Warriors' Monta Ellis barely a blip on NBA's radar
This image appears in the Chronicle's article online this morning: Warriors' Monta Ellis barely a blip on NBA's radar
We've all expected so much out of Monta throughout his career with the dubs, but this year it seems he's really elevated his play to super stardom. A lot is made about how he hasn't been elected an all-star, but all you need to do is look at this chart of the fan voting. Breaking news: fans are idiots. Monta probably picks up that list, sees Vince Carter on it, and LOLs over his morning coffee.
That being said, what kind of effort are the dubs front office putting in as far as a balloting campaign on his behalf? The Giants across the bay made a big Panda push in 09, and I'm wondering if there's been any kind of push like that in Oakland. They may not be the most organized team in the NBA, but this one really seems like a no-brainer: simultaneously support your franchise player & promote your team.
over 1 year ago
GameSix
152 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
If we finish with a .500 record
before the all star break, he will get in quote me.
by Anonymous1337 on Jan 12, 2011 7:26 AM PST via mobile reply actions
This
Is why we dont trade him.
If he is undervalued across the NBA, we will not get a good deal in the trade.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 12, 2011 9:16 AM PST reply actions
This doens’t mean he’s undervalued by other clubs. It means that anyone with a computer can vote. I.e. if you live in China and have only seen a handful of NBA games this year. Remember when Yao was 2nd in votes and hadn’t played all year and they had to take him off the ballot? There’s a lot of kids, etc. that vote and don’t understand who deserves to play.
To be fair, Carter has put in good work for years and deserves the respect. Monta was terrible last year and has been awesome for less than half a year now. Carter won’t make it, and if we have a winning record the coaches will vote Monta in.
What this tells me is that if I vote for Monta it will not make a difference. it’s going to come down to the coaches.
Terrible??
um monta last year averaged 25ppg 5ast 4rbds 2stls. I really don’t think that’s terrible. Vince Carter last year 16ppg. And now monta is averaging 10 more points them him now. Know what ur talking about before u say monta was terrible last year
I love 2 tell tha truth, but I'm such a Good Liar
by JRichIsStillAGodButBiedrinsIsABeast on Jan 12, 2011 5:07 PM PST up reply actions
.517 true shooting percentage
3.8 turnovers per game
By wins produced, one of the worst full-time players in the NBA.
The Warriors were a terrible team, but they were much less terrible in the minutes and games when Monta didn’t play.
I think it’s fair to call that a “terrible” season, especially given his vastly superior performance in ‘07/08, his previous healthy season. Fortunately this season he’s picked up his game significantly in every area except for rebounding.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 12, 2011 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
Umm
kobe had over 3 to last year too, does that make him terrible. So did Steve Nash and wade. Monta had no help last year, I don’t understand how u can say with the stats he put up in the NBA u can say he played terrible and that it’s fair. Putting up 20ppg is a huge accomplishment. I don’t understand the logic. I mean Tyreke put up 25 5 and 5 but his team lost does that make him terrible??
I love 2 tell tha truth, but I'm such a Good Liar
by JRichIsStillAGodButBiedrinsIsABeast on Jan 12, 2011 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
Putting up 20ppg is a huge accomplishment.
“PPG” is more a measure of how much you shoot than how well you do it. As a rule, if you’re not scoring efficiently, you’re hurting, not helping, your team. Very few 20 ppg scorers last year had the same combo of inefficiency, poor rebounding, low assist/turnover rate and poor defense as Monta. Tyreke Evans, for example, was much better in all of these areas than Monta (with the possible expection of D). So … no, Evans wasn’t terrible.
Monta had no help last year
This is an oft-repeated line, but it doesn’t explain the fact that the Warriors were much better when Monta didn’t play than when he did.
“Terrible” is a relative term. Monta in 2009-10 was much less terrible than the flu, for example. But he was bad compared to Evans or Kobe or Wade or Nash, and bad compared to his peak 07-08 season. He helped make a bad team worse. That’s at the very least … not good.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 12, 2011 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t understand how u can say with the stats he put up in the NBA u can say he played terrible and that it’s fair
Stick around, read some, learn some, you’ll come to understand, I promise. ;)
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 7:02 AM PST up reply actions
The Giants across the bay made a big Panda push in 09,
haha, and all that did was apparently kill his game? Do we want the same fate for Montay?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 12, 2011 10:35 AM PST reply actions
Yes, the Panda PR push got them that ring.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
Does a response to skeptic really require "/s" at the end of it?
if I knew what that abbreviation means maybe I could answer?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 12, 2011 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
Well I'm personally glad it gave us the joy of seing grown @** men in Panda hats.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
I’ll just point out now that Sandoval, though deserving to be an All-Star that season, did not actually make the team.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
It was actually that little turd Victorino, who was blatantly undeserving, a piece of crap, and just not that good of a baseball player (not that he’s bad or anything, he’s just merely solid). Philly bragged about how they hired a bunch of college kids to sit at a computer all night long just constantly voting for him. It was BS. Werth was later an injury replacement picked by the Phillies manager (but also deserving, so I’ve never had a problem with that), but really, he should have been the one on the last fan ballot, not Victorino. Werth >>>>> Victorino.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
I like Shane Victorino
.309/.375/.464… 63 runs, 15 steals, 42 rbis…. pretty good for a top of order hitter
Plus Pablo’s fat, and I do believe baseball players should sell jeans
Right, they’re solid numbers, but they’re nothing special. If you have to qualify the production by where he is in the lineup, there’s a good chance he shouldn’t be an All-Star. Also, Victorino is an extremely annoying player/person who should never be rooted for, in the mold of say…David Eckstein, but even worse.
(By the way what numbers are you using, he’s never hit .300 before?)
Sandoval 2009: .330/.387/.556, 5.3 WAR
Victorino 2009: .292/.358/.445, 3.3 WAR
Even if you use his career 3.7 UZR/150 for WAR, he’s still more than 1 WAR short of Sandoval. Bottom line, Sandoval was far more deserving than Victorino.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
WELL...
when you figure in the UZR and the WAR..
Shut up, just shut up. You had me at "cure for Cohan".
Why doesn't anyone vote?
I do..
by GSW Fan4Life on Jan 12, 2011 11:01 AM PST via mobile reply actions
The thing is -
Monta really isn’t a superstar this year.
He was bad last year. He’s been good offensively this year. Good offensively doesn’t make you a superstar.
We’ve had lots of threads about Monta, but in another one I broke down how the other players who earn the “superstar” label are clearly much, much better than him. That graphic commits two sins which would get a regular poster mocked, both of which make Monta appear better than he is:
It uses per/game numbers to compare players who play a different number of minutes, and it uses FG% rather than TS%. The first tends to make Monta look relatively better because he plays so many minutes, and the second makes Monta looks better because it ignores how rarely, per shot, he gets to the line.
I suspect if we were winning, the league would overlook those things. But we’re not – and it’s not like those are nit-picky or illlegitimate things to make the comparison with.
Monta deserves a lot of credit for how his game has improved from last year to this. But he was really really bad last year, despite his PPG, and if he wants to make an all-star team he’s still got a ways to go.
I feel you on the ppg vs. per36 or whatever, but Im not sure about the FG%. He drives a lot and gets fouled a lot. That he doesnt get the calls is more of an NBA politics issues. If he gets to the line more will that make him more of an all-star? Or is it that if he gets to the All-Star game, that will get him to the line more?
I know they aren’t as respected or as “advanced” as other stats, but putting up high ppg with a good FG% that is comparable to the elites in the league should not just be dismissed imo.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 12, 2011 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
That he doesnt get the calls is more of an NBA politics issues.
No, it’s not. Watch the game. Watch how Monta contorts his body on his drives constantly, to specifically avoid contact. You know who else does that and doesn’t get to the line as much as he should? Derrick Rose. It’s the style of play that doesn’t get him to the line, it has nothing to do with poltiics. On the flip side, take Corey Maggette – dude plays a lot like Dwyane Wade, and guess what? He’s constantly among the league leaders in getting to the line. It’s because he’s a bulldog that puts his head down and goes to the rim and doesn’t stop for anything or avoid anyone in his way (also leads to him getting charge calls fairly often compared to other players). Or take someone like Kevin Martin – he’s moer similar to Paul Pierce, can shoot it and is just a crafty son of a….and consistently draws fouls that way, also has, always will (just like Pierce). Drawing fouls is a skill. It’s a mentality, it’s a style. It’s something Monta needs to do a better job of. Refs call certain things and let other things go, and Monta needs to do a better job of drawing the kind of contact refs do call.
As for the FG% thing…..well, you’re partway there. High PPG + efficient scoring is good, and FG% has ingrained itself in people’s mind as the measure of efficiency much as batting average was in baseball for a long time. The thing is we’ve realized it doesn’t make nearly as much sense as other measures we have (TS% or PPP – points per possession). Monta fairs less well in those – he’s been solid this year, but he’s definitely not comparable to the elites. Monta is kind of like a Freddy Sanchez kind of player for basketball – that .300 batting average Sanchez used to consistently sport was definitely good and among the best hitters in the league, but his .330-.340 OBP was much closer to average and made him less valuable than his batting average made it seem. Similar to Monta’s FG% compared to TS%. Efficiency is good, you just have to look at the right measure of it.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Watch how Monta contorts his body on his drives constantly
He still draws contact while contorting his body. The difference is that Monta actually tries to make his shot. He doesn’t just throw up some garbage like Maggette and Wade often do.
Ignoring GovernorStephCurry from now on so I don't get banned!!!
by HerFavColo(u)r on Jan 12, 2011 11:29 AM PST up reply actions
Right, but the point is that refs rarely call that kind of contact, especially if it’s just minor concact. They do that for anybody. However, when you go right into a guy that isn’t set, refs do call that, and again, they do it for Maggette the same as they do it for Wade. The NBA is a pretty physical game, a lot of contact never gets called. To get fouls called consistently, it’s not about drawing contact, it’s about drawing the right kind of contact.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Your right that its about drawing the right kind of contact, but who you are also plays a part, no?
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 12, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
It probably does -
- but I suspect much less than you think it does.
I mean, compare him to Mags. He’s, like Monta, put up good PPG on bad teams and never made an all-star team. Whatever argument you have for the refs being biased against Monta because he’s not a star (as opposed to because of his style of play) should also apply to Maggette – and yet, Maggette gets to the FT line a lot.
I think the superstar call thing is way overrated. Yes, there are times when it seems to go a little nuts (like Kobe, who, incidentally, is really good at selling the thought that he was fouled) or Wade in the finals against Miami, but I think you’re deluding yourself if you think that politics are what’s getting Manu and Deron to the line much more often (per shot) than Monta.
I’d say pretty much anything you can think of that logically makes sense that it would be a factor is a factor. Most of them are just too small to worry about. Refs are biased to some degree, they make bad calls from time to time, and “who you are” is a factor to some degree, I just think all those things are hugely overrated by fans/pundits/media. They’re small factors not worth worrying about, the same way something like crowd size is probably a small factor not worth worrying about.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
Watch how Monta contorts his body on his drives constantly, to specifically avoid contact.
Barry, this is a very valuable skill I think Monta uses to avoid drawing offensive fouls/charges more than anything else. But I don’t think he shys away from taking tough, contested shots in the low-block area at all. If anything, his pension for extraordinary body contortion in mid-air comes from an effort not to get hammered hard (or destroyed) by guys who are much bigger than him. Ellis is a small player who routinely attacks much bigger defenders in the paint… if he attempted to bulldog his way in there like a size difference didn’t exist, his career would be drastically curtailed due to some serious injury.
Think Jordan against the Detroit Pistons. He knew their intention was to hurt him when he attacked, and he consistently responded with the most amazing, body-contorted, logic-defying drives and moves in the mid-air. Of course, like Ellis, he’d still fall down hard a lot of the time, but it wasn’t so much for a lack of aggressiveness as it was for the defense’s stance. Ellis is similar to Jordan in this way.
Sidebar: Ellis, like Jordan, is also an extremely graceful player. He plays with the same kinda ballet and theatrics Jordan did in those early years. When a player is that aesthetically pleasing to watch, that in itself should be enough to fuel an All-Star campaign. Is there a player in the game today that’s more fun to watch?
You could very well be right. It’s not unreasonable to think avoiding contact is good for him, physically speaking. But it does prevent him from getting foul calls.
As for the graceful player part, I actually completely disagree. I don’t think Ellis is smooth like Jordan (or guys like Kobe/TMac). I’d say he’s closer to the Vince Carter/Lebron camp – the athleticism is there, but they just don’t move as smoothly as the first group. As for the entertaining part, my own opinion is Monta is definitely entertaining, though I prefer watching the Heat and a few select others like Chris Paul, Steve Nash, and even Rondo, but of course, that’s just me. (I also prefer my All-Stars to be the “best” players as opposed to most entertaining, using some actual commonsense as to what positions they do/can play, so yes, Tim Duncan is quite capable of being a center)
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
That’s funny, I’ve never thought of Kobe as smooth or particularly graceful at all. T-Mac, yes. But I think Kobe and Vinsanity’s air games are/were defined a lot more by powerful throw-down dunks than finesse/graceful moves. Ditto with LBJ and (mostly) Wade. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
But I don’t think he shys away from taking tough, contested shots in the low-block area at all. If anything, his pension for extraordinary body contortion in mid-air comes from an effort not to get hammered hard (or destroyed) by guys who are much bigger than him
I’m sure this is true. But the point remains: guys who avoid contact – for whatever reason – get fewer calls. Jordan would contort around people, but he would also power through them.
MB’s point is that you shouldn’t expect a guy who tries to avoid contact to get the same calls as the guy who doesn’t. Monta is a finesse player, not a power player. He attacks bigger players by using his speed.
Those guys don’t get calls.
Ellis, like Jordan, is also an extremely graceful player. He plays with the same kinda ballet and theatrics Jordan did in those early years. When a player is that aesthetically pleasing to watch, that in itself should be enough to fuel an All-Star campaign. Is there a player in the game today that’s more fun to watch?
Methinks you need to go back and watch some tape of a young Jordan. I actually did that yesterday, following a random link I stumbled across, and I have to admit: I’d forgotten just how frighteningly powerful he was as a young player. He fearlessly went through anyone between him and the basket, and his dunks were ferocious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BASsFTAAw_w#t=2m58s gives you a could of examples.
As for players who are more fun to watch, well, I find Monta incredibly frustrating to watch, at times, because of his poor decision making. The shots are great when they go in … but give me Paul or LeBron – who are capable of just as stunning physical feats, but don’t also make you want to scream in agony at the dumb decisions.
When Monta takes one of his ill-advised drives into a set defense, I find myself thinking “oh no, not again …” far more than I find myself thinking “woo hoo! Here we go!”
I had seen that clip, and Jordan had a lot of power in his game,
but what made him Jordan- aside from the fact that he was indomitable, put up astounding numbers throughout his career, and shattered innumerable records- was his extraordinary finesse game. Here’s a video that I think still stands as the gold standard for showcasing Jordan’s unique grace on the court:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWvxijHNWB4
He was just beautiful to watch, from an aesthetic perspective. This is the significant aspect of MJ’s game that most reminds me of Monta Ellis. Indeed, I’m planning on uploading a video this Summer that will illustrate Ellis’ own comparable beauty (as produced in his body of work throughout this entire season), and definitively make the case for his paradigm as an athletic artist.
Is there a player in the game today that’s more fun to watch?
PauGasol, TimDuncan, LuisScola,RonArtest,GoranDragic,RajonRondo,
EarlBoykins, AnthonyRudolf, Blake Griffin, KevinLove, DemarcusCousins,
RudyGay, MichaelBeasley,JoakimNoah,ChristianEyenga, JohnWall,JeremyLin,
JasonTerry,JarretJack, KevinDurant,DeRonwilliams, probably others I can’t think of right now.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 12, 2011 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
Skeptic, let me guess. Monta-hater?
No actually I like Montay as a person, I just don’t find him fun to watch. Too predictable with what he’s gonna do.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 12, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
....
Earl Boykins, Jarret Jack, Jeremy Lin, Goran Dragic, Demarcus Cousins?
This is one of the poorest lists I’ve seen in quite some time.
Shut up, just shut up. You had me at "cure for Cohan".
It's also complete babble.
There isn’t a player in the NBA in 2011 that’s more creative and/or dynamic than Monta Ellis. He’s fun to watch precisely because you know to expect the unbelievable from him, and he never fails to deliver. That’s the sign of a true innovator.
by Krazee max on Jan 12, 2011 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s also complete babble his opinion.
What anyone else finds “fun to watch” is not up for dispute.
There isn’t a player in the NBA in 2011 that’s more creative and/or dynamic than Monta Ellis.
You phrase this as if it’s a fact. Most NBA observers would not agree. Since you don’t seem to have much regard for majority opinions — or facts — you’re better off sticking to totally subjective phrases like “I find him extremely fun to watch.” No one can give you crap for that. When you get into making declarative, superlative statements, you’re on rather shaky ground.
you know to expect the unbelievable from him, and he never fails to deliver
LOL. What was that you were saying about “complete babble”?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 12, 2011 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
you’re better off sticking to totally subjective phrases… When you get into making declarative, superlative statements, you’re on rather shaky ground.
That’s all fine and good with me, Sleepy, until someone’s (so obviously) provoking me. And since you foot-noted your post with a snarky jab of your own, I have to believe your message is more about taking sides than actually endorsing any civil rights here.
And speaking of your foot note, I’m curious, since the thought of Monta being such a constant source of amazement is so laughable to you, who would you say ranks higher on the NBA’s list of captivating/imaginative players?
by Krazee max on Jan 12, 2011 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not the thought of Monta being a "constant source of amazement" that brings out the Lulz
but the fact that you hold that out to be so important.
For what it’s worth though I would put the following players down as more captivating. Please note this is just purely my own personal tastes and in zero way reflects who is a better or more effective player because obviously this would be a very silly standard to base that on.
Josh Smith, Hortford, Rondo, Ray Allen, Garnett, Dirk, Rose, Noah, Nene, Carmelo, Kevin Martin, Lowry (seriously, my man crush on this one is borderline creepy), Granger, Kobe, Gasol, Shannon Brown, Odom, Love, Jennings, Iggy, Boykins, Bogut, Chris Paul, Amare, Felton, Nash, healthy Roy and Odom (might be extinct), Curry, Griffin, Tyreke Cousins, George Hill, Ginobli, Duncab, Dujuan Blair, Deron Williams, Millsap, John Wall, and McGee.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:02 PM PST up reply actions
Please note this is just purely my own personal tastes and in zero way reflects who is a better or more effective player because obviously this would be a very silly standard to base that on.
Of course this discussion in no way reflects who’s a better player; aesthetics/beauty is indeed a totally subjective thing (as I alluded to above when I stated that “beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”). It’s only when someone derides me by compiling a comprehensive list of blatantly unexciting/ungraceful scrubs/players in the league (for the majority of Skep’s list) who are more fun than Monta that civil etiquette goes out the window, and intelligence is insulted.
by Krazee max on Jan 12, 2011 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Just wondering how often you watch these players.
Reason being that we’ve all watched Monta so much that we understand his game. When we watch other players they may suprise us because we haven’t seen their games night after night.
I am actually a Kings fan Won
and I would like to point out that I don’t necessarily find only players with “Drives of the Night” entertaining. I hope this doesn’t offend anyone because clearly just saying one finds other players more amazing or more interesting or whatever somehow insults people’s intelligence.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
and wow no Lebron or Dwade on this list
shame shame shame
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:18 PM PST up reply actions
your message is more about taking sides
Well, sure — it’s about taking the side of sanity and fairness versus the hyperbolic nonsense you spout when it comes to Monta. You should ask Skep how often I reflexively take his side. Are you actually arguing that Monta “never fails to deliver?”
who would you say ranks higher on the NBA’s list of captivating/imaginative players?
The criteria for such a list would be totally subjective, so not very interesting to me. People are “captivated” by very different things. No one begrudges your captivation by Monta, so you shouldn’t begrudge Skep his different take.
On the other hand, actual production is much less subjective. Very close correlation can be drawn between certain measures of production and winning or losing ballgames — something that concerns most Warriors fans more than subjective aesthetics. By measures that relate to winning and losing games, Monta’s probably not a Top 20 NBA player. Last season, he wasn’t even Top 50.
You’re crazy about Monta’s “drunken top” drives to the hoop. Skeptic and others are far less impressed. As long as you’re talking about pure aesthetics, that’s as far as that conversation goes.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 12, 2011 11:19 PM PST up reply actions
This.
The criteria for such a list would be totally subjective, so not very interesting to me. People are "captivated" by very different things. No one begrudges your captivation by Monta, so you shouldn’t begrudge Skep his different take.
Completely pointless to go at Skep for his subjective opinion … that is unless you honestly want to argue that Monta is in fact the most fun player to watch in the NBA. Only reason one would care enough to go down that road is if they seriously think there is actually some serious value in such stats. (hold on, getting flashbacks to the Jwill glory days)
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
I’d argue that the number of times a player get’s into the T’op 10 plays’, ‘steal of the night’, ‘fast break of the night’, ‘dunk of the night’, ‘block of the night’, ‘nightly notable’, etc., though subjective, is quanitifiable and indicative of observer/media opinion.
haven’t gone through comprehensive research, but to be sure Monta is up there on the list of: ‘most highlights chosen by observers/media staff’
by Won on Jan 12, 2011 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The criteria for such a list would be totally subjective, so not very interesting to me.
Ahh, come on, Sleepy, that’s a cop-out. There’s gotta be a romantic/emotional side to you, apart from the logical/intellectual one that dominates the daily discussion here at GSoM. I’m asking you an artistic question; one that demands that you get in touch with your creative side. Who really stimulates your imagination in the NBA today? I wanna know! :D
There’s gotta be a romantic/emotional side to you, apart from the logical/intellectual one that dominates the daily discussion here at GSoM.
Haha. Dude, my webpin means “love.” You haven’t read much of my stuff here if you think I don’t have a romantic/emotional side. But part of being a romantic — heck, part of being a mature adult — is understanding the line between logic and love. Maybe more pertinently, part of being a quality poster on a site like this is understanding the difference between subjective emoting and objective analysis.
In answer to your question … see my reply to Won below.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 13, 2011 8:53 AM PST up reply actions
“Most NBA observers would not agree”, what does this mean? The ‘majority’ would not be able to agree on any one player. And how would you measure this anyway? Why don’t we stick with something that’s baed on real observation, some FACTS. Every road game, we have the opposing teams annoucers praising Monta’s speed, driving ability and ability to finish the toughest of shots, often over multiple larger and stronger defenders. Now, if you don’t think this is a reasonable basis to to call him a dynamic and creative scorer, then that is your opinion. my opinion is that you aren’t giving monta enough credit.
by Won on Jan 12, 2011 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"Most NBA observers would not agree", what does this mean?
It means that neither a majority nor a plurality of NBA observers, if asked to name “the most creative and dynamic player in the league,” would answer “Monta Ellis.” To think otherwise is laughably homerish.
Now, if you don’t think this is a reasonable basis to to call him a dynamic and creative scorer, then that is your opinion.
Is your reading comprehension that poor, or do you just like to beat up on defenseless straw men? I said it’s not a fact that he’s the single most dynamic and creative scorer in the league. That it’s not a fact is not my opinion — it’s fact. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 12, 2011 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
You are a genius for stating something obvious.
“It means that neither a majority nor a plurality of NBA observers, if asked to name "the most creative and dynamic player in the league," would answer "Monta Ellis." To think otherwise is laughably homerish.”
-This is true for 99.5% of players. Replace anyone’s name with Monta Ellis and the same statement can be made. China has the largest population so they can easily vote Yao Ming. You really gonna stick with the argument that the majority opinion is the correct one?
-I never stated that he is "the most creative and dynamic player in the league". But in defense of Krazee there is a large body of evidence that backs up a bold statement like this. Don’t disregard it.
Also if you are going to rely on the fact that he’s not “the single most dynamic and creative scorer in the league.” to one up someone else, it shows that you really don’t have much to argue. You’ve inherently conceded that he’s one of the more dynamic and creative scorers in the league.
by Won on Jan 12, 2011 11:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Dude, either you misread my initial post or you’re trying to have an argument about stuff I never wrote. I don’t really have an opinion on where Monta stands in the pantheon of “Fun to Watch” players. I came into this thread because I thought it was lame to accuse another poster of “babbling” because he had a different aesthetic take. I also thought it was lame to follow the accusation up with a declarative, superlative statement about Monta’s “fun-to-watchness” — as if such a thing can be measured.
But OK: since the Krazee one asked what floats my personal aesthetic boat…
As a rule, I’m not that impressed with short-attention-span ESPN highlight fodder. I need more context. Mostly, I find winning basketball fun to watch. I love teamwork and synergy, on both offense and defense. Like most here, I found the “We Believe” five-headed beast that beat Dallas in 07-08 incredibly fun to watch. Today, I find Doc Rivers’ UBUNTU Celtics — with Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Rondo, Shaq, Nate Robinson and Big Baby all working together, like parts of the same body — extremely fun to watch.
Compared to those things, watching Monta do his whirling dervish routine, while his four teammates quietly observe, and the Warriors go on to lose the game … meh.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 13, 2011 8:45 AM PST up reply actions
Today, I find Doc Rivers’ UBUNTU Celtics — with Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Rondo, Shaq, Nate Robinson and Big Baby all working together, like parts of the same body — extremely fun to watch.
How about Gasol,kobe,odom,bynum,ronron,et al?
or the new Clips, even more fun??
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 13, 2011 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Couldn't have said it any better myself,
about the UBUNTU-era Celtics. In fact, this may really surprise you, but before Monta and the Warriors first caught my attention (and captured my loyal fandom), I was a die-hard ‘04-’07-era Detroit Pistons fan… heck, I even remained true to them the first year I began following Monta and the “We Believe” crew around, in ‘07-’08 (though they had kinda become my number 2 by that point). I must confess, I’ve since totally abandoned them (when their general, Chauncey, was shipped off for A.I.).
And guess what? Before I was a Pistons fan, I was a die-hard Kings fan for a few years (since I first got into bball in ‘02), when they had their core of Bibby, Christie, Peja, Webber, and Vlade (with Bobby Jackson, the Michael Jordan of Turkey, and a couple other guys I can’t remember right now coming off the bench). So, I totally understand and can strongly relate to your appreciation of the team organism.
I must say, the only cases in which my heart has ever really been drawn to individual greatness in sports are those of the personal legends of Michael Jeffrey Jordan and Monta Ellis. Indeed, I became a basketball fan (and pastime player) because of my admiration of Michael’s game, and a Warriors’ fan because of my passion for Monta’s. And, much as I hate to admit it, with my now 3+ happy years as a devoted Warriors follower, the day Monta departs from the team is probably the day my interest in them will wane too (hopefully that never happens).
Interestingly enough, as bandwagon as my record has been as a fan of the NBA, the one constant, for me, has always been my strong hate for the LA Lakers. Indeed, I became a Kings fan when they pushed the Lakers to the limit in the playoffs in 2002, and became enamored of the Pistons only when they snuffed out the Kobe-Shaq-era Lakers in the Finals. So you can imagine the state of catharsis I go into from seeing Monta Ellis go off on Kobe and the Lakers last night.
Indeed, no matter who I’m rooting for (the UBUNTU-era Celtics have in fact recently become my second team, pretty much since the 2008 Finals), my passionate distaste for the Lakers will always prevail overall. I just can’t stand them. Especially Kobe.
P.S.
I have Monta Ellis highlights from just about every game this season that will firmly attest to the fact that, whether Monta scores 10 points or 46 points in a game, he invariably leaves his mark on a game with what they call the “Drive of the Night.” This drive of the night is a move that invariably leaves the crowd, commentators, and entire GSoM community in the game threads, with awe-inspired reactions.
by Krazee max on Jan 12, 2011 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
yeah you are right but just note
that list you called “complete babble” wasn’t ranking number of “Drive of the Nights” players get. For what it’s worth, good for Monta I suppose. Highlights are always fun.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:04 PM PST up reply actions
Dude,
“Drive of the Nights” and highlight/creative moves are irreconcilable. Do you find jumpers to be more fun to watch?
by Krazee max on Jan 12, 2011 11:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I prefer a block on the defensive side of the ball leading to a break on the other end finished with a fierce dunk.
don’t really see why you care though
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:18 PM PST up reply actions
essentially I don't see the point in getting riled up because someone finds other players "more fun to watch"
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think Sleepy cared at all
unless someone seriously wants to argue that somehow Monta is one of the best shooting guards because of this subjective “more fun to watch” standard. That’s all he is being somewhat guarded on.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
unless someone seriously wants to argue that somehow Monta is one of the best shooting guards because of this subjective "more fun to watch" standard.
Again, this is not a discussion about who’s a better player, by any stretch, so much as it about who’s a better, more creative athletic artist.
don't be surprised that people read it that way though
when you blast some else for spouting “babble” just because he has a different list of players he likes. At least that’s what I thought when I saw that line.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
when you blast some else for spouting "babble" just because he has a different list of players he likes.
Well, Skep can like whoever he does as a player; to each his own. But I find it hard to believe that one can sincerely judge a great amount of the players on his list to be more amazing and dynamic than Monta with their play.
For what it's worth, totally understand the love of Monta's game
and like Skep I actually like him as an individual and feel that he gets kind of screwed over for the whole Moped thing and for being too open and honest whenever he does talk to the media. I am happy for him, he’s doing pretty good this year.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
That’s something to ask Sleepy Freud.
Haha. Since you asked: I don’t see the point in getting riled up because someone finds other players “more fun to watch.” That was the first thing I noted when I entered this silly thread. I’m glad you agree.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 12, 2011 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
Cool story, Bro. ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 13, 2011 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
I care
because the discussion at hand is about the pronounced engaging or entertaining aspect of Monta Ellis’ game; the highlight quality of his play that’s routinely recognized on NBATV, ESPN, Youtube, and other highlight reels all over the internet. I initially raised the point as a valuable qualifier for his All-Star campaign.
by Krazee max on Jan 12, 2011 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Sure.
Monta invariably takes a few ridiculous, low-percentage shots every game.
A couple of them go in. When they do, they’re great highlights. If the claim is merely that Monta produces a lot of highlight worthy plays, I don’t think you’d get much argument.
But that’s not the sort of thing that some of us find entertaining. I find, for example, Nash’s play much more entertaining, because I love watching somebody who seems to see the game better than everybody else. I find Blake Griffin’s unbelievable athelticism more entertaining. I find LeBron’s all-around mastery incredibly fascinating.
I also have a hard time appreciating Monta’s highlight plays because of how many times I’ve seen him miss those shots. It’s more relief, at this point, when they go in, than the thrill of the move. Your mileage may vary.
But that’s not the sort of thing that some of us find entertaining. I find, for example, Nash’s play much more entertaining, because I love watching somebody who seems to see the game better than everybody else.
That’s interesting, Ronaldinho. I never thought of it that way. Guys might prefer the more cerebral games than the athletic ones. That’s understandable and fair. Basketball is a graceful game played by many different kinds of players/artists. The Nash-types have entirely different aesthetics than the Monta ones. Although, I must say, in terms of athleticism, I wouldn’t give Griffin the nod over Monta myself. If anything, I look at Griffin as a ginormous version of Monta, but the grace of an attacking David captivates my imagination a lot more than that of a ferocious Goliath.
And you gotta admit, Monta Ellis is the rare player whose misses are more beautiful to watch than the majority else’s best makes.
If anything, I look at Griffin as a ginormous version of Monta, but the grace of an attacking David captivates my imagination a lot more than that of a ferocious Goliath.
Well, the size/strength thing isn’t trivial, because Griffin eats people up, whereas Monta dodges them.
And you gotta admit, Monta Ellis is the rare player whose misses are more beautiful to watch than the majority else’s best makes.
Here’s the thing:
If you can’t make a shot consistently, it’s not beautiful … it’s stupid.
I don’t particularly see the beauty in Monta’s low-percentage in-traffic shots. I see, primarily, the stupidity. To me, the pass to the wide-open, cutting big man who’s defender you just drew is MORE beautiful than the low-percentage shot over two or three people.
When I see a player like the young Jordan attacking the hoop with that kind of ferocious focus, there’s a part of me which says, “wow, I can’t wait to see what he does here.” In Monta’s case, however, I still mostly find myself saying “Oh god, not again -” not because he’s not going to try something spectacular, but because being spectacular, in the absence of production, is counterproductive.
Now, obviously, I don’t feel this way about all of Monta’s shots. It’s really just the times when he drives into a set defense, without even looking to pass and run the offense. But he sometimes gets this little light in his eye, and you can see it coming -
- and no, it’s not beautiful. It’s ugly, selfish, dumb basketball.
There isn’t a player in the NBA in 2011 that’s more creative and/or dynamic than Monta Ellis.
so what? Even if it were true that wasn’t the question. It was who’s more fun to watch. To me it’s more fun to watch different types of players. Stef for instance at the end of last season was fun cause he was doing things that surprised me while Montay always does what I expect him to do.
The players on my list all have something different about them that makes them interesting from Boykin’s peskyness to Jack’s popcorn snatching.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 13, 2011 12:18 AM PST up reply actions
Well,
when I say dynamic, I mean fun/exciting, and Monta’s exciting play is the result of his “creative” forays into the paint for a difficult 2 points and 1.
With all due respect to the various specialized things that make your guys capable basketball players, neither of them are featured on game highlights as prominently as Monta Ellis.
Cool story
Still doesn’t mean Skeptic obviously provoked you.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 13, 2011 8:59 AM PST up reply actions
Yea,
I guess I overreacted. I swear, I really believed he was trying to bait me. Jeremy Lin more exciting than Monta? Really?
But then again, if those are genuinely his feelings, then I have no right to criticize them. Sorry, Skep.
I knew I would take a hit for my comment
But I dont see Monta’s athletic ability as a bad thing. To suggest that lowering your head and charging into the lane is good basketball is not a very complete thought. Maggette’s ability to get to the line was a huge asset. At the same time, Monta has been a black hole, but not nearly the black hole on offense that Maggette was. Maggette got to the line more, but killed the offensive flow even more than Monta, which is really bad imo.
My opinion is that politics has played a part in the Warriors not getting calls the same way that it has played a part in guys like Kobe getting calls. The NBA is much more of an entertainment business than a respectable competative pure sport imo.
In baseball its easier to say OBP is important, Im not so sure it is as important in the NBA. It does matter, but what is the opportunity cost of just trying to draw a foul vs. playing within an offense to score fgs.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 12, 2011 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
but killed the offensive flow even more than Monta
made shots and free throws “kill” offensive flow?
His lack of passing, ball movement, and just holding onto the ball in general killed flow, but I don’t really see those related to his ability to draw the kind of contact refs do call.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
I think most of us were happy to see Maggette go ...
… but ultimately, how much it matters when you kill the offensive flow depends in large part on how often you score.
As for Magette killing it more, well, last year, per 36, Monta took 4 more shots than Corey, and had 1.6 more assists. I’m not exactly sure that jibes with Corey being worse for your offensive flow. This year Monta is shooting less and assisting more, so that’s good, whereas COrey is shooting less and assisting less.
It looks to me like you’re trying to relate issues that I don’t see as related. Maggette does hurt offensive flow, but I don’t see that as related at all to his ability to draw fouls. It’s just who he is as a player. If he played more like Monta – avoiding contact on his drives and not drawing fouls at nearly the same rate – I think he would still hurt an offense’s flow just as much. Basically, it’s not his ability to draw fouls that kills the offensive flow, it’s his penchant to not move well without the ball and to hold on to the ball for a long time (and almost never pass to the open guy because he has almost no passing skills) that hurts the offensive flow. Seperate issues.
My opinion is that politics has played a part in the Warriors not getting calls the same way that it has played a part in guys like Kobe getting calls. The NBA is much more of an entertainment business than a respectable competative pure sport imo.
This is exactly what I think is BS. Refs do a pretty good job. Guess what – reffing basketball is really, really hard. NBA refs do a fine job of consistently making calls across teams and players. Furthermore, I’ve never seen any evidence they don’t, whereas I have seen evidence they do, whereas I have seen some (though maybe not definitive) evidence they do not. Some examples would be something like this:
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/11341/tim-donaghys-tale-of-dick-bavetta
Basically the crap conspiracy theorists out there who believe Donaghy….well, the data shows he’s flat out wrong.
Or this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2857469
Yes, there’s bias. Personally, based on the data reported, I think it’s pretty darn small.
There’s some other stuff like about how many superstars we perceive get calls were good at drawing fouls from the second they came into the league, suggesting it’s an individual trait rather than something about their superstar status. For instance, here’s Kobe’s FT/FGA for his career:
38.98%
50.00%
37.18%
34.08%
36.94%
37.00%
37.02%
45.30%
50.25%
37.50%
43.86%
43.69%
33.01%
34.42%
37.24%
In order from rookie year to present year. Do you see a trend? A big jump? I don’t. His second highest season was his second year in the league. So yes, I think it’s one of those things humans tend to see that doesn’t actaully exist. There’s lots of evidence humans see patterns in things that are completely random. It’s how our brains work. I think that’s what the whole “superstar call” thing mostly is – people making something of nothing. The same kind of thing that makes every fanbase think refs treat their team unfairly – if you polled fans from every team after every game if the refs helped their team or the other team more with how they called it, I guarantee you the response would overwhelmingly be the refs helped the other team (from the fans of both sides). That’s just how we see things. Doesn’t make it the truth, though.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
meh it's pretty simple to me
Kobe got calls in his run without Shaq for a bit. After that he hasn’t been getting calls at all. He was getting killed when he was playing Cavs last year or Knicks this year (just 2 examples of most obvious bias against him) and he got no calls at all.
kinda like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6rl4-7YtXo
lebron is THE definition of superstar calls.
So now Kobe can’t even get calls…? What does the term “superstar calls” even mean if Kobe doesn’t qualify? As for the video….I don’t want to watch a full 6 minute video, but I watched the first minute, and I don’t see the problem. First play, look what he does – he does acrobats in the air to avoid contact, and the refs don’t call it. No surprise there. Next play is Kobe moving off the ball. Well guess what, there is actual contact that goes on in NBA games that refs let go. Lots of off ball contact isn’t called. So what. Next play the dude goes straight up. That’s good defense and not a foul. I stopped there.
And yeah, Lebron gets calls cause he goes straight for the rim and doesn’t avoid contact, because why would he? He’s bigger and faster than everyone. So he gets calls – the same kind of calls Corey Maggette gets by being stronger/quicker than the guy guarding him and going right at the rim.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
(Oh forgot the flagrant foul thing, that’s just a dumb thing to complain about)
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
What do these numbers mean?
Perhaps I am mixing issues with Maggette, it is part of his complete package, and his ability to draw fouls does not mean he couldnt pass more and run the offense more, I’ll give you that. But it is part of his package to hold the ball, lower his head, and go for the foul, and he’s good at it.
For instance, here’s Kobe’s FT/FGA for his career:
What is FT?… Attempts, makes, trips to the line? What is the context?… What is the league average for example? What percentage of fouls called against Kobe are in the act of shooting vs. non-shooting fouls?
I dont see how these numbers show there is no bias from the refs without more explanation. I do notice a jump for a bout 5 years up to around 45% (except for one year in that span), I didnt bother to look up what years and what Lakers team those were.
I guarantee you the response would overwhelmingly be the refs helped the other team (from the fans of both sides).
I dont think most fans would give an honest answer. Most fans of superstars I know dont admit to the biased calls, but they often have a little guilty laugh of acknowledgement. Similarly, I think if you asked everyone in prison what they did, most would say they’re innocent. I wouldnt depend on those answers to be reliable sources.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 13, 2011 9:14 AM PST up reply actions
FTA’s, my bad. And of course more data is needed to come to definitive conclusions, but there is clearly no obvious trend there. People talk about superstar calls like they obviously exist. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence for it, whereas there really is evidence against it.
I wouldnt depend on those answers to be reliable sources.
That’s kind of what I’m getting at. Fans aren’t really a source for reliability on these things. That people perceive that superstars get calls means very little to me. I want real evidence. I see none, whereas there is at least some evidence against it, even if it’s not completely definitive.
But it is part of his package to hold the ball, lower his head, and go for the foul, and he’s good at it.
True, but it is possibly to play like that within a team context, and that’s what’s important. Maggette doesn’t, but that’s because…well, it’s because of Maggette, not because he’s good at getting to the line. Driving and looking for contact doesn’t have to involve being a movement killing black hole.
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Similar to Monta’s FG% compared to TS%. Efficiency is good, you just have to look at the right measure of it.
I thought about this and I still dont get it. If he is a league leading scorer, and doing it efficiently (fg%), then why does it matter whether he is driving, hitting jump shots, threes, or free throws to get those points? I think it would matter based on the type of team offense you want and a guy who can do more would give you more options. He is doing all of the above btw, just not getting to the line. If he is doing what he does efficiently, why does his lack of getting to the line make him less of a value? I recognize the benefit of putting the other team in foul trouble, but the Warriors have not been able to do that for over a decade (except for Maggette). I think part of that is the organization, and part is a lack of respect from the refs, but thats not my point of this reply.
The OBP makes sense to me because you are looking at how often a guy gets on base, not just how often he uses his bat to get on base. And that is important because of the dynamics of baseball where you need your teamates to bat you in. More often a team has guys on base, gives the team a higher chance of scoring. With basketball once you score, you score, thats it. So doesnt PPG tell us how often a guy scores? If anything, Monta getting to the line less than other league leading scorers means he is actually making more shots to compensate for lack of points from FTs. I dont understand how this makes him less valuable.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 13, 2011 9:30 AM PST up reply actions
I thought about this and I still dont get it. If he is a league leading scorer, and doing it efficiently (fg%), then why does it matter whether he is driving, hitting jump shots, threes, or free throws to get those points?
This is where I think you get it, you just have the wrong measure of efficiency. Take out the FG% part of the sentence and replace it with a better measure of efficiency and I’d agree.
The OBP makes sense to me because you are looking at how often a guy gets on base, not just how often he uses his bat to get on base.
Right, and to me, I think it’s a great analogy. Similar to how OBP looks at how often a guys gets on base (as opposed to what method he uses to get on base), in basketball you need to look at how many points a guy is scoring per possession he shoots, not just the number of shots he hits on FGA’s. Think of basketball in terms of possessions – a team gets a certain number of possessions a game, so what determines how many points you score is how many points you score on each possession you have. If you make a 3, you get more points than if you make a 2. Similar, if you get fouled and go to the line, you can score either 0, 1, 2 or 3 (or even 4) points from those FTA’s, depending on the situation, and then the other team gets the ball. So what matters isn’t how often you make a shot, but how many points you score on each possession. That’s what TS% and points per possession (2 different measures of the same thing) tell you – how many points the player scores per possession they shoot the ball. A 3 pointer counts as one possession. A 2 pointer counts as one possession. A trip to the line counts as one possession, because that’s what they all are. So in a given number of possessions, how many points does the player score? That’s what really matters when it comes to efficiency.
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Because Iverson crossed Jordan up? Because he was the kind of guy that always got a lot of publicity whereas Monta was a 2nd rounder nobody had ever heard of straight out of HS who’s played on the irrelevant Warriors his whole career? I dunno. Some people invite publicity, other people don’t, and sometimes outside factors (like what team you’re on) play a big role in that. If you’re talking strictly about them as a player…well, a lot of the same people around here who think PPG overrates Monta will also tell you Iverson was overrated as a player (he was)….
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Allen Iverson didn’t have Monta’s defensive issues because he was a legitimate point guard. Iverson had a tremendous amount of hype coming into the league – he was a huge celebrity, especially to young blacks. Iverson played on some good teams, which helps. He was a much better assist man.
He was actually worse as a scorer, but back then people had a harder time looking past PPG.
And Iverson was hugely overrated.
In the year they went to the Finals, Iverson got to play SG while also playing PG defensively (since they had a big, defensive minded PG to take the SG), a role many around here have suggested would best fit Monta….
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
College Hype + Controversial + First pick in draft + Scoring champ + Finals appearance = Superstar status
whether it’s fair or not, it is what it is.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
How was Allen Iverson a superstar and Monta is not even a star.
Looks and personality. Iverson was the cool kid on the block who knew the true effect of practice versus skills while Montay is the klutzy kid who fell off his moped.
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 12, 2011 3:24 PM PST up reply actions
This
Allen Iverson had a big influence on the direction of the NBA (changing of the guard). And it is as much if not more an entertainment business as much as a pure competative sport.
by WestCoastWarrior on Jan 13, 2011 9:35 AM PST up reply actions
Ha
Just because you make up statistics doesn’t make them true. He’s better than over 50% of the list above him… it’s not even disputable.
Don’t make me pull game logs where he iit up half these guys who are ‘defensive specialists’
Don’t make me pull game logs where he iit up half these guys who are ‘defensive specialists’
Will those game logs include missed shots?
Nobody doubts Monta’s ability to explode for a huge number of points on the right night.
Are you really saying, at this point, that you still think that defines the better player?
No
I’m saying someone who makes up advanced stats with NO validity, and pumps there blog as factual is spamming. I’m tired of it, quite frankly. It’s unprofessional and reflected poorly on GSoM.
And for the record-
vs. Landry Fields (first time)
ME: 22 points, 7-16, 6 assists, (2 TOs), 2 rebounds, 4 steals
LF: 11 points, 5-7, 1 assists (3 TOs) 6 rebounds
vs. Landry Fields (second time)
ME: 40 points, 17-30, 5 assists (4 tos), 3 rebounds, 3 steals
LF: 9 points, 3-7, 1 assists (3 TOs), 8 rebounds, 0 steals
Vs. Houston
Do I really need to bring up his lines v. KMart? He won 2 out of 3
V. Chicago
ME: 24 points, 10-20 fg, 5 assists (4tos), 5 rebound
RB: 2 points 1-4, 1 assist (1 TO), 2 rebounds
I can continue going….
MArquis Daniels, JJ Reddick, Shannon Brown? U won’t even justify those… all are nice bench players, possibly capable of more but NOT better than a player who plays the whole game. Sure I’ll; readily admit, Kobe, Wade, Ginobili, Ray Allen are better than him. Maybe a couple others who I forgot. But this list is a joke and takes out context of many mitigating factors such as I dunno, SURROUNDING PLAYERS.
by tafkasam on Jan 12, 2011 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
fwiw
I tend to agree about the bech players. Hard to say for sure they are better, until they get starting roles.
Taking those out of it, you don’t have much of an argument, since we probably agree on most of the others ranked ahead of Monta.
So, thanks for being completely irrational and hyperreactive.
Interesting
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
For the record I don't think Monta is going to make it
And if I did rank, I’d probably have him 5th/6th best guard in West. So maybe he doesn’t deserve it. Manu is the best SG. I really have a hard time putting Kobe ahead of Monta on this season too, but it’s close.
KMart is probably the only one you and I will disagree when.
so
all that insulting for what?
next time, take a deep breath before you rant.
by Evanz on Jan 12, 2011 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It was fairly reasonable for him to think you were arguing Marquis Daniels, JJ Reddick, and Shannon Brown are in fact better than Monta
just saying
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying they're not either
just that I have less confidence in players not getting as many minutes
Oh no you aren't saying that
but you threw up the list saying saying Monta is the “15th best of the season” and that was it, nothing else except a link to a list with Monta ranked behind Marquis Daniels, JJ Reddick, and Shannon Brown up above Monta.
Just saying, it’s reasonable for one to think you were saying those players in fact better NBA players (although to be fair I just kind of read it as “they are contributing more per minute than Monta is this year”) so it’s not terribly shocking you got some blowback.
. You only said the rest after the fact.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
ug should have spell checked
story of my life
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
and pumps there blog as factual is spamming. I’m tired of it, quite frankly. It’s unprofessional and reflected poorly on GSoM.
shouldn’t that be that there blog, Frank?
Lights please, lights please, turn off the lights.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 12, 2011 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
Really now?
Try going thru my posts before you make such comments. I think most long term posters would disagree with that. I just don’t accept every advanced statistic as gospel.
My view on statistics might be different than yours. I view them as a valuable TOOL of analysis. but it is just a tool. It is not an explanation. Fact: player with low TS% is an inefficient scorer/detrimental to his team. Now the better question is WHY? Is he because his supporting cast isn’t strong forcing him to overtake? IS he overly selfish? Or just does he continue to take low percentage shots, and over a large sample size it’s expected he won’t change.
Thats why I won’t say a player with a higher TS% is a better scorer necessarily. He might be, but it isn’t THAT simple from my perspective.
Then defensive metrics, that’s a bigger headache, which I’m deeply skeptical on.
Now I apologize for coming across aggressive/attacking. Yes I’ve read your blog and your mission statement. I applaud you for trying to find new ways of analysis. But the way you post it, as fact, without consideration for mitigating factors. So please consider fact your statistics are a work in progress and hardly be all/end all.
I consider everything I do as a work in progress
I’ve said so countless times on the blog, but not every time. If you don’t understand how the stats are calculated, just ask.
saw Ronnie Brewer and Vince Carter ahead of Kobe and Kevin Martin
closed it. Will not recommend to friends or family.
by HerFavColor on Jan 12, 2011 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It really bugs me when people see an answer they don’t like and just dismiss it completely without making any effort to understand what the answer is actually saying or why it’s giving you the answer it is….
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If he is going to direct people to his blog, he should expect people to challenge what he has came up with. Whether or not they understand it or not, it’s pretty much free game. He can get all mad and upset or just ignore it and keep doing what he’s doing.
Ignoring GovernorStephCurry from now on so I don't get banned!!!
by HerFavColo(u)r on Jan 12, 2011 2:32 PM PST up reply actions
I have no problem with challenging it. I have a problem with openly dismissing it like it’s objectively wrong/provides no valuable information whatsoever, without providing an argument for why it should be dismissed. I’m actually curious myself why Vince Carter is so high. With Brewer it’s at least easy to see – he’s getting a lot of defensive credit, which given that he’s on the #1 defensive team in the league, is at least easy to see where it comes from, even if one were to disagree with how much credit he should be getting for it.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
I agree about Carter
it surprises me that he’s so high – appears to be primarily two things: 1) he gets credit for defense that is probably due to Howard 2) A huge proportion of his field goals are unassisted (65%).
Ah I see. So even though I don’t think Carter is accurately ranked, knowing what he’s done to get where he is on your list is something I still find interesting and worthwhile.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
what's the challenge?
throwing your hands up in the air or shouting at me isn’t a challenge.
A challenge would be for you to read the blog, understand the methodology, and come up with a flaw in the reasoning.
I’d say there’s very little chance you did any of those three things. amiright?
glad you won't recommend Ronnie Brewer or Vince Carter to friends or family
they can be dangerous influences.
Most Overated Team in the NBA
Center – Dwight Howard (go watch film on a Hakeem, or at least a younger Shaq instead of doing impersonations)
PF – Kevin Garnett
SF – Carmelo?
SG – Vince Carter
PG – Russell Westbrook – (great player, but over hyped, a better athlete than a PG who is lucky to play in an up and down system)
In what way is Kevin Garnett overrated?
I disagree about Howard and Westbrook as well, but calling Garnett overrated is so laughably wrong that I can’t let it slide.
In the post-Jordan NBA, the two best players have been Duncan and Garnett, and it’s pretty much a toss-up between those two. Duncan’s won more titles because he’s played for a better organization who have surrounded him with better pieces, but Garnett was able to carry some of the scrubbiest teams into the playoffs for 8 straight years with the T-Wolves. The one year they gave him a team that almost resembled a quality supporting cast, he took them to the conference finals. In Boston, despite his body breaking down from being one of the hardest working players in the league for over a decade, he’s played with real NBA players for the first time and lead them to a championship and another finals appearance. So far this year, the Celtics are 24-6 in games he’s played and 4-3 in games he hasn’t.
Unless people have been saying KG could single handedly beat a team of Magic, Jordan, Bird, Russell, and Chamberlin 1-on-5 and all in their prime, I find it hard to believe he’s overrated.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
KG is great, no question about it
But he isn;t the player he used to be by any stretch of the imagination but is still talked about by the media as if he still is. He is one of my favorite big men of all time – I just think that currently he is over rated.
Westbrook is good, but he is over rated by the media right now imo. He is a great athlete but is talked about as if he is the next CP3 these days
It’s true KG has declined significantly, but he’s also at that point in his career where the dude just knows how to play. Does the little things like rotating on defense and consistently being in the right place on offense, passes well, etc. Great team player.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
I’d actually put Duncan and Shaq 1/2 (in whatever order pleases you) myself, with KG #3.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I almost included Shaq with them
But I have him a slight step below.
Apparenlty, Dirk should be up there, too, but I think Win Shares might slightly overrate him. Also, I remember either reading in Mathletics or on his blog or seeing it in a video of a presentation he gave, but Wayne Winston has Garnett and Duncan 1 and 2 for the decade in his +/- system. So there’s that too.
I guess it also depends on how you think of it. I was sort of thinking of it as, if I was starting a team in 1998, and I could pick one player to build around who would give me the most overall success through 2010. Shaq (and Lebron) had the highest ceiling over that time but you’d probably win the most games with Duncan or Garnett on your team.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
Given thsoe criteria, I’d still stick with my rankings. ;)
Though I guess the age thing works against Shaq.
by Missing Barry on Jan 13, 2011 7:04 AM PST up reply actions
KG is definitely not overrated. Westbrook is great. The only thing he doesnt do very well is score, but that’s fine, he’s a phenomenal defender.
Westbrook is an ok scorer
Not great but average efficiency. When you consider everything else he does, it’s ok. And he’s slowly improving. What he needs to do is learn to turn it over less
how can VC be overrated?
he’s not even really rated anymore, he just got traded like he was twice-eaten spinach.
In what way is Dwight Howard overrated? Have you noticed how good the Magic have been in the last few years, despite turning over pretty much their entire roster? No, he’s not the offensive player Shaq was, but he’s a much bigger defensive presence (and I remember Shaq as a definite defensive presence), and honestly, the difference in their offense is probably pretty close to the difference in their defense.
KG is also great, not sure how he’s overrated. Also not sure why you’re down on Westbrook, he might not be the greatest pure point out there, but the dude is still a playmaker.
by Missing Barry on Jan 12, 2011 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
The Warriors PR department is good but when it comes to this issue they are terrible. Besides the Dennis Scott interview Monta has not been on any National sports shows. He should be doing interviews on First Take aswell as PTI and Jim Rome. Steph Curry did all those shows last year and he was not in the running for anything at the time not even ROY.
technically
that might have more to do with Monta
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
steph curry was sought after
because of his career in college, his dad being a former player, and his sweet shooting and well spoken demeanor. Warriors probably had to do very little to hype him
Monta needs to be Monta
he is playing great right now, he is the leader of the team, he has a great attitude and is playing well with his team mates. If “selling” himself isn’t natural to him and he just wants to let his game speak for itself – why criticize it? I’d rather a guys work on his game than his post game interview (um, Dwight Howard).
It may mean he doesn’t get all star game or commercials, but as a guy who seems to play better when he has something to prove – this may benefit the team more regardless. The all star game, as we all know, is a freaking joke anyways. It would be nice to seem him picked, if only to give dubs a bit of hype and to symbolize his return from the abyss, but with the way he plays – a weekend of rest may be better.
was this in response to my "technically" comment?
If so, wasn’t blaming Monta or criticizing him for it.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 12, 2011 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
more a critique of Rusty Simmons
he is always trying to stir stuff up on the warriors – create drama where there is none.
at top of season Monta was asked how good the team will be and he said, “we’ll see”. an honest response that Rusty tried to equate with Monta’s “can’t play with him” comment from the year before. Rusty is clearly no fan of Monta.
the newspaper industry in a nutshell
Or we could argue, media bias towards the more charming/personable curry and dlee
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)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
