Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

What are players worth?

Watching the Chandler numbers jumping around, and some people freaking out because they don't want to pay him that much, and others freaking out because they want to pay him more so we get him, I've been thinking about how to fairly evaluate how much a player is worth.

The cap is about $58m. Most teams end up spending a little over the cap. But lets break this down.

A "max" salary varies, based on experience, but I'm going to take the middle level and say that a max salary starts at about $17.5m.

Now, for starters, I'm going to suggest that the truly elite players (Howard, LeBron, KD, etc) are actually *underpaid*. Why do I say this? Simple - there's a max salary. You see teams happy to go far over the max - eg Kobe's contract will pay him $30m. KG's pays him $21m. But clearly basic economics suggests that the presence of a cap means that some players getting the cap will be underpaid.

Second, the very worst players in the league are probably overpaid. Same principle - there's a salary floor. The worst players in the league are not much better than the best players not in the league, who would happily do the job for less.

Third, I'd like to posit that there's not a smooth, linear continuum of player value. Even aside from the previous two points, if the best player in the league is worth the max, and the worst player is worth the min, the middle player in the league is NOT worth halfway between the min and the max. In fact, I'd suggest that there are, roughly, a couple of tiers:

eg "Elite Players" - LeBron, Howard, KD, etc. Clearly worth the max. Call them group one.

eg "Replacement-level players" clearly worth the min. Call them group six.

I'm going to posit three other categories of players. Obviously, these categories are a little rough.

Group two: "Really really good guys who aren't truly elite." Chandler and Nene are in this category, for example. Probably Amare, too. Manu Ginobili, probably. Bynum.

Group three: "Quality starters" - guys who are better than the opposing starter more often than not. Boozer. I'd put Curry in this group, although we're all hoping he'll grow into group two. Deng, probably. Lamarcus ALdridge. Danny Granger.

Group four: "Spot starters/quality backups." Guys like Dorell go here.

Group five: Back of rotation guys - Amundson, etc.

Now, I don't want to quibble about a lot of specific evaluations of guys, just talking in abstract building a team.

It seems to me that to be in title contention, you need 1 group one guy, 1-2 group 2 guys, 2-3 group 3 guys, 2-3 group four guys, 2-3 group five guys, and you fill out your roster with the replacement level players.

Now you can always add a player at the minimum, so we can actually exclude the group six guys from salary cap consideration.

Now, the cap is $58m, but nobody actually spends that little to win a title. The actual cost of a title team is much closer to $70m. So let's use that number, which is still just below the tax.

You pay your elite guy 18m.

$52m.

You have two group 2 guys averaging $13m. (That seems to be the going rate for guys like Chandler, Nene, etc).

That leaves $26m.

Two group three guys at $7m, average, each.

That leaves $12m.

Round out your rotation with two group four guys at $4m each, leaving $4m. You add two group five guys at $2m each, and then add players at the minimum to fill up your roster.

Ideally, say, this is a team that looks like KD (group 1), Chandler and Amare (group 2), Curry and Igoudala (group 3), with Dorell and Rony Turiaf (group four) coming off the bench Amundson as your emergency backup big man. Maybe Iggy's a group two, so what about Deng or someone like that?

That's a title team, isn't it? Heck, I'd say that's a running-away-with-the-title team, most years. Couple of question marks (backup point guard, for example) and they'd want to go over the tax to solidify their depth, but that's a really really good team, no?

Why am I going through all these contortions? Simple:

If you agree that Chandler is a group two guy (and I think he clearly is) then something in the $14-15m range is totally reasonable for him - especially when you consider that he's a group two guy at the most important position on the floor.

The big problem with overpaying is paying someone over their "slot." So for example Monta (a group four guy) is getting paid like a group two guy. And Lee (a group three guy) is getting paid like a group two guy. Biedrins (a group five guy) is being paid like a group three guy.

Going beyond that, however, I'd say that the fact that my hypothetical team is likely to be some dominant means that, in practice, you can overpay a couple of players and still be in contention.

In other words, the problem isn't particularly any one contract (and it's not Chandler at $15m). The problem is consistently paying players a group or two above their actual quality. You see this all over the place - Carmelo, Boozer, Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay, etc.

But if stars are underpaid because of the max salary, I have a real hard time looking at Chandler at $15m and thinking that contract is a problematic overpay.

This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!

Comment 120 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Chandler at $14-15M isn't an overpay in every situation.

For a team that already has it’s one and three in place (or even just a one), it’s perfectly fine. For a team like GSW, which is already a mess and lacks a superstar, it’s a commitment to mediocrity.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 8, 2011 11:19 AM PST reply actions   2 recs

Don't disagree.

But as part of a strategy to get Paul I don’t think it’s a problem.

Of course, that seems a little less likely now.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 8, 2011 11:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Thinking about this makes me really aware of how the deck is stacked against bad teams.

It feels like a catch-22.

You can’t build a contender-minus-a-star because you’ll be over the cap and have no flexibility. But a star won’t want to come to a team which has the flexibility, because they won’t have enough talent.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 8, 2011 11:39 AM PST up reply actions  

…and without a “Group 1” salary on the books, you never get the chance to truly rebuild once his time is done by getting all that money coming off the books, trading it for draft picks, or what have you.

Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!

by Supafishal on Dec 8, 2011 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Pretty much, which is why the draft is so crucial.

Either you draft your own superstar, or you acquire enough pieces to trade for one.

Free agency really isn’t the optimal path for a team like GSW.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 8, 2011 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Agreed, a thousandfold.

by Uwe Blog on Dec 9, 2011 12:52 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Exactly why small-market owners were hellbent on limiting player movement.

Formerly ffgolden.

by ivanbe on Dec 10, 2011 10:49 PM PST up reply actions  

nice try, look at the actual results of the lockout though

small market owners were much more interested in grabbing money

if the owners really cared about parity, limiting player movement, etc., they would have given some money back in exchange for some of those “system issues”

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 13, 2011 4:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Caron Butler is not worth 3/24

_______________________________________________________________
The City: Is A Grown Man NBA Blog
Follow @thecity2
Like thecity2 on Facebook

"Also, Evanz’ posts are easiest to hide while working. The chats and graphs can look like actual work related data to the lazy walker-by’s eye" (tafkasam)

by Evanz on Dec 8, 2011 12:40 PM PST reply actions  

Yeah. Caron's a group four guy who maybe eeks into group three in his best years.

$8m per is an overpay.

OTOH, if they have their group 1 guy (Griffin) and their group two guys (Gordon, Jordan) then maybe they can afford to overpay for guys lower down the pay scale. That being said, Griffin is not yet a group 1 guy and Jordan is not yet a group two guy.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 8, 2011 1:10 PM PST up reply actions  

I think it shows that they don't like Aminu very much

_______________________________________________________________
The City: Is A Grown Man NBA Blog
Follow @thecity2
Like thecity2 on Facebook

"Also, Evanz’ posts are easiest to hide while working. The chats and graphs can look like actual work related data to the lazy walker-by’s eye" (tafkasam)

by Evanz on Dec 8, 2011 1:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Aminu is very raw

he makes beautiful plays sometimes (especially layups), but sometimes he makes you bang your head into a wall repeatedly. Kinda like Randolph, but not as good.

by SDtotheBay on Dec 8, 2011 1:48 PM PST up reply actions  

but griffin isnt making group 1 money and Gordon isnt making group 2 money so overpaying for bulter isnt bad move

by cazzuno on Dec 8, 2011 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Not sure I agree that Chandler is clearly a group 2 guy, especially if you look at his play before last season.

I always figured the money he was getting was basically a bonus for helping get Paul over here. Without Paul, giving Chandler 4 yr/ $60 mil scared the hell out of me.

by ERock386 on Dec 8, 2011 3:11 PM PST reply actions  

Really his only other quality seasons were with CP3 as his PG

I don’t know that it’s group 2 quality, especially when he only plays 25-30 min per game (at most). You really want to spend $15 mil per year on an aging center averaging 9-9 and playing those minutes?

by ERock386 on Dec 8, 2011 10:08 PM PST up reply actions  

I’m with you. I see Chandler as a group 3 guy.

by Uwe Blog on Dec 9, 2011 12:55 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

CP3 disagrees

I read an article recently (maybe from David West) that talked about how disappointed their core was when the Hornets let Chandler go

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 13, 2011 4:45 PM PST up reply actions  

What's your definition of quality?

Chandler has always been a high efficiency, high rebound rate player. He didn’t get a lot of minutes in Chicago, but his per36 numbers have been relatively consistent throughout his career.

His best years were with CP3, sure, but they were also his athletic prime. It’s difficult to separate the two.

(note that he was the same player in Charlotte that he was in New Orleans, the only real difference being his defensive rebound rate which is explained by Gerald Wallace being alive).

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 1:55 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you need to look at what group 2 is. If Lamarcus Aldridge and Danny Granger are group 3, how is Chandler group 2?

And I’m glad he’s efficient, but do you really want to pay that much for a guy that’s only efficient for about 27 min per game? Not to mention his limitations of offense. Don’t forget- this guy was traded for an expiring contract just a year ago.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 3:31 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you're fixating on the number of minutes thing.

The truth is very few big men play 36 minutes a game.

Noah played under 33. Horford played 35, and Howard played 37.

After that?

There are a lot of starting centers in the league who play 30-ish minutes a game. Nene 30.5, Perkins 25ish. Deandre Jordan 25ish.

I think that most guys who are that big just aren’t built to get up and down the court that many times a game.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't think I'm fixating on it

It’s just one of several things that makes me skeptical that he’s truly worth $15 mil per year.

But since that’s your main problem with my response, I will elaborate. Chandler is not currently old by NBA standards. But he is getting old by big man standards, who generally don’t play late into their careers. His minutes are likely to be fewer and fewer due to physical limitations and what appears to be a pretty high foul rate.

I’d rather invest that kind of money into someone who will be on the court for a high number of minutes. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable argument.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 2:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Chandler is not currently old by NBA standards. But he is getting old by big man standards, who generally don’t play late into their careers.

don’t big men tend to last longer in the league? guards are useless once they start to lose their quickness. big men don’t lose their size.

by bigkino217 on Dec 9, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Knees/back can’t handle it. Some guys are physical freaks and somehow hold up. Most don’t. Look at Greg Oden’s body- couldn’t even hold up past age 20. Or Yao Ming.

But yes, longevity does depend a lot on what skills can be maintained into late age and which skills are age-dependent. For example, I think some guards may become useless after losing their quickness, but others that are more reliant on their jumpshot can play much longer.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 4:10 PM PST up reply actions  

there are many more guards and wings that have played in the nba than big men, yet 6 of the 10 oldest players in the nba played either PF or C. a very large percentage of guards and wings are replaced by younger, quicker players when they start losing their quickness, big men aren’t as easily replaceable so they tend to last longer in the league

by bigkino217 on Dec 9, 2011 4:53 PM PST up reply actions  

that's a pretty small sample size to make any definitive conclusions

There’s also a higher number of guards/wings coming in each year (as you said), so that could account for the lack of older players. Big men are hard to come by so they’ll often be able to hang on past their prime, but that doesn’t change that their bodies don’t hold up as well.

You bring up some interesting points, but I’ve always thought it was common knowledge that big men generally don’t hold up well over time. I’ll see if I can find an article on this.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

the 10 oldest was the only list i could find

but i feel like a majority of the oldest players in the league are big men. very few guards and wings are still in the league well into their 30s. a good amount of the ones that are were superstars at one point. i think i remember reading somewhere that the average career of an nba player lasts 3-4 years, but even mediocre-to-bad big can last in the league longer than that (e.g. Jason Collins).

in the end i’m not arguing that they don’t break down quicker, just that they tend to last longer in the league.

by bigkino217 on Dec 9, 2011 6:32 PM PST up reply actions  

This is why size is so valuable.

Size trumps athleticism and skill in value most of the time. Why? It’s super effective and it’s rare. That’s why Chandler and Jordan are commanding such high offers. That’s why the Blazers still want to commit to Oden. That’s why bigs can play longer. They can always play above other players.

As risky of a prospect going after Deandre is, I’m for it. yes, he’s raw, but he has level 1-2 calibre size, level 2-4 potential/upside, and he’s already a solid level 4. This is one of the two positions where aggressive speculation is necessary if you don’t luck out in the draft.

Big Baby Jesus 2012

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Dec 9, 2011 7:27 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

The wing guys who stick around ...

… develop new weapons, like Jordan’s turnaround/fadeaway. But that’s actually pretty rare.

Big guys, even without their athleticism, can be effective players (not exactly the same, but look at Yao in his last year. Decent halfcourt player with no speed, no ability to get up and down the court).

I wonder if the perception that big guys break down has more to do with the fact that they play when they’re older, so we see more of them limping up and down the court.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 7:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I wonder if the perception that big guys break down has more to do with the fact that they play when they’re older, so we see more of them limping up and down the court.

entirely possible. it makes perfect sense.

by bigkino217 on Dec 9, 2011 8:25 PM PST up reply actions  

And what are his offensive limitations?

He’s a guy that takes shots he can make, and makes them at an incredibly high rate.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions  

I’ll give the guy credit for clearly playing within his limitations, but let’s just say he has “at the rim” range. He’s not a guy you can just feed in the post.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 3:03 PM PST up reply actions  

That's a problem?

His value lies in his defense and rebounding, and his ability to finish open looks around the rim. Obviously a team would be constructed around that.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 4:07 PM PST up reply actions  

I never said he couldn’t defend or rebound. I simply said he’s limited as an offensive player. I don’t get what your beef is here.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 4:12 PM PST up reply actions  

No beef. I'm just curious.

It seems that you’re implying Chandler’s offensive limitations means he can’t be an elite or near-elite player.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 4:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Near-elite: maybe

But not elite. My main point all along has been that he’s not worth the money that he’s being offered, and Iv’e had that view even when it looked like the W’s were going to get him.

My other problem: if you want argue he’s elite or near-elite, do you believe he will still be such by the end of his contract?

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 6:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Well near-elite puts him in group 2, doesn't it?

I think $14M for Chandler from the Warriors is overpaying. I think $14M for Chandler from the Mavericks or the Heat, etc. is not. It’s about marginal value. Chandler is a guy that can take a team from 50 wins to 60ish, from a first round maybe to a title contender. For a team in that position, his contract makes sense.

For a team as bad as the Warriors (for whom added wins are easier to come by), paying that premium for Chandler doesn’t make sense.

My other problem: if you want argue he’s elite or near-elite, do you believe he will still be such by the end of his contract?

Obviously I don’t know. He has had a history of injuries that would make me pause a bit (but nothing like Yao or Oden, of course), but I think that, if a team were in position to win a title by adding him, his contract would be worth it.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 6:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Good point

If Chandler is elite, then you figure the Knicks have 3 elite or near-elite players.

by ERock386 on Dec 10, 2011 1:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Ok.

But you have 1 near elite player in Chandler, and 2 very good players surrounding him?

Ron Paul 2012

by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 11, 2011 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't think Amare and Melo are very good either.

I think Melo can be good, but I’m pretty convinced that Amare is only slightly above average at this point. Defense matters.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 11, 2011 6:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Do you think Chandler can make them better defenders.

If they can get their defense to average (they have the tools) they could be very good players.

Anyways, how good do you see the Knicks being this year?

Ron Paul 2012

by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 11, 2011 6:51 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm interested to see if he can.

I don’t really know. I imagine he will (they can’t really get much worse), or at least erase a good portion of their mistakes.

Anyways, how good do you see the Knicks being this year?

That depends. I don’t think they’re done moving pieces around quite yet, but it’s hard to see them being very good if Toney Douglas and Mike Bibby are their point guards (unless Toney makes a big leap in his third year, which is possible).

Still, the East is pretty thin behind the Heat/Bulls/Celtics, so I could see them fighting for the 4th seed (if Dwight leaves Orlando). But I’d hesitate to call them serious contenders at this point.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 12, 2011 1:28 AM PST up reply actions  

wow

Chandler is elite, but Melo is not and Amare is slightly above average?

by ERock386 on Dec 11, 2011 7:08 PM PST up reply actions  

They're both very good offensive players

Who give almost all of their value back on the defensive end. Chandler provides value on both sides of the ball.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 12, 2011 1:23 AM PST up reply actions  

There is more to the game than scoring.

I think Amare probably qualifies for near-elite status. He is, at least, an elite scorer – and having one elite skill is something.

(Career: 22.8 pts/36 with a .599TS%).

Carmelo, on the other hand, is a good scorer but simply not in the same class because of his lower efficiency. Again, not saying he’s a bad offensive player – clearly he’s not – but his points cost you more than Amare’s.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 12, 2011 9:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Well, I think a near-elite big man is worth over $13m.

Will he be by the end of his contract?

He’s 29. Four years from now he’ll be 33. He’ll slip a little, I suspect, but he’ll still be a group 3 guy. 33 isn’t that old for a guy like him.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 7:44 PM PST up reply actions  

It amazes me how bad a job GMs have done of avoiding back-loaded deals.

David Lee’s deal wouldn’t be half as bad if it was a flat deal. Can you imagine how bad Biedrins and MOnta’s deals would be if they had the escalators built in?

by Ronaldinho on Dec 10, 2011 10:45 AM PST up reply actions  

i really think the only people that justify escalating contracts

are the superstars that aren’t nearing the end of their prime

by bigkino217 on Dec 10, 2011 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

For the record, I did not say he was near-elite. I said maybe.

My way of saying he is not near-elite, but I’m willing to concede that he might be since you guys seem convinced that he is.

by ERock386 on Dec 10, 2011 1:17 AM PST up reply actions  

What are players worth?

All contracts are relative, it depends on what kind of impact that particular player will have on your team…

I can tell you this much ,one Paul does not equal 5 Curry’s on this team, that’s for sure…

by Cryptic on Dec 8, 2011 5:46 PM PST reply actions  

This is a good way to look at it.

Nene is on that group 2 level but closer to 1 than 2. I think the best chance this team has at winning is getting 3 or 4 type 2 guys, and eventually trading them for a disgruntled star. A team with Nene, Chandler, and Curry could easily be a top 3 team in this conference in my opinion.

Ron Paul 2012

by GovernorStephCurry on Dec 8, 2011 8:26 PM PST reply actions  

Nene is closer to 1 than a 2?

In what world do you live in?

This is a player who’s never averaged 15 points. Who’s never averaged 8 rebounds. Let alone gotten close to 20/10. Who’s offensive game is based on getting great 1-on-1 opportunities. Who’s defense, while good, is far from elite. Saying he’s more of a 1 than a 2 is like saying he’s the very next step down from guys like Garnett and Duncan in their best years. Um…no. Not even close.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on Dec 11, 2011 11:40 PM PST up reply actions  

TK said in his recent article that the Warriors would have given Chandler 4/56

but they were not willing to give Nene 4/60

WTF are they thinking? I’m going to be supremely pissed if Nene signs with Indiana or Houston for that amount.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: Is A Grown Man NBA Blog
Follow @thecity2
Like thecity2 on Facebook

"Also, Evanz’ posts are easiest to hide while working. The chats and graphs can look like actual work related data to the lazy walker-by’s eye" (tafkasam)

by Evanz on Dec 9, 2011 7:11 AM PST reply actions  

I'm already pissed.

If the reports of the Nets’ offer are true, and that’s really what Nene is getting, then I don’t understand the Warriors’ position /at all/.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 11:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Calling Monta a "group 4 guy" is absurd.

What IS it with you people being on Curry’s high horse all the time. When Monta played with a good point guard (Baron), he made a splash as a group 2 guy with the potential to be a superstar. Replace his point guard with the golden child and his numbers fall off due to offensive scheme, and you wanna hold HIM accountable? Monta is clearly better playing the 2-guard position off the ball. The reason he gets the ball in his hands on every play is because Curry is not a good enough PG to run the offense. Putting too many eggs in the Steph Curry basket is the reason this team has been taking steps backwards since the We Believe miracle.

by Juicy Jay on Dec 9, 2011 9:08 AM PST reply actions  

Monta is arguably the worst defensive starting two-gaurd in the league.

If he was arguably the best offensive two-guard in the league that would make him an average starter – somewhere between group three and group four.

But he’s not arguably the best offensive two guard in the league. He’s a player who doesn’t consistently make his teams better on offense.

You say if only he had a point guard, well, here’s the thing: the group two guys and the group three guys don’t need a point guard cater to their every whim for them to be a large net plus. Amare Stoudamire didn’t see his numbers fall off a cliff when he stopped playing with Steve Nash, for example.

If you want to call Monta a group three guy you have to argue that he’s winning the two-guard battle more often than not, andI just don’t see it – our team is somehow worse when he’s on the floor.

A guy who can be effective when you play him off a superstar but is not winning the battle at his position most nights on his own is pretty much the definition of a group four guy.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 10:40 AM PST up reply actions  

pretty sure Kevin Martin is the worst defensive SG (otherwise he'd be an All-Star every year)

-4.4 DRAPM

Anyway, I agree with everything else.

BTW, my solution for making the NBA better: max contract right now is 30% of the cap. It should be closer to 50% or even 60%.

The total pool of money would be the same for players, but it would prevent the formation of superteams. Teams would have to choose at most one “max” star and do it wisely. Players would have to decide whether they want to make $30M or closer to $20M.

It still probably wouldn’t completely fix the situation, but it would go a long way.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: Is A Grown Man NBA Blog
Follow @thecity2
Like thecity2 on Facebook

"Also, Evanz’ posts are easiest to hide while working. The chats and graphs can look like actual work related data to the lazy walker-by’s eye" (tafkasam)

by Evanz on Dec 9, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

It should be closer to 50% or even 60%.

Interesting.

In practice, we’re seeing something like that with Kobe, but that’s only because he’s been a max guy for so long. His last year on his current deal is going to be around 50% of the cap.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 3:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I’ve said all along I’d be interested what would happen with a hard cap and no limitations on max deals. Not to repeat what might be common knowledge, but true max players probably are the most underpaid players in the league. And yes, this would make it harder for teams to make “superteams” without the players taking less than they could get.

by ERock386 on Dec 9, 2011 3:06 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

There is a flip side to this line of logic:

Contracts are structured for a reason. It protects the average and fringe players from being underpaid. As these players make up a majority of the labor pool, it makes sense the CBA is structured in their favor. As for the level 1 guys, they can recoup some of that money through endorsements, and they have the satisfaction of knowing that they are empowering all the other players, who are presumably their friends.

Big Baby Jesus 2012

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Dec 9, 2011 7:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Baron Davis is not a superstar, he’s a group 3 guy himself… If when paired with the right group 3 guy he can play like a group 2 guy, i think the worst you can give him right now is a group 3 guy. And Amare basically went from Steve Nash to Chauncey Billups, which is not the same as going from Baron Davis to a converted 2 guard who simply can’t run the point.. I think in the right offensive scheme Monta IS arguably a top 3 offensive 2 guard in the league. It’s not about the quality of the player next to him, so much as the way he plays the game (ie not like a point guard). I’m not a statistician, I’m a basketball fan. I watch the game, and this is what I see. I think between Monta and Curry, Monta is the better 2 guard. Neither one is worth a damn as a PG.

by Juicy Jay on Dec 9, 2011 11:56 AM PST up reply actions  

speaking of baron...

Isn’t he being amnestied by the cavs? Why not just bring him back…

by Juicy Jay on Dec 9, 2011 12:21 PM PST up reply actions  

i meant bring him back here

by Juicy Jay on Dec 9, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions  

It's that whole in-shape and motivated thing.

I think Baron would be a beast on the right team.

I don’t think we’re that team.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 3:04 PM PST up reply actions  

You have to admit, even bad shape, he would be a pretty sweet backup at the right price. In the age of tweener guards his skillset is becoming mighty rare. All you need to do is convince him to stop taking bad shots…or any shots. ; )

Big Baby Jesus 2012

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Dec 9, 2011 7:54 PM PST up reply actions  

PG is about the only position we have a capable player at, unfortuntely.

But if it’s for the vet min or something, why not?

Trade Monta and grab J-Rich, too. Get a reunion going.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 9, 2011 12:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Curry...

Is not a capable PG. If warriors fans would get over Curry the team would be able to move forward much better.

by Juicy Jay on Dec 9, 2011 1:41 PM PST up reply actions  

the warriors aren't the only team high on curry

NO wanted to trade for curry. we switch curry for monta, and they say no way in hell.

by bigkino217 on Dec 9, 2011 1:46 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the team really has to get over Monta. He’s an unproductive, expensive 2 guard. Why trade your cheap, productive, young point guard when there are clearly other guys blocking your team’s assent?

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 9, 2011 3:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Baron Davis is a superstar when he's in shape, healthy, and motivated.

That’s been a rare combination for him over the years.

I watch the game, and this is what I see. I think between Monta and Curry, Monta is the better 2 guard. Neither one is worth a damn as a PG.

Well, that’s interesting because the team has been consistently better when Curry has been on the floor and they’ve been consistently worse when Monta’s been on the floor. The statistical argument for this is so clear that the fact that you don’t see it suggests that you’re not really watching the games very closely by noticing, say, missed shots.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 9, 2011 3:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Getting caught up in advanced stats

is the thing I hate most about my fellow GSW fans. I like math, but I also happen to know if you’re good enough at it you can work numbers out to say anything you want. Advanced stats also fail to take into account the impact that scheme and teammates have on things like efficiency. Statistical metrics aside, Monta has the ability to score on anybody in the NBA. Curry does not. He has a great stroke, but lacks the quickness to create open shots for himself and his ability to score at the rim is almost non-existant. He is not as good of a passer as Steve Nash, lacks Steve’s court vision, and does not shoot half as well off the dribble, so that comparison is wearing oh so thin. We KNOW Monta’s efficiency goes up significantly when playing next to a ball-dominant point guard with half a lick of passing ability. How would Curry do next to a deferring SG where HE is the one taking all the shots? I bet his efficiency would go way down.

by Juicy Jay on Dec 15, 2011 9:03 AM PST up reply actions  

funny thing is we have a sample of this

from steph’s rookie year when monta missed 18 games. steph’s efficiency stayed almost exactly the same, despite a large increase in minutes and statistics.

by bigkino217 on Dec 15, 2011 11:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Agree with some of what you said...

but feel the need to address the Curry-Nash comparison. I don’t think you can really make such a comparison when Nash has been in the league for as long as he has and Curry is only beginning his third year.

In fact, it took Nash until his fifth season to start producing anywhere close to the standard he has now set (and even those numbers are not as impressive as Curry’s imo). Nash was even traded after his second season (for Martin Müürsepp, Bubba Wells, the draft rights to Pat Garrity!); could you imagine Curry being traded for a similar package at this stage in his career?

Conclusion- don’t bother making the Nash-Curry comparison, unless it’s to show how impressive Steph has been to this point in his career, or to speculate on what he could become if he develops at a similar rate.

by ERock386 on Dec 15, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions  

if you’re good enough at it you can work numbers out to say anything you want.

The fact that statistics CAN be manipulated to get around the truth doesn’t mean that we’re manipulating them. To wave you hand and dismiss all numbers because it’s possible, sometimes, to twist numbers is absurd.

The simple truth is that it’s really hard to get away with bad stats on GSOM because there are enough people who know stats here that when if you use stats badly, somebody calls you on it.

We KNOW Monta’s efficiency goes up significantly when playing next to a ball-dominant point guard with half a lick of passing ability

Huh?

Yes, Baron is a great passer, but the main reason why Monta’s efficiency was so much high was that his ability to make dumb decisions with the ball was reduced. Monta got the ball in the flow of the offense, usually when he already had a step on his man and when the other team wasn’t set and waiting for him to drive.

If Monta did simple things like pass the ball, rather than take early-in-the-shot-clock jumpers or drives, then the flow of the offense would often result in the ball coming back to him in a more advantageous position.

It wasn’t about Baron’s domination of the ball, so much as a function of the fact that the whole team was committed to a team offense.

How would Curry do next to a deferring SG where HE is the one taking all the shots?

When you write something like this, it makes it seem like you don’t actually watch the games. Do you want to know how many more shots/36 minutes Monta took than Steph?

Less than three. 2.8, to be precise. Every 12 minutes they shared the floor together Monta took one more shot than Curry.

So when you write about Monta taking “all” the shots, what exactly are you talking about – rather than some mysterious Warrior game that only happened in your mind. Are you really alleging that one extra shot every 12 minutes was the reason why Curry was very efficiency and Monta was just below average?

by Ronaldinho on Dec 15, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

No.

I’m alleging that Monta is a better basketball player than Curry, regardless of statistics of efficiency. You make a good point about his decision-making, but again that issue would be addressed by playing opposite a real point guard. I should have said something along the lines of “bad shots”, i.e. those coming at the end of the shot clock and off of broken plays, which are what I was thinking of with respect to impacting efficiency, but I digress. My real point about advanced stats was that Monta and Curry play a team game together, and their statistics are dependent on each other regardless of how many variables you attempt to control for. The NBA game, particularly in the halfcourt, is predicated on dribble penetration and attacking the rim. Monta does that better than Curry. Success in the NBA at the team level is gonna be dependent on having the right pieces in place to play together regardless of who you build around, and i think Monta has a game that ultimately would translate to more team success in the right scheme.

by Juicy Jay on Dec 15, 2011 5:26 PM PST up reply actions  

The only basketball thing Monta is better at than Curry is being fast and that isn’t enough to overcome the significant difference between the two of them. The fact is that in all but one of Monta’s seasons, he’s had a below average scoring efficiency and has been a significant minus on both sides of the ball. No amount of saying “stats don’t matter” doesn’t change the fact that they overwhelmingly disagree with your assessment of these players.

I should have said something along the lines of "bad shots", i.e. those coming at the end of the shot clock and off of broken plays

A thing we have a stat for. Monta actually takes a lower percentage of his offensive plays at the end of his shot clock than most of the team and he actually shoots better in those situations anyway. It doesn’t impact his efficiency very much and it actually raises his efficiency ever so slightly. Isn’t it interesting how watching the games isn’t enough?

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 18, 2011 2:43 PM PST up reply actions  

You make a good point about his decision-making, but again that issue would be addressed by playing opposite a real point guard.

monta has to play with a certain type of player to be good? meanwhile steph can play with just about anyone (including a team of d-leaguers) and still be just as good. so who’s the better player?

by bigkino217 on Dec 18, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Chauncey Billups wasn’t in NY for the first few months that Amar’e was (and Amar’e was succeeding) and, when he was in Phoenix, his offense remained steady when Steve Nash was off the court.
When Baron Davis was playing running the offense in 07/08, he was playing like a superstar. That was the year Monta started and that was, arguably, his only good NBA season.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 9, 2011 3:19 PM PST up reply actions  

I can imagine an alternate Universe where Baron and Jack stayed, Beans thrived, and Monta signed a mid-level deal as the Warriors 6th man.

Big Baby Jesus 2012

by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Dec 9, 2011 7:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Curry’s high horse

lol

Replace his point guard with the golden child and his numbers fall off due to offensive scheme

Yup. It’s Curry’s fault that Monta can only succeed as a highly paid offensive player in a limited spectrum of offensive systems and not Monta’s fault. We should trade Curry because Monta can’t adapt, even though it’s pretty clear that Curry has the versatility to succeed in a number of systems.

I wonder how Curry would play if you replaced Monta with a 2 guard that actually made sense (defensive, lower USG%) like Andre Iguodala, who isn’t just a better fit on this team but a much better player overall.

The reason he gets the ball in his hands on every play is because Curry is not a good enough PG to run the offense.

I don’t think anyone can know the truth in that regard. In his short career, it’s been clear that Curry is a much better point guard than Monta. Putting the ball in Monta’s hands intentionally seems like an idiotic basketball decision.

Putting too many eggs in the Steph Curry basket is the reason this team has been taking steps backwards since the We Believe miracle.

Curry was very much post-We Believe. The problem was that they put too many eggs in the Monta/Biedrins basket after We Believe. Signing Monta to a decently large contract then allowing the guy who, by your admission, made him into the offensive dynamo that he was is the post-We Believe decision making. He was allowed to be the de facto franchise guy and is being paid as though he is a truly elite one dimensional player. I have to imagine they felt okay about letting Baron walk because they had this Monta Ellis guy.
Really, they haven’t put that many eggs in Curry’s basket because Monta is still given free reign on offense.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 9, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions  

To be fair for Monta

He was never really given a chance to succeed here. A few years ago when they decided to make Monta the face of the franchise, the old regime never made any significant moves to surround Monta with talent that would compliment his game and deficiencies.

Monta is an above average passer at the 2guard position (doesn’t get nearly enough credit for this), fantastic at getting to the rim, and a respectable mid range game with improving 3p shot. But he’s a terrible defender (partly because he takes too many risks going for steals) and the Warriors never made any moves to bring in quality defenders to make up for it. In many ways, Offensively, he takes way too many shots, but I can excuse this because that was what he was being asked to do under Nellie and Smart. Monta was asked to do way to much without a whole lot of help surrounding him to do it.

With all that being said, Curry has yet to prove he can be a leader for our team. What do we know about Curry? The Good: he is one of the top shooters in the game, very efficient offensively, a willing passer (sometimes too willing), The Bad: Terrible defender, not a particularly dynamic passer (breaking down defenses and creating shots), and he’s foul prone.

What really kills me about these Curry Vs Monta debates is that Curry gets so much more credit on his potential to change than Monta does. If Monta is able to take less bad shots and gamble less on defense, I see him as a significantly better player then Curry. Yet through two coaching regimes he has been asked to do the opposite. Whereas Curry has proven to be an offensively gifted player, but limited defensively with still questionably point guard intangibles, but Warriors fans are willing to smile and say, don’t worry he’ll get there.

I worry.

by kyzah on Dec 11, 2011 10:39 AM PST up reply actions  

He was never really given a chance to succeed here. A few years ago when they decided to make Monta the face of the franchise, the old regime never made any significant moves to surround Monta with talent that would compliment his game and deficiencies.

wrong. the warriors gave monta the chance to be the face of the franchise, and then he responded by getting on a moped

by bigkino217 on Dec 11, 2011 2:51 PM PST up reply actions  

I don’t think Curry has the talent to be the best player on a good team. I know that Monta is FAR short of that, though.

What really kills me about these Curry Vs Monta debates is that Curry gets so much more credit on his potential to change than Monta does. If Monta is able to take less bad shots and gamble less on defense, I see him as a significantly better player then Curry.

It’s all about age. Monta is 26, Curry is 23. Curry is developing as a player. Monta is basically in his prime. He is who he is.
If Monta is able to take fewer bad shots, he goes to who he was in 07/08, who was not as good as Curry was in either of his NBA seasons.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 11, 2011 3:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Saying he goes back to the same player is absurd.

He’s added better handles, significantly better passing ability and a three-point shot. Not to mention a much improved off-the-dribble jumper. Offensively, he’s far more skilled than he was in 07-08. It’s one thing to say he wouldn’t be able to go back to that amount of shots, but to say that if he did, he’d be the same player? That’s either being ignorant, not paying attention, or saying it to push an agenda.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on Dec 11, 2011 11:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok

what does that have to do with the premise?

We’re talking about an altered role. A role more similar to the one he played on our 40+ win teams. In effect, one where he wouldn’t be ineffective. There isn’t any way that those skills wouldn’t show themselves.

I think your response goes back to one of my points:

saying it to push an agenda

Really not sure if you read the entirety of what I said and what I responded to. If you did, clearly your answer shows a lack of understanding, and more to the point, it poses a question as to why what you said is relevant at all. It’s something that’s been hammered home countless times on this site, so it’s definitely not to make a new and interesting point. Even within the conversation, it’s been established that he’s less effective. Not in those direct words, but still obvious enough:

less bad shots
bq. fewer bad shots

So it’s been said.

Why did you feel the need to say it again, despite the conversation turning in a different direction? Only you know, but I could wager a few guesses.

The topic, by the way, is how Monta would NOT be an equal player to his 07/08 self, even in a similar role. Notice that I didn’t even say these developed skills would help him in this role. They could in fact, make it difficult for him to fulfill JUST that role, which represents the problem many people believe we now have with him: he wouldn’t cope well with a reduced role.

But the same player? No, that doesn’t seem likely at all, and it has nothing to do with effectiveness or efficiency. It has to do with him being a very different player, which are actually completely separate of those two things.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on Dec 12, 2011 2:06 AM PST up reply actions  

You're saying a lot of words, but I'm not sure why.

This appears to be a trigger for you, but it’s a rather benign conversation. Regardless of how many skills Monta has developed since 07-08, the fact remains that they haven’t helped him be a better basketball player, or that different of a basketball player.

He’s the same player he was in 07-08, just in a role that doesn’t suit him.

by Spider Jerusalem on Dec 12, 2011 2:41 AM PST up reply actions  

That player couldn't hit an open 3

Just that alone makes him such a different player…smh

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on Dec 12, 2011 2:45 AM PST up reply actions  

So he’s a version like Monta from 08 but a better 3 point shooter, which might not actually improve his value as much as you’d expect, considering that he isn’t a great 3 point shooter.
3 point shooting has a marginal cost. the 08 version of Monta was able to score super efficiently because of his ability at the rim. They say Blake Griffin is adding a 3 point shot and I have the same concerns. Having Blake Griffin stand 23 feet away from the hoop doesn’t instil much confidence in me, considering how good he is at all the thing near the hoop. Monta having a 3 point shot doesn’t help him as a weapon, but really just makes the other defenses more honest.

You’re right that Monta is more skilled than he was in 08, but to what effect? Does him having an average 3 point shot and having better other skills (at a loss) really make him that much better than the 08 version of him, let alone Stephen Curry?

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 13, 2011 3:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Also not sure why you’d accuse me of being ignorant. Well I am- you’re trying to get a rise out of me. You know I’ve been posting here for years. You know I know the stats, you and I have talked about basketball plenty in the past. Whatever inspired you to say that- knock it off.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 13, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions  

I gave 3 reasons anyone might say what you did.

If you choose to pick out ignorant from them, so be it. It doesn’t matter.

And to suggest that I was actually looking for a rise out of you? Okay, I don’t get that. I was baffled on how he would be the same player. I made no comparison to Steph, and while I’m aware you did, you also made one to the 08 version of Monta, which is where I took issue.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on Dec 13, 2011 11:07 PM PST up reply actions  

If you don’t want me to react to you accusing me of ignorance/not paying attention, then don’t put it in your post. If you aren’t trying to get a rise out of me, and you also don’t actually mean it, then what’s the point?

You can’t separate the comparisons from each other. The whole discussion is Monta vs Curry. You weren’t talking about Curry, but the point almost doesn’t matter if this hypothetical Monta isn’t better than Stephen Curry.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 14, 2011 3:10 PM PST up reply actions  

I didn't say I didn't want you to react. I said I didn't care.

The conversation actually was about two things, which can be separate of each other. Monta’s value next to a ball-control player (now vs then) and his value in comparison to Steph.

This wasn’t at all my intention when I initially posted, but now, since you want me to speak with relativity to both comparisons, I don’t have any reason to believe Monta is any less valuable than Steph next to the ball-control player, like a Chris Paul, or whoever we might trade for. I happen to think Monta would be a very good player if playing next to any of the better point guards in the league.

Main point still stands, though. His improved skills would translate in that smaller, more off-ball role. The only question is would he be willing to accept that role.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on Dec 14, 2011 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Curry has some qualities that are very important for the position: ball-handling, free throw shooting, and basketball IQ.

He has some qualities that are nice, but not vital for the position: being one of the league’s best outside shooters and looking like a 12 year old.

He is significantly lacking in some qualities that a great PG should have: speed, quickness, and defense.

It is hard to take full advantage of a pure shooter when he is always dribbling the ball up the floor. You create open looks for a jump shooter with an inside-out game, drive and dish, or off-ball screens. So being a great shooter and a great PG at the same time can’t really happen.

So what do we do?!?!

"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition

by don't leave Morrow! on Dec 11, 2011 3:43 PM PST reply actions  

Weird to me that you rate defense over shooting ability for a point guard. To me, the first is far more important than the latter. Probably 2 genuinely impactful PG defenders in the league and neither of them are one of the 3 best PGs in the league.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 11, 2011 4:51 PM PST up reply actions  

I mean Rondo and Lowry

to be clear.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 11, 2011 4:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Fair enough.

I’m just saying being a table setter and putting up 20 shots are not very compatible things.

However, good defense fits with just about anything.

"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition

by don't leave Morrow! on Dec 12, 2011 10:02 PM PST up reply actions  

In my mind, the 3 best PGs in the league are Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Steve Nash. All of them are bad at defense, with Chris Paul being the least egregious. All of them are really good shooters, with Nash able to make a legitimate claim that he’s the best shooter of all time. All of them average 10 or more assists. None of them have come close to 20 shots a game- Chris Paul came the closest with 16.1. Being a really good shooter doesn’t mean you have to take a lot of shots.
Being a threat yourself is important for creating offense. I suspect that Rondo won’t be as good as he’s been when he stops playing with hall of famers, whereas someone like Curry could be good on any team.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 13, 2011 4:03 PM PST up reply actions  

What makes you think CP3 is bad at D?

go rowand

by lincypoo i wuv u on Dec 17, 2011 12:55 PM PST up reply actions  

I don’t know what to think of Chris Paul’s defense. My opinion for a long time was that he was possibly a really good defender, but I’ve also read a lot of evidence to the contrary. I tend to think that point guard defense doesn’t matter, so I wrote it that way.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 18, 2011 2:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree with your first paragraph.

But hey, Rondo IS a threat himself, just not as a jump shooter. He is a threat to blow by any defender that tries to apply any ball pressure. That allows him to comfortably see the floor so he can make passes. Curry is slow.

And assists are very important. Averaging 10 is elite. Curry averaged 5.8 last year. So he has to get about 2/3 more assists this year. It’s not impossible, but that’s a big jump.

"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition

by don't leave Morrow! on Dec 17, 2011 4:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Assists are important, but so is understanding context. Rondo plays with the greatest 3 point shooter of all time, one of the all time great shooting power forwards and an elite all around scorer. Even with that, the Celtics tend to have an average offense (17th in off eff last year.) We haven’t seen him Chris Paul or Steve Nash a team. Teams with maybe 1 other good individual scorer who have the best offense because of these guys.
Rondo is a threat to get to the rim, but I don’t know if he’s as good as he gets credit for. He isn’t Tony Parker. It’s not that hard to deny ball penetration to a guy, even a guy like Rondo, who can’t shoot.
I see Curry settling around 7-8 assists a game for his career. I think he’ll be a better scoring version of Chauncey Billups, basically.

I heard he doesn't like music.

by Reverend_Randy on Dec 18, 2011 2:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


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)


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

Natehead_small Nate Parham

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

600px-olympic_rings_square olympicmike

Small IQofaWarrior

Shutterstock_10276351_basketball_mind_small Evanz

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Small jae

Gsom_tony_small Tony.psd

Kanji_love_small Sleepy Freud

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small Poor Man's Commish

Nellie2_small Feltbot