvalued.
Nelson, the trainers, and the front office are dead weight, but we all know that. Best thing that could happen is a relatively quick sale and a housecleaning on and off the court. I’d like to see two bigs – a decent one and a very good one – and a defensive-minded off guard to start with Maggette and Curry. Keep Turiaf, Watson, Williams, and any two of the three Anthonys – that’s not a horrible bench, if you can add two more quality reserves as well.
I wish I was
brilliant enough to refer to myself in the 3rd person… Even with an IQ of 162 and formidable bulge, I can’t muster the “confidence” to merit a nickname for myself. Ungghh! I’m gonna retire to the corner of the room now and wet my pants as I practice the usage of “your” vs. “you’re.” Ha. Anyway, I agree with Dr. Kajita. Monta deserves a C. This is coming from someone who can’t stand to watch Ellis play some times.
It’s not supernatural as to why Monta’s efficiency suffered in contrast to his 07-08 season. He was simply overplayed. The coach’s decision to instill this notion of Monta accepting a cape and an “S” on his chest at this point in his career, was just as untimely as Kelenna’s knee going crunch. Monta still has plenty to learn and much room to improve, (even if I believe it should be elsewhere) and to entirely rule out the coaching de facto, and the obvious impact it had involving Monta’s decision making on the court, is for lack of a better term, silly.
Did Nelson tell him to attack that triple team or take the jumper off the dribble instead of handing off to a wide open Morrow? No, but he sure did a great job reinforcing Monta’s flawed play with just as many minutes the next game. What the hell else was he going to do? Without losing too much steam here, it’s unfair to give Monta the abysmal grade of a “D” given the context of the 3-legged situation the Warriors were in, and the eagerness in which Nelson participated in fueling that ill-fated pedestal that Monta was foolishly expected to thrive from. Just saying…
Perhaps there should be a grading system where the coaching exists as the “curve.” Scratch that. The curve would prove inconsistent enough since Nellie has his… biases.
by lilboots on Apr 29, 2010 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
BTW
I don’t mean to insult JAE, but imposing your knowledge with one hand, while scoffing at those who initially don’t understand or disagree with the other, and talking to them like their complete morons and therefore lesser, simply lacks class. It lacks class on the internet especially. Not that I’m a duke by any means, but people are entitled to their own opinions and shouldn’t feel like it’s their foolish word vs. some self appointed prognosticator’s all the time, right or wrong. JAE’s a smart dude. He knows it along with everyone else. I’ve had disagreements with him in the past, and when the argument goes to a place that’s not in his favor, he scans for bad grammar and poor word selection. What are you trying to prove, dude? I enjoy your vision of the game and your statistical break downs, but why the pompous sneer when someone presents an opposing take?
I had a collegiate reading level in the 3rd grade. Big freaking deal. Nobody I know really cares that much. I’m tired of people being obsessed with being “right” and putting others down just because they don’t agree. You can always return to the same old pissing contest of “mine’s bigger than yours” in the end, but what does that really serve? I can do that to people around me all day! Except in Oakland, you’re bound to catch a bullet or a few soccer kicks to the head sooner or later for it. I don’t blame anyone for backing up their statements, just do it in a respectful way with a little bit of dignity. Kind of pisses me off.
by lilboots on Apr 29, 2010 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
For someone who doesn’t mean to insult, it’s curious you devoted an entire two paragraphs to accomplish exactly that.
jae, he’s got a point and you kind of proved it for him.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 29, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I will fight you to the edge of the monitor to get in the last word. HA!
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Apr 29, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm sorry.
Like I said, I was kind of pissed off. With that said, I will for now on refer to you as HAL. I hope you do not find this offensive, as I suspect you will rather revel in the insinuation of this new title. Dr. JAE isn’t all that great of nickname, anyway. Besides, one name is just as good as another. If you do not understand the reference, give a click to the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEDmNh-_4Q&feature=related
Eh, go to about 3:25 and you’ll see what I mean. Classic scene, worth a look.
Dr. JAE isn't a great nickname
but Dr. J is one of the greatest sports nicknames of all time.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 29, 2010 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Dr. JAE isn’t all that great of nickname, anyway.
For a doctor named JAE, it seems reasonably appropriate.
With that said, I will for now on refer to you as HAL.
Have we now descended on the personal attacks on a throwaway line in my article? For someone who said he didn’t mean to insult and for someone who tried to pay lip service to being less insulting…as I said before, irony is dead.
Haha
Well excuse me, doctor. Hal seems rather appropriate to me. If irony were truly dead, then Dr. JAE wouldn’t be a suitable nickname, would it? Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Well excuse me, doctor.
haha, maybe he’s House, that grouchy doctor? What I want to know is why all our guys are always getting hurt? What’s up wit dat doc?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 29, 2010 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
If you do not understand the reference
Dude. HAL? “If you do not understand the reference?”
That may quietly be the most insulting thing you’ve written here.
Next time I use the term “Darth Vader” I’ll be sure to include a clip from Star Wars for you.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 30, 2010 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Ah, what the heck.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 30, 2010 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Ha Ha Ha
Funny stuff, Sleep. I was actually unpleasantly surprised when I made a direct reference to the beloved HAL in a classroom environment some years ago. I felt like THIS guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eswkqMb6AZw……But I’m young with a shameless affinity towards film. Most people my own age are looking forward to the remake of “Commando” rather than the Coen brothers’ next installment, sadly. I actually didn’t mean offense by that reference at all…BTW, how did you substitute the lengthy link for “what the heck.” I’m not as computer savvy as most and would like to know…
Do you think there’s a possibility Nelson told Monta to consistently attack the rim as often as possible to set up the rest of the offense? I see no other reason he’d keep Monta on floor as much as he did, if Monta was (and he often was) being a black hole and not doing something the coach asked him. Personally I feel this was the case EARLY on.
consequently after Nelson developed more trust for Curry, it’s no surprise Monta because a bit more efficient despite shooting a lower percentage.
Just for reference, i worked out Monta’s stats from February on……
20 games.
roughly 40 mpg.
TS%- .548
PPG- 24.7
APG- 4.9
ToPG- 3.2
RPG- 3.5
It’s not a surprise, as he started shooting more 3’s he became more efficient. But he also rebounded a lot less because he was farther from basket.
Do you think there’s a possibility Nelson told Monta to consistently attack the rim as often as possible to set up the rest of the offense?
If Monta’s job was to “set up the rest of the offense” then he did a spectacularly lousy job of it. That would have involved passing to the guys who got open when Monta was doubled.
I think there’s an error in your math. I compute his TS% to be .519 over those 20 games:
494/(2*(.44*114 + 426)) = .519
That’s not more efficient, unfortunately, despite Curry showing himself to be a stronger player.
At least the season accomplished one thing: Any and all of the “we have to give him a chance to see if he can be a point guard” talk has been settled. He was and he isn’t.
by jae on Apr 29, 2010 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Correction: you are right jae
I see what i did wrong. I did 2(FGA) + .44(FTA)…..
Argument Fail
Monta Ellis
To give Monta Ellis a D is ridiculous. The guy deserves at the worst a B. I would give him an A for the season giving the way he played. The organization is so screwed up and he still went out every night and played. He and Curry are playing well together now. For the people saying that the team is worse with Monta on the floor that is just dumb. The team still lost when he didn’t play. He kept them in a lot of games. We won’t know how good this team really is until everyone is healthy. But to say Monta Ellis played 2nd worst this year in front of Biedrins is insane!!!!! Monta Ellis is going to be a superstar in this league next year!! MVP in about 3!!! GO WARRIORS!
Yeah dude, he’ll win MVP over Lebron, Wade, Howard, Durant, or Paul right? Totally possible!!!
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 29, 2010 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
He and Curry are playing well together now. For the people saying that the team is worse with Monta on the floor that is just dumb.
Dumb? The facts show its the truth. So maybe you define correct as ‘dumb’? I’m not sure.
Stephen Curry is the future.
We need to save this planet. Go Green, recycle, ride public transportation, use cantines. Anything you can do!
by GovernorStephCurry on Apr 29, 2010 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta Ellis got a hard earned D
If you think he got anything higher than a D+, you crazy.
All of your arguments have been discussed ad nauseum on here.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 29, 2010 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
If you think he got anything higher than a D+, you crazy.
haha, he was 6th in scoring in the whole NBA so that must mean there’s a 5 good grades above him and a couple hundred F’s below him?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 29, 2010 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Only if you’re one of the simpletons who believes that points per game is the sole measure of a player’s individual worth. You appear to be making the argument that this is what you believe.
You appear to be making the argument that this is what you believe.
Well this is the NBA we are talking about so we gotta go by their rules. They decided they want to grade the games on points not massaged % ratings so yeah the 6th best scorer in the whole league should deserve more than a D otherwise the tail is wagging the dog?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
This is the NBA we are talking about. Their rules create a game where when a possession ends for one team, it starts for the other, resulting in essentially equal number of possessions for both teams. The team that scores the most points wins. Since possessions are equal, the team that makes the most efficient use of their possessions will win. That’s not an opinion. It’s the only logical outcome from a game where possessions alternate.
Individual players who score inefficiently do so at the expense of possessions where their team does not score. Their individual total comes at the expense of opportunities for others on their team. There are not an unlimited number of possessions. This is why someone who scores efficiently helps, but someone who scores inefficiently does not help so much. Are you really that thick that you can’t see this? Is the math too tough or do you just avoid thinking about it?
This really is not difficult stuff. What makes it so complicated for you?
otherwise the tail is wagging the dog?
No.
This really is not difficult stuff. What makes it so complicated for you?
It’s not complicated for me, it’s complicated for you. I understand reality versus projections. Montay actually played those minutes where the other guys didn’t. You can only speculate that they wouldn’t have been worse than Montay if they had played those minutes. Montay was actually the real life 6th best scorer in the NBA , he was not just some guy dreaming about what kind of numbers he could put if if only the coach would give him more minutes? There’s nothing complicated about that, start at #1 on the list and look down 5 spots.
Efficiency in a team sport however depends on a lot of factors so it can’t be just pinned on one guy. Is the guy playing his natural position or is coach using him as filler?Were players open for him to pass to? Did coach want him to pass to them? Did they catch the ball? Did they make the assisted shot ? Did they miss their screens and leave him hanging? How many minutes per night is he playing? Is he nursing an injury? etc. This is all moving target stuff so the recorded numbers might mean many things, but trying to project them and say they prove different results that might have been means nothing ? But we can look at Montay’s moves and see that he’s an above average scorer which is all we’ve ever expected him to be so he’s living up to his potential. If he had scored 10 points a game with the same efficiency he would have deserved a D ,but he din’t, he doubled that. .
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand reality versus projections
There is no evidence to support that statement, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
Montay was actually the real life 6th best scorer in the NBA
He scored the 6th most points per game. Considering this the ‘best’ is a value judgment. And it’s a bad judgment if you’re trying to judge how those points helped a team improve chances of winnings.
but trying to project them and say they prove different results that might have been means nothing ?
You present that with a question mark after it. The answer is no, it does not mean nothing.
The answer is no, it does not mean nothing.
Then you don’t understand the difference between reality and hypothetical projection. No matter how much you’d like to you can’t call something that has not actually happened and may never happen reality so essentially it means nothing concrete. If other guys had actually taken Montay’s minutes we’d be having a whole different conversation, that’s reality.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
He's not talking about strictly talking about hypothetical projections
he’s also talking about analyzing what happened. What happened this year is that Monta was really really bad.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 30, 2010 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
“Skeptic” should not be a synonym for “ignorant”. You are making a case that they are. I’m not talking about what could have happened. I’m talking about what happened. Monta shot a bunch at a low efficiency. We lost a ton of games. That is not hypothetical, not in the slightest. When he was on the court, we were outscored. Not hypothetical, but an actual result. Something that happened in the past. When he was not on the court last year, we outscored our opponents. That’s not hypothetical. That’s a fact about what happened.
With certainty can we say what would have happened with his minutes going to someone else, but we’ve some suggestions, some things to make eductated and intelligent evaluations and projections based on evidence. It appears that you reject evidence though. While normally just a troll, right here you’re consciously choosing ignorance. I feel sorry for you. I really do.
It appears that you don’t believe in evidence save that “high points per game = great player.” Those of us who are interested in understanding more about the game can see that that’s the analytical equivalent of the flat earth society.
by jae on May 1, 2010 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Jae, you know this, but you're getting trolled.
When you cross paths with a troll, there’s one very important thing to remember:
You can’t win, but there are alternatives to fighting.
Re: Troll
jae is well aware of what happens when you go down the rabbit hole with Skeptik. I’ve seen this exchange play out numerous times and in various forms over the years.
But there is one wrinkle, if presented differently, could be a good point of discussion.
One question I have from reading this is:
“Can you show that efficiency will remain somewhat static if projected over more minutes”? "Is there a ‘tipping point’ of minutes played or shots taken, where efficiency tends to decline’?
Answering that question is probably more productive than constantly belittling someone’s intelligence.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 1, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: trolled
jae is well aware of what happens when have this argument with Skeptik. I’ve seen this exchange play out numerous times and in various forms over the years.
But there is one wrinkle, if presented differently, could be a good point of discussion.
One question I have from reading this is:
“Is there a ‘tipping point’ of minutes played or shots taken, where efficiency tends to decline’?
That’s kind of what I took from Skeptik’s argument, “all the efficiency in the world won’t help you if they’re not taking enough shots to score more points than the other team”. How is that trollish?
Answering that question is probably more productive than constantly belittling someone’s intelligence.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 1, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
"Is there a ‘tipping point’ of minutes played or shots taken, where efficiency tends to decline’?
looks like it’s somewhere below the minutes Montay was forced to play this year? I guess that why they have subs on most teams?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 1, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Re: looks like it’s somewhere below the minutes Montay was forced to play this year?
Observationally, I think in Monta’s case, he took too many contested mid-range jump-shots. Those used to go down for him before the moped, they don’t appear to be now.
I think if he dials back that one aspect, he can play a lot of minutes, be reasonably efficient and still score a lot of points.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 1, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I think if he dials back that one aspect, he can play a lot of minutes, be reasonably efficient and still score a lot of points.
His stepped up defensive activity is not helping his efficiency either, there’s only so much energy to put out per game so if he has to work harder to fill in for non existing bigs he’s gonna naturally be less efficient.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 1, 2010 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions
re: His stepped up defensive activity is not helping his efficiency either
if he has to work harder to fill in for non existing bigs he’s gonna naturally be less efficient.
Walk me through this one. Are you saying he’s tired because he spent too much energy on the defensive end so his shots aren’t going in?
I still say he should just stop taking so many mid-range jumpers. He can’t be too tired to pass, and this team has plenty of other people who can hit shots.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 1, 2010 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you saying he’s tired because he spent too much energy on the defensive end so his shots aren’t going in?
Could be the reason for his fall off in efficiency? He looked like he was putting more effort into defense and he was playing lots of minutes so something has to give. Legs are important to shooting as well as to defense. If our team was built to have better all around defense then perhaps Montay could pace himself more like Kobe and be fresher at the end of games, be more efficient at his jumpers and get more lift in his drives?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 1, 2010 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
re: tipping point
We should be able to see if players’ efficiency declines with more minutes and/ or shots what those numbers of shots and minutes are. I think that would settle part of this argument.
I give pressure the reach-around.
by bloodsweatndonuts on May 1, 2010 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not talking about what could have happened. I’m talking about what happened. Monta shot a bunch at a low efficiency. We lost a ton of games.
but by grading him so low you are hypothesizing that the other players could have played his minutes at the same efficiency that they put up in more limited minutes? I doubt that any of them could have scored as much as Montay with any better efficiency. Magette didn’t brake the top 6 NBA scorers list with his efficiency. As a player becomes the focus of the other team’s defense the job gets harder. Montay was working under difficult conditions with such a limited offensive variation to choose from, we don’t have a post up game to take the pressure off the small guys so he did what he had to do under the circumstances. If someone else had tried to carry Montay’s load it’s only speculation to say they could have done better.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 1, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
but by grading him so low you are hypothesizing that the other players could have played his minutes at the same efficiency that they put up in more limited minutes?
Nope. I’m saying that the way Monta played in the minutes he played sucked. I’m saying that the team performed poorly with him (and that’s a fact) and that the individual measured contribution from him is the sort that correlates exactly with the sorts of results that he got. Would other players have done better? Dunno. But we do know that he didn’t do well, that is unless your measure is points per game in a vacuum, and that’s a measure that’s just stupid.
by jae on May 1, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
But we do know that he didn’t do well, that is unless your measure is points per game in a vacuum, and that’s a measure that’s just stupid.
Well, If it was so easy why didn’t more than 5 other guys in the league score that many points? Do you really think the 6th best scorer in a league that decides the winner of it’s games by points scored should be graded at D ?
You might not be impressed by Montay’s game and if you think you could get out there and do better more power to you but hey I know I’d do a lot worse so I appreciate the effort he’s put out for us this trying year and think it’s dis respectful to give him such a low grade for being unable to carry such a poor team?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 2, 2010 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
because most other guys actually get coached
and have someone there to tell them that they have no business taking so many shots. A lot of the league could score 25.5 PPG if they took 22 shots.
Monta couldn’t score 25 PPG on 18.5 shots like Dirk Nowitzki did. If Dirk got 3.5 more touches, his efficiency would have gone down a bit, but he probably could have gotten 27+ PPG.
by Reverend_Randy on May 2, 2010 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta couldn’t score 25 PPG on 18.5 shots like Dirk Nowitzki did.
and Montay is not 7 feet tall playin with a playoff team who absorb some of the defensive pressure.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 2, 2010 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I wish I got an A for going to work everyday while my company is sinking
an independent grader could very well grade you as an A part of an F company.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with the rating, except...
Why Vlad Radmanovic deserve a C- if you give Ellis a D.
Although I can see why Ellis got such rating and why you’re criticizing him for his poor efficiency and ratings, I just want to make few points based on what I’ve seen.
“That is what the game is about, isn’t it? Winning?”
I could make an argument that what the game is about isn’t just winning. It’s also about having fun and playing together.
Given that this is about how each player has performed this season.
Vlad Radmanovic never really played well since they was traded from the Bobcats. His shots weren’t there, he struggled with 3’s. He was on the injury list for the majority of the season. So I don’t see why he deserved a better grade than Ellis. Ellis deserves the criticisms. But there’s also another side to balance those claims. By the beginning of the season, the Warriors was already dysfunctional. With Jackson wanting to be traded, followed by one injury after another.
Ellis was Warriors’ best player before the emergence of Curry in the latter part of the season. He was asked to score, run the team, and defend players like (Kobe, Durant, Roy…). Okay, that’s fine. How about play 40+ mins a game, and some times 48 mins? Heavily logged minutes contributes to fatigue and decrease of production. On top of that, Ellis had to defend, and score with a depleted team. With that said, Ellis was on the court playing for most of the season. His effort was there, with the given situation he was in. With more minutes, of course his stats was inflated. But Ellis was the horse for the Warriors.
IMO, Ellis deserves a C/C+, but that’s just me.
Ellis was Warriors’ best player before the emergence of Curry in the latter part of the season.
Since what he did (shoot too often for his efficiency) contributed to the struggles of the team, and it did, I’m curious what you mean by “best player”. It’s a nebulous term. At least this year, he didn’t contribute the most to raising the team’s chances of winning. He didn’t do this because his low efficiency coupled with his high shot volume kills possessions. All of those shots he missed were shots that teammates couldn’t take either. They resulted in wasted possessions. There are not an unlimited number of possessions so you need to make them worthwhile. He didn’t do this. In “running the team” he turned the ball over far too often. This too wastes possessions.
So what makes him the “best player?”
Heavily logged minutes contributes to fatigue and decrease of production. On top of that, Ellis had to defend, and score with a depleted team. With that said, Ellis was on the court playing for most of the season. His effort was there, with the given situ
That’s why he deserves a B , he put in great effort and came out 6th best NBA scorer for the season.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
You have to score efficiently to be considered one of the best
I would consider the next 5 or 6 guys after him to be better scorers than Ellis.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 30, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
You have to score efficiently to be considered one of the best
Not really, it depends on the popular and common usage of the team, in your little world it might matter but in the greater outside world it might not be important, different people have different likes and dislikes when it comes to defining best.
I like Pliny the Elder but Nellie likes Bud light for instance. Which is best depends on who’s drinking it?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 30, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
The popular usage is often wrong
In the case of the way sports media presents basketball, it is hugely wrong.
To be among the best in a team sport whose goal is to win, you have to actually contribute to winning. The way Monta scores is detrimental to team success.
by Reverend_Randy on Apr 30, 2010 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Our D- player at home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkNOU00rgY&playnext_from=TL&videos=dY3PJiAi0Dg
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on May 2, 2010 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions
As a GSI/TA and instructor at the university level
I am witness to the griping about the difference between a B+/A- by students who are desperately trying to inflate their grades for med or law school. In all honesty, the difference is miniscule. And often times an A- is the default grade your GSI/instructor gives you for a joke class when you should have been getting an A triple +, as Jae would call it. so in that sense, getting an A- is really like getting a C. I’m just sayin…

by 






















