Monta Ellis Most Overrated Scorer of 09-10 Season Says Wages Of Wins [SBNation Bay Area]
I know we've argued Monta Ellis' value ad nauseum and Wages of Wins doesn't cover new ground, necessarily, in this mathematical conclusion of Monta's (and others) overrated-ness. But the bigger question is, is there any blindspots to these "advanced stats" equations?
Numbers "don't like" but how do we understand "leadership" or "the extra pass" in these calculations?
over 1 year ago
dj fuzzylogic
67 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Honestly, something like “the extra pass” probably will show up in the numbers. And if it doesn’t, you can look elsewhere – like +/-, which should capture all of a guys contributions when he’s on the court. As for something like leadership, that’s a more gray area, but I would ask – “how do we understand something like leadership through a non-statistical model”? My biggest problem with intangibles isn’t whether or not they exist, it’s whether there’s any framework we can actually take them into account or not, statistical or other.
As for Monta, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s a pretty accurate assessment of the way he played last year.
it’s whether there’s any framework we can actually take them into account or not, statistical or other.
What do you mean by this? What do you mean by framework?
Dont people take intangibles, like leadership, into account all the time in discussions?
by WestCoastWarrior on Sep 2, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean any sort of framework where you try to figure out whether a guy has it, what impact it makes, and what value it has. Doesn’t have to be statistical, though I’ve personally always felt information like that (intangibles, scouting, anything you can think of, really) can be added to a statistical player value model despite not being a statistic, per se.
Dont people take intangibles, like leadership, into account all the time in discussions?
Yeah, and I was having a hard time figuring out the words to clearly express my thoughts, but basically I think when people talk about that stuff, they’re full of crap I think almost everyone who talks about it has no more idea of a guys leadership (or other intangible), it’s impact and it’s value than a statistic that doesn’t take leadership (or other intangible) into account at all. I’m not convinced we have any way at all of figuring out whether a guy has an intangible, what impact it has, and how much it’s worth. Insiders who actually have a good understanding of the situation might have some ability to assess it, but again, I’ve never seen anyone try to figure out it’s impact or it’s value, and I really don’t think they put any real thought into how to assess it accurately.
by Missing Barry on Sep 2, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
What do you mean by this? What do you mean by framework?
Dont people take intangibles, like leadership, into account all the time in discussions?
People do discuss intangibles like leadership. The question is can you quantify it in any meaningful way? You can go by reports from other players or coaches that a guy is a good leader, but then how can you tell how much that actually helps his team?
Here’s an example. Say you are a GM and you are comparing two players in free agency. They are both asking the same price, they have very similar statistics and skill-sets. The only quantifiable difference is that Player A is a better rebounder by a significant margin, and Player B has a reputation as a team leader. How exactly do you determine how much that leadership is going to help you win games? How valuable is it? Is it more valuable than rebounding?
These are very tough questions to answer. We know that rebounding directly helps your team win. We can’t say the same about leadership. I’m sure there is some effect, but is it measurable? Does it really matter at the end of the season? Will players who are not natural leaders step up to fill the void?
Personally, I’d rather take the guy that I know will have a measurable effect on my teams wins and losses. I’m just more comfortable putting my trust in a tangible asset than one I can’t count on.
Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^
And especially on the subject of fans crediting guys with intangibles, I don’t see any real reason to listen to that evaluation. If you’re not an insider, there’s just no way to judge intangibles, and even if you are, if you haven’t given a lot of thought on how to properly judge those intangibles, I really question the validity of an evaluation like that.
by Missing Barry on Sep 2, 2010 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
WoW
lol. this is dumb. to be “overrated” you have to be rated good first by NBA or ESPN or other sports sites. He is actually a very very very underrated player. The most overrated player is Kevin Durant with his BS percentages and assists ratios.
by SFWarriorsfan on Sep 2, 2010 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
He’s not really rated. Guys like Kobe and KD and LBJ are rated
" Only build on positives , don't stack the negatives...Instead of criticizing , what was a positive?" - Donavin Darius
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
Kevin Durant is really, really, really, really good. I guess you could say he’s a little overrated given that he came in 2nd in the MVP voting despite not being the 2nd best player in the league, but he’s probably the 5th best player in the league, and definitely in the Top 7.
As for Ellis, dude, they gave a definition of how they’re defining “rated”, and it’s a PPG thing. Just read it in the context of their definition. It’s not difficult.
by Missing Barry on Sep 2, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I agree except for the Durant part.
How can Ellis be overrated when his own team’s fans don’t like him? lol.
Losing is a helluva drug. It makes fans crazy, and they end up saying ridiculous things. It causes them to form scape goats on the team just so they have someone to blame when it really isn't that player's fault.
by Precise Films Productions on Sep 2, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Sigh. You really didn’t feel like reading the article, did you?
OK, I’ll spell it out for everyone who didn’t have the time and/or energy to read it:
Monta’s PPG ranking is much higher than his WP ranking.
That’s ALL Berri meant by the term “overrated,” and he was very explicit about it. You’re free to invent your own definition of the word, but it’s not particularly fair to attribute it to Berri.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Sep 2, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec
Yeah, he made it very clear what he meant by overrated. I’m sure a lot of people didn’t bother reading it, but he’s not saying anything surprising to anyone who’s followed the ongoing debate about Monta on this site. He scored a lot of points, and he didn’t help his team much in doing so.
Golden State Warriors '10-'11 Season: The Return of ^^^^
I hope Monta
never stumbles across this site
He'd turn back to the moped.
His true love.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Unlike a lot of armchair analysts, Berri tends not to casually throw around vague, undefined terms like “overrated.”
For people who have the ability and/or desire to read, Berri provided a very limited and very clear definition of what he meant by the word.
The rest of you, feel free to take aim at straw men.
There will be no extra point!
Overrated was a poor choice of termanology...
A player’s “rating” in the eyes of the public & NBA establishment is not solely linked to PPG. A more accurate description for this data analysis would be along the lines of “least efficient and productive high volume scorers” rather than “most overrated.”
That said, despite some questionable decision making, I still think to some degree Monte bore the statistical brunt of being the go-to guy on what at times was an absolutely stagnant offense. There’s no statistical appreciation for being the guy forced to heave desperation 3’s at the buzzer when your teammates don’t cut or move effectively.
I anticipate a somewhat more efficient, lower volume effort from Monte this year with the development of Curry and Lee being added to the roster.
A player’s "rating" in the eyes of the public & NBA establishment is not solely linked to PPG
nor to wow ratings, a better way for it to be stated is under metric’ed by wow construction compared to popular basketball fan preferences?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 2, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
oo cardinal sin committed
how dare you raise questions about basketball statistics
Goal: 8 seed!
I think the “extra pass” argument is shortsighted.
Making the extra pass WILL show up in the statistics. It might not for that specific play, but then in the long run the same passing ability that allowed you to make that extra pass will show up in your assists. You could also have a 2 on 0 or 2 on 1 breakaway where you get an easy assist, which will make up for not getting the assist on the smart extra pass before.
I cannot say with 100% confidence that the previous paragraph is correct, and am open to counter-arguments, but to me it seems that people focus on individual plays and do not think about the big picture.
And I know next to nothing about advanced basketball statistics, so actually while I’m at it, I have a question.
Where can you find the league average for statistics like True Shooting? I have no idea how to put these numbers I see into context.
Hoopdata.com has all of the stats
and it shows the league average for basically everything. You can also modify the sample so only has point guards who played in 40+ games and 20+ MPG, as an example.
Carmelo Shmarmelo
by Reverend_Randy on Sep 2, 2010 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep, I still use BB-Ref for almost everything, but if I’m interested in comparing specific stats to average, I use hoopdata.
by Missing Barry on Sep 2, 2010 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta played for the D-League All Stars
Stats don’t account for that.
Why don’t Maggette, Curry, Morrow, Reggie Williams, and CJ Watson’s stats suffer for this strawman fallacy.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 2, 2010 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I hate to use the term elitism...
…but bean-counters have made a push to take hold of basketball fandom, and I’m sick of it. Advanced stats are the innocent little siblings of their infamous brethren in the financial world: numerical sophistry. No matter how sophisticated statistical analysis of basketball becomes, it will never be able to totally describe the reality of the event in real time. Furthermore, it will always suffer from the profoundly well documented reputation it has received in more grown-up circles: utterly maleable, and subject to the filter of human nature, i.e. bullsh*t. Thus, it is nothing but an analog; a more well-defined system of analysis than mere linguistics no doubt, but ultimately nothing but an intellectual puppet show.
Everything I love about basketball is tied up in its inherent dynamism. Everyone that frequents GSOM knows Monta was inefficient last year. So be it. I’m sick of throwing him under the bus. Let the kid respond next season. He has upside. If he is an unmitigated failure again, I’ll eat my contrarian hat and go retake statistics at my local j.c. until my ears ooze algorithms.
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 2, 2010 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Funny, you showed alot of arrogance in your post.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 2, 2010 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m just trying to nip this thing in the bud before I’m awash in usage percentages, ad nauseum. Keep the analysis coming everyone, but i would like an influx of superior intuitive linguistics to counter-balance faux-facts. Relativism is the new game, and hardcore stat-heads and philosophy nerds should be able to agree on this (quasi-)reality. ;)
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 2, 2010 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Well sure
But we’re gonna need a tee-pee and the peace pipe.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Well this is the bay area after all… ;)
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 3, 2010 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Funny
you do the same thing in a lot of your posts…
If you mean using statistics, guilty as charged. Hopefully we all have some grasp of how to quantify the game. I’m just trying to encourage some fresh ideas. I enjoy learning about bbal stats I’m not familiar with, but I’m bored with, for example, pointing out how Monta was inefficient last season.
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 3, 2010 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
. If he is an unmitigated failure again, I’ll eat my contrarian hat and go retake statistics at my local j.c. until my ears ooze algorithms.
no matter what oozes out of your ears stats are not gonna make Montay a better or a worse player, they are just the shadow following the dog.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 2, 2010 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But how do we describe the shadow? Is the shadow’s usage percentage of the sidewalk acceptable? How many fire hydrants/36 minutes does it sniff? What is its sniff/piss ratio???
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 3, 2010 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Is the shadow’s usage percentage of the sidewalk acceptable? How many fire hydrants/36 minutes does it sniff? What is its sniff/piss ratio???
focus man, it’s a shadow :>)
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 4, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Sigh. I have no problem with your second paragraph, but the first is just unnecessary and not really full of any substance….
by Missing Barry on Sep 3, 2010 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions
How about a little pre season test
Can some of the stat heads (I dont mean that in a bad way) use WP48, or some other combo of stats to predict, say, the top 1-8 teams in the West, and their winning totals/percentages, based on their current rosters?
It’d be interesting to see what the stats predict at the begginning of the season, and how teams pan out at the end of the season.
by WestCoastWarrior on Sep 3, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Ah yes, a forecasters challenge. I would find it interesting, as well.
by Missing Barry on Sep 3, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m all for it! I volunteer to be the “using my gut” control.
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 3, 2010 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m all for it! I volunteer to be the "using my gut" control.
Here’s my list using the advanced BS% formula.
#1 Lakers 57W, #2 Okla 53W, #3 Portland 52W, #4 Dallas 51W, #5 Spurs 50W, #6 Suns 49W, #7 Utah 48W, #8 GSW 47W.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 4, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Skep, you’ve remained very obtuse over the years.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 4, 2010 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Woo
Warriors make the playoffs
We believe
"There's more to life than basketball. I can't play this game my whole life. I'm just trying to figure out what I like to do and meet some cool people along the way." -Chris Bosh
by Duby Dub Dubs on Sep 5, 2010 10:11 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Warriors make the playoffs
remember you saw it here first :>) psychic con urquell
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 5, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Great, so...
who volunteers to do the stat challenge?
by WestCoastWarrior on Sep 18, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I think with all the
people who idolize advanced stats on this site, it’s fine for bimbo to vent..
Who are you again?
I’m totally fine with Bimbo venting ‘cos he’s a long time GSoMer who’s generally smart, witty, and interesting. Also, advanced stats is not a subject on which he vents that often, so it doesn’t come off like he’s on a troll-campaign.
Also, when he vents, he tends to do so not in passive-aggressive one-liners but in clear, thoughtful sentences, within a well-articulated philosophical framework. Can you say the same for your posts in this thread?
There will be no extra point!
Sleepy
Your comments will be noted but there is no need for the “Who are you again” remarks. There is always someone out there who knows more, has seen more, and can prove more, so relax Uncle Sleepy… Remember, we’re a family. a dysfunctional family at best, but still a family.
by 2010HopeGSW on Sep 3, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Your comments will be noted but there is no need for the "Who are you again" remarks.
Meh, it wasn’t nice way of saying it, but it’s a pretty basic fact: when you’re a well-known member a community (be it a family, firm, school, church, town, website, etc.) you have a much wider berth than a stranger/noob for criticizing things about it. How well do you think your new employer would take it if you started criticizing its staff before even logging a full day’s a work?
Sure, technically speaking, you’re part of the community by virtue of signing up. That doesn’t really mean you’re part of the metaphorical “family,” any more so than any of the other tens of millions of disembodied voices floating around the blogosphere. If you want to earn the familiarity, respect and trust of readers here, you should probably do it by writing posts that are witty, thoughtful, substantive informative and/or witty – not by taking broad one-line swipes at the site and then whining when one of its members calls you out.
Anyway: I eagerly await your first witty, thoughtful, substantive and/or informative post.
There will be no extra point!
Are you
the Uncle in the family who never gives his nephews anything for their birthdays?? :)
Witty….check Now I’ll work on the other ones.
Yes, let’s all get in on the underhanded shots at “advanced stats” (many of which aren’t advanced at all) because we don’t like and/or don’t understand them. I just get tired of people who try to beat down knowledge. Knowledge is a good thing. Educate yourself. Empower yourself. It is, in fact, a positive thing to know MORE about what you’re evaluating rather than less.
by Missing Barry on Sep 3, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
(many of which aren’t advanced at all)
I keep trying to bring this up. Most stats that are brought up aren’t advanced in any way. They are just a different way to think about things. True shooting, effective field goal%, per 36(or 40) numbers, shooting percentages by distance, net +/-, usg%, reb%… These are all easy to calculate and understand if you have the raw data. They are simply different ways of expressing that raw data, or they involve data that hasn’t been tracked before.
The stats that are truly difficult to derive and calculate (Win Shares, Wins Produced, WARP, Adjusted +/-, PER) are a little scarier because they just look like numbers that a computer is spitting out, but they tell you something pretty meaningful in a unit that’s easy to understand (wins for Win Shares, Wins Produced, and WARP, point differential for Adjusted +/-, how much better or worse a player is than the number 15 for PER (ok, so maybe PER’s unit doesn’t make any sense…)).
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
Yeah, honestly, I think I do just fine without using anything more advanced than per 36 stats and TS%, which are really no more complicated than per game stats or FG%….
by Missing Barry on Sep 3, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Points
well taken.. Thank you Uncle Berry and Uncle Sleepy
Don’t take it too personally, just realize that many, many people have come in with similar remarks before you. I feel the need to try to beat those remarks down every time they come up! ;)
by Missing Barry on Sep 3, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
touche!
i think education and empowerment is crucial…but i guess that can be too jarring for th folks that rather watch fox news and the glen becks of the world who shoot from the hip.
by dj fuzzylogic on Sep 3, 2010 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
i think education and empowerment is crucial…but i guess that can be too jarring for th folks that rather watch fox news and the glen becks of the world who shoot from the hip.
There’s nothing wrong with shooting from the hip if you are good at it. Remember Becks goal is to advance the conservative agenda so he’s doing the logical thing for his role.
The bottom line on education is to keep in mind the bottom line. Do you really want to crunch numbers or do you want to eat dinner?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 3, 2010 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions
The bottom line on education is to keep in mind the bottom line. Do you really want to crunch numbers or do you want to eat dinner?
I don’t see how this has anything to do with this thread. By education in this thread, we have been talking about reading up on stats and gathering information through various resources to make informed decisions about the world around us as it relates to sports (or other issues, in my case). How does scouring the internet about stats in your spare time and reading up on it (or other things such as the problematic interpretation of MLK’s “I have a dream” speech by Beck) preclude someone from their ability to “eat dinner”?
If you want to have a discussion about education as higher education in terms of institutions of learning like community college and universities and the financial burdens that it might have someones ability to eat, feel free to create another thread to have that discussion.
Thank you.
by dj fuzzylogic on Sep 3, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t see how this has anything to do with this thread
The bottom line applies to all frames, time or space. Are we getting stat-ucated to enjoy the games or to consume the numbers?
Some folks enjoy things more if they know less about them so stats might be counter productive to them, while others enjoy throwing themselves into the subject and live the history of it.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Sep 3, 2010 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I think with all the people who idolize advanced stats on this site, it’s fine for bimbo to vent..
For what it’s worth, I feel a little guilty for saying things like “bean-counter” and “stat-head”. I know I can be a little over-the-top sometimes. All apologies to the mathematically inclined. To be honest, I’m trying to play catch-up in my spare time. I guess it’s the swarm-effect that bothers me. People tend to latch onto a particular system or figure en masse and the black sheep in me gets all riled up!
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 4, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
The first paragraph establishes the reality of statistics, i.e., a more sophisticated form of description than linguistics in many cases, but still a model. Look at how PER has become a false idol in various circles. I’m sure that bothers you as well! I think it’s important to de-deify this stuff and foster an attitude of open-mindedness as opposed to blind acceptance, as is so often the case.
Also, I clearly have some negative views about how certain models are used in other realms to accomplish certain unethical goals…cough derivatives cough…
Amnesty for all immigrants! Boycott Arizona!
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Sep 3, 2010 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions
To the naysayers
Monta is going to have an amazing season. If he accepts his role he will thrive and he and Curry will again be the most productive backcourt in the NBA. Watch; now that he has some back up as far as scoring, his TS% is going to get a lot better…as long as he doesn’t try to do too much.
Curry/Lee/Monta= Wins
by danielholl on Sep 2, 2010 10:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think Monta suffered from Kobe 07' syndrome.
That year Phil gave Kobe the green light to shoot because his teammates were straight garbage. Although he posted some great stats, his team wasn’t good enough. A lot of the time Kobe would chuck his team out of games.
I think (hope) that once Monta realizes he has teammates that can produce just as well as him, he’ll shoot less and become more efficient. And I’m glad that Monta developed some 3pt range. But unless he maintains his incredible accuracy from the last few months, I don’t want to see him shoot more than one a game.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
His teammates weren’t garbage. Looking back at the WP48, his teammates were pretty decent. Good enough to be a good team if Kobe played as well as many perceive.
"Everybody loves Basketball-Reference.com. Except the Kobe fans".- DubsFan408
by GovernorStephCurry on Sep 2, 2010 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
