Navigation: Jump to content areas:


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

Warrior and Indiana pacers trade rumor

Recently trade rumors have been swirling about a potential trade that has supposedly been talked about by both the warriors gm and pacers gm and is a trade surrounding Stephen curry. After the pacers early exit out of the playofds Larry bird looks ready to make a move and there is no better way to do that then trading for the future allstar curry. The potential trade sends curry, bedriens, and bell to the pacers for collison, granger, and a 2011 1st round pick(the 15th). This trade would be great for the dubs because collison would beable to penetrate better opening up lanes for Monta. We would have the 2 fastest players in the league in our backcourt. Granger would make the warriors better offensively and he would add much needed size to the linup and we could have wright be the 6th man which would strenghten the bench. Adding a draft pick would allow us to add much needed depth to the bench and we could draft marcus and markeiff Morris with the two picks. Linup: pg- Darren Collison sg- Monta Ellis sf- Danny Granger pf- David Lee c- udoh/markeiff/ sign: Deandre Jordan Bench: 6th- Dorrell Wright - Marcus Morris - Markeiff Morris/ Ekpe Udoh - Lou Amundson - Reggie Williams - Some MLE Players

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/656207-nba-trade-rumors-can-larry-bird-make-the-pacers-a-true-contender
Poll
Should the warriors trade curry to the pacers?
Yes this trade would benefit the warriors
422 votes
No, this trade would not help the warriors
162 votes
Trade curry but not to the pacers
20 votes
Don't trade curry, he is the future
432 votes

1036 votes | Poll has closed

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 377 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This trade would make us deeper forsure, but damn the pacers must really like steph curry. Idk what to make of this, as much as I love steph this trade is defiently in our favor.

by DownGoesFrazier30 on May 10, 2011 12:43 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

I do not like this trade

We trade away Curry, without improving our backcourt size. We get rid of Biedrins’ contract and in return we get a longer contract albeit from a superior player. We essentially do not improve dramatically and do not improve our finances.

Collison
Ellis
Granger
Lee
Udoh

Vs.

Curry
Ellis
Wright
Lee
Udoh

Where is the improvement? I do like Granger’s ability to get to the line, but I don’t like sacrificing Curry’s offensive efficiency for another small back court. We would have to have another big guard we are planning on acquiring I don’t like trading Curry or Ellis for that matter just to continue having the same deficiency.

by brutusbrutus on May 10, 2011 12:44 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

I would in fact be in favor of this trade if other trades/signings were also made to fix other

deficiencies on the team. I would prefer that Curry stay with the team. Unfortunately I am unsure if the Warriors have many valuable pieces to trade outside of Curry.

by brutusbrutus on May 10, 2011 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Where is the improvement?

ON DEFENSE!! Seems pretty clear to me. While Collison is small, he’s still a good defender. If we could trade Monta for Iggy, that would be even better. 3rd team would need to get involved I think though as Philly doesn’t need Monta.

Collison
Iggy
Granger
Lee
Udoh

All of a sudden…..GOOD defensive team.

by sauceycor on May 11, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Collison looks like a good defender perhaps. If he were tall or had longer arms, he would probably be good. I don’t think he is, in reality, a guy that can help a team on defense. Curry is most likely better.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 11, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

haha swirling in this fan blog it would seem

Even if it were true (no reason to believe it is), i dont think i could handle making our back court even smaller. If anything i think that collison duplicates monta way more than steph does.

by Run SMD on May 10, 2011 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

...Down the drain that we call Non-Playoff basketball.

"I am not prettier than your girlfriend, you just like ugly girls." - an extremely confident man, maybe a pretty b*tch.

One day about a year ago, I called my GF after work, I was going to give her "the bizness". I got to her house and I told her I was going to give her my "Weapon of Mass Destruction". We did it. I finished i under a minute. After that, she said it was more like a "Debacle of Mass Eruption". Yes. It IS pathetic.

by DEBACLE OF MASS ERUPTION. on May 13, 2011 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't see this happening

it shuffles around some pieces, but does nothing to help us get a big. Granger has a 4 year deal that is around the same size as Lee. Doesn’t make sense.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 10, 2011 5:12 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Only thing I've found is this.

NBA Trade Rumors: Why Andre Iguodala for Monta Ellis Still Makes Sense.

Bleacher report: and it also said that we are interisted in Sloan but he is not likely to come out of retirement.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/680084-nba-trade-rumors-why-andre-iguodala-for-monta-ellis-still-makes-sense

"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."

Frank Zappa

by qin on May 10, 2011 6:35 AM PDT reply actions  

Bleacher report is crap

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 10, 2011 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Yep, take it for what it’s worth, but Ellis for Iguodala straight up would be sweet. And they are just revisiting a trade that “should” be done.

"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."

Frank Zappa

by qin on May 10, 2011 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed.

Believing rumors there is as good as believing the FanPosts here that people make with ESPN’s trade machine…

by JustSomeName on May 11, 2011 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

collison is actually a solid defender

that said, i agree that this trade would not help us at all

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t think Collison is a good defender at all. He’s tiny, not long, his teams defense has been worse when he’s played the last couple years, it’s not like he provides any sort of rebounding or forces a lot of turnovers or anything.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

What is the source of the rumor?

by Slightly Hyphy on May 10, 2011 8:10 AM PDT reply actions  

I think Passmore8 is primary source

of the rumor. more like his own trade proposal.

there are a number of reasons why this is complete BS.

1 – Doesn’t make the W’s “Beefier”
2 – Doesn’t give the W’s better Defense
3 – Small Forward is not W’s weak point. Granger is not needed here.
4 – DWright is not a 6th man type.
5 – Trading Curry for anything less than an All-Star 5 (read: Dwight Howard) is insanity

by joegiant on May 10, 2011 8:58 AM PDT reply actions  

I disagree with point #4. No, Wright isn’t an “instant offense off the bench” type that typically wins the 6th man award (often playing more minutes than the starter, meaning they aren’t really a 6th man at all), but he’s a versatile player who would undoubtably be one of the best backup wings in the league. Works for me.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

or you can shift dorell to the 2 and bring monta off the bench in the “instant offense off the bench” role

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

disagree

Dorell not fast enough to guard 2’s, and ball handling not skilled enough to work around 2 guards (he’d fumble or get picked easily)

by joegiant on May 10, 2011 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

ive never seen any evidence of dorell having poor ball handling skills

you also seem to think that monta actually does guard 2s? i have never seen anything to suggest that either.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Who are you worried about Dorell guarding, exactly? And I disagree on the ballhandling part, on two levels. First, I think Dorell is an adequate ballhandler. Second, Dorell’s optimal role in that lineup is to just be a catch and shoot shooter anyways. Granger, Curry, and Lee should be the focal points of the offense. This is exactly why I hate the distinction between SG and SF. There are roles you need your wings to fill, yes, but which wing specifically fills those roles does not matter. Dorell would essentially have the exact same role on offense whether he’s playing next to Monta or Granger, despite the technicality that he would be playing a “different position”. The truth is he really wouldn’t be playing a different positions, as his responsibilities would be the exact same.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

If Dorell can viably play the 2 well, this trade would make us much better on defense. He is a tall guy, though. With that higher center of gravity, I don’t know that he’d be fantastic at defending the leagues best 2’s. Still, it’s very interesting to consider, and either way, we’d be way better defensively with that lineup.

The other benefit to this trade is that Granger becomes the face of the franchise, so Ellis becomes easier to move. It might also force Ellis to defer more in shooting, which would help us.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, yeah, being taller limits agility/change of direction abilities, but it also makes you taller and longer and more effective challenging shots. It’s not necessarily a negative. Think about it this way: you have Monta/Dorell and Dorell/Granger. In either case, you’d rather have Dorell matched up against the other teams best wing rather than Monta or Granger. Position doesn’t matter.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

My concern is that neither Dorell nor Granger could defend really quick 2’s well and Monta is too shorter and a bad defender regardless. We’re still better defensively with that lineup. I like it a’right.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Who are all these really quick 2’s we’re worried about, anyways? I’m genuinely curious.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jason Terry, Dwayne Wade and Eric Gordon come to mind. Those are the ones I can think of.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Lou Williams maybe? Eric Gordon is a good one, definitely. Wade is hard to tell, because he’s going to overpower a littler guy, but give a bigger guy problems with his quickness. I’d probably most prefer a tall, skinny, long dude against him.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

You’re probably right about Wade. Nobody will be awesome against him, but Dorell will at least create some problems. Regardless, a lot of teams have more quickness at the 2 than Dorell can match terribly well. I think he’s a better defender at the 3. Then again, he’s vastly superior to Monta at the 2, so that’s a moot point.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

i think we’d be better off going after JR in FA and shifting dorell to the 2. that way we keep steph.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fair point… I like Granger a lot better than I like JR, but I don’t think I like him a whole Steph better.

by Uwe Blog on May 10, 2011 2:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

There doesn't seem to be a very big difference between his opponents TS%

when Dorell plays 2 or 3. He gives up a lower FG% as a 2 but nearly twice as many FTAs – based on data from 82games.com.

Don’t really have the time right now to go examine if that pattern held up in past years.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Twice as many FT attempts is a concern. It’d be harder to keep Dorell on the floor, and when he sits, we’re closer to being over the limit than we would be if he guarded 3’s. That’s clearly due to the greater quickness of 2’s, which is my concern. TS% being equal, doesn’t necessarily mean that keeping Dorell guarding 2’s is equal. It creates complications.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, sure.

But bear in mind we’re talking abotu only 2% of his total minutes being played at the two – so I think we should take a big grain of salt before reading a lot into those numbers.

Last season, for example, in the 5% of his minutes played at the two, he gave up BOTH lower FG% and fewer FTAs at the two compared to the three.

(I suspect the minutes there are low primarily because of who he’s playing next to – Monta and Wade are huge minute guys who’s natural position is the two.)

In other words, I think you should be really careful before leaping to big conclusions. I haven’t particularly noticed DOrell having a problem with quicker guys this season, but … well, it may be that the comparison was Monta, so even Dorell struggling looked good.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Dorell played a ridiculously small amount of minutes at the 2

look at his lineups at basketball-value, you have to look with a microscope to find the units where he played 2, and it was almost never with Curry:

http://basketballvalue.com/player.php?year=2010-2011&id=214

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 10, 2011 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

82games doesn’t take into account who he’s actually guarding, though….

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

basketball-value has that

http://basketballvalue.com/player.php?year=2010-2011&id=214

Find the unit of interest, and click on “unit”

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 10, 2011 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

maybe the likes of manu and kevin martin to go with the ones previously mentioned.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Umm... Dorrell

guards Kobe when they play fyi

F the Po Po

by bojangles408 on May 10, 2011 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

I consider 6th man to be different that just a bench player. I think you’re thinking of Dorell being depth on the bench – personally I think he’s a legit starting 3. This was his first season of real starting minutes and I think he did exceptionally well. if he improves his finishing he’ll be oustanding for the W’s.

But off the bench, I don’t see him as a game changer. In my book, typically the 6th man has starter quality, but is a little bit of a square peg/round hole situation which keeps him from being an effective starter. Such as: Undersized 1 or 2 guard that flat out lights it up, but doesn’t play a lick of defense. Or flip side, athletic 2 or 3 that’s a lock down defender but mixed offensively. Basically someone that changes the tempo of the game – that’s not DWright to me.

Actually, I think Curry or Ellis would be perfect 6th men, esp Ellis. If the W’s could get a stud 2 and guarantee Ellis 30 minutes of score at will playing time, the W’s would be in great shape.

by joegiant on May 10, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

If the W’s could get a stud 2 and guarantee Ellis 30 minutes of score at will playing time, the W’s would be in great shape.

I disagree on the basis that “score at will PT” for Ellis is a bad thing. It’s what he’s been trying to do the past two years, and it hasn’t been effective basketball. It’s not his most efefctive role.

I’m just against the general stereotyping of certain players to certain roles. A basketball team needs its players to fulfill a number of responsibilities – from pressure defense on the wing to shot blocking to rebounding to passing to finishing, etc. Certain guys will fill some and not others. What’s important is the sum of the parts – how well they fill all the roles you need as a collective. Where I start to object is when people think a certain player has to fill a certain role. They don’t, so long as one of their teammates fills that role. So the goal is to find combinations of players that fill as many roles as possible as best as possible. Maybe that means bringing Manu off the bench with a unit of subs so he can take on a bigger offensive role than he would with the other starters. Sure. Or maybe it means your 6th man is a guy who comes in and fills exactly the role the guy he’s replacing filled. Hey, if you’re a good team, and it was working….that should be a positive, right?

What matters to me is how units work together, not which member of the unit is providing the specific role.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

5 – Trading Curry for anything less than an All-Star 5 (read: Dwight Howard) is insanity

Dwight Howard is probably the second-best player in the NBA, after LeBron.

I’m not sure that Curry cracks the top 25. He’s got great potential and a great contract, which ups his trade value a little.

But realistically you’ve got to think his value is in the Al Horford/Joakim Noah area rather than the Dwight Howard area.

Not have I ever really been a huge fan of Granger. Think he’s fine. Just nothing special.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Al Horford/Joakim Noah

I don’t know. Horford is one of the best centers in the league. Noah, on the other hand, we might be able to get.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Honestly, I think Noah > Horford in trade value, and possibly in overall talent.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wow. Really? He is a great defender, that’s for sure. Tough.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I could see a reasonable argument for either of them. Not sure who I’d choose. I think it’d ultimately come down to who fits better with whoever else we have. Noah next to David Lee, because of how desperately we need the D. Horford next to Josh Smith. Noah next to Zach Randolph. Horford next to Chris Bosh. Etc.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I honestly don't see much difference between the two:

Last season:

               Horford Noah
TS% .587 .579
PT/36 15.7 12.8
reb/36 9.6 11.4
blk/36 1.2 1.8
pf/36 2.6 3.6

Horford’s a little better offensively. Noah’s a better of a rebounder – and, oh yeah, Noah’s a key defensive player on a team that wins with its defense.

I can understand how you might say Horford’s a little bit better – I’m not sure I agree, but I understand it – but I don’t get how “Horford’s one of the best centers in the NBA” while Noah isn’t.

They have different strengths, but they’re very similar in overall quality.

I doubt either team would trade them for Curry without something extra thrown in. But realistically, if you’re going to talk about trading Curry, you’ve got to be talking abotu guys like that … not Howard.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Horford looks significantly better offensively. He’s both more efficient and scores 25% more points. I suspect Horford draws more fouls, which comes in handy.

That said, Noah’s rebounding is excellent while Horford’s are just pretty good. Noah’s blocked shots per game are impressive, I have to say. But if Horford is a better all around defender, Horford is significantly better than Noah. That’s not equal at all.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

For whatever it’s worth, 4 year adjusted +/- prefers Noah.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Perhaps Noah is the better defender and rebounder. Perhaps Noah sets better screens. I am a fan of adjusted +/-, seeing as winning is better than losing.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

One of the big problems with a variable stat like adjusted +/- is that we need multi-year samples to get a large enough sample size, but if talent levels change over those years (as we expect with young guys like Noah and Horford over their 4 year samples)….well, a lot of the measurement might be irrelevant.

by Missing Barry on May 10, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

True. Bottom line is, it’s hard to tell who would be better. Still, if we want better defense, Noah seems like a safe bet. Still, most teams will pay more for more scoring, so I’m thinking most teams would put significantly more value on Horford than Noah. I like them both, personally. I still find it more likely that we could get a Noah than a Horford (although the Bulls are not going to make that trade, as they have Rose and don’t have any prospects to replace Noah very well).

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think I had a hard time following that -

I don’t get where you’re saying Horford is a better all around defender, if that’s what you’re saying.

Opponents TS% is very close, but favors Horford this year, at the center position (.548 vs .551, based on data from 82games.com – but that’s close enough I’d be hard pressed to not call it equal). Horford gives up a lower FG%, but more FTAs.

Mostly, I’m not sure that Horford could play the role that Noah plays – Thib’s defense is all about big, mobile guys closing out and trapping and moving. I’m not sure Horford is fleet enough to do that – whereas I think Noah could match Horford pretty easily in the more straight-up defense Atlanta plays.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I didn’t say Horford is a better all around defender. I said “IF.” Of course, even that isn’t exactly what I meant. I just meant that if Horford does other things better than Noah, like position and help defense, that can make up for the deficiency in rebounding. That said, as Missing pointed out, Noah has a better adjusted +/-. Perhaps Noah is better on defense, than Horford is on offense. In that case, I’d take Noah instead. Defense at the C is way too valuable to get distracted by a few points here and there.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Gotcha.

For some reason that sentence just wasn’t parsing for me when I read it. It is now. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I think we’re pretty much on the same page about the two of them.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

If that trade was altered...

To trade Monta instead of Curry …Paul George instead of Granger, Hibbert for Beans and Bell ..love the draft pick but they could Keep it…in fact we could swap to sweeten it.

Day Dreamin
Curry
Paul George
Hibbert/Udoh
Wright
Lee/draft pick

by Only In Fairfax on May 10, 2011 9:03 AM PDT reply actions  

Speaking of dreamin...

Just noticed that draft express has Jordan Williams falling to the W’s in the second round. Other than wondering about DF credibility…I would love JW as a future C possibility with a second round pick….but have to believe that he will go late 1rst round.
If the Indy trade happen I would consider grabing him for future C and Marcus Morris for backup PF in the 1rst to shore up the C with Beans gone.

by Only In Fairfax on May 10, 2011 9:24 AM PDT reply actions  

I don't see this trade materializing to be honest....

but then again i didnt see the Pre-We Believe trade happening either…
I would go for this hypothetical trade.

by Dro50 on May 10, 2011 9:51 AM PDT reply actions  

We’re already strong at the 3, in my view. Our backcourt gets even smaller than it is! This trade is definitely not ideal, by any means. While, Granger would be interesting to have, his PER is lower than Curry’s. Moving Biedrins contract is a plus, but then again, if he gets back to his old self somehow, the Pacers are really getting a huge steal on this deal.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:20 PM PDT reply actions  

I concur. I like Granger, but a backcourt with Collison and Monta looks like trouble to me.

by Uwe Blog on May 10, 2011 2:44 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

this
We’re already strong fine at the 3, in my view. Our backcourt gets even smaller than it is!

If we are going to cash out and trade Curry, that is a BIG move!! The Dubs will need to come out rosier than Danny Granger and Collison.

"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 May 11, 2011 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

It does seem like Warrior trades should be geared towards two things:

1) Improving the center position.
2) Better defense at the two without giving up too much offense.

Those are the two glaring, freight-train-sized holes on our roster.

Only once we address them does it make sense to talk about things like upgrading the 3 and 4 spots.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 1:40 PM PDT reply actions  

Those are my concerns as well. Also, moving Ellis, so our offense can run more smoothly. Of course, that goes hand in hand with improving defensively at the 2.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

How about better defense in general?

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 10, 2011 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think our defensive problems come primarily from 3 positions:

2, 4, and 5.

Of those positions, 4 is a big offensive positive, so will be the biggest upgrade. (People who think Monta is a really productive offensive player will disagree me about this, of course).

I think improving the play at the 5 will make the biggest difference to team defense, from a personel standpoint.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think Curry's defense is so horrid.

Opponent’s efg% information certainly seems to suggest as much, although it’s been a while since I’ve delved into his defensive +/-.

He certainly appears to be a much better defender, for his position, that Monta or Lee are.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

monta's a better on ball defender

Curry’s lack of quickness is a major concern defensively (see: Steve nash).

by tafkasam on May 14, 2011 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

In theory it should be.

In practice? It’s nowhere near so clear.

His unadjusted defensive +/- was .94; the team gave up an extra point per 100 possessions with him on the floor. That’s certainly not good, but it’s in the ballpark of average. (Compare to Monta’s 6.88!).

If he was such a bad on-ball defender, you’d expect to see it show up in his opponents efg% or ts%. Restricting the discussion to their work as a point guard defensively, deriving from numbers at 82games.com, we see that Ellis’s TS% against was .524. Curry’s was .530.

That’s a tiny edge to Monta, mitigated against by the fact that Curry’s men gave up 4.6 T/Os /48 mintes, compared to 3.6 to Monta.

So I agree with you – in theory – looking at Curry it seems like his lack of quickness relative to Monta should be a problem.

But in practice, it doesn’t seem to be.

(This comes back to the key point which is that the big problem with Monta’s defense is that he’s not a point guard, offensively. He doesn’t appear to be a particularly horrendous defender on point guards. It’s that he’s not a point guard, and thus ends up defending shooting guards, that creates the problem).

by Ronaldinho on May 14, 2011 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think the real problem is that Monta just doesn’t play defense. He will always try to steal the ball and let his man go past him. If Brown is our coach, I’d like to see what he can do with Monta. And also, Curry’s defense picked up a bit later in the season. His defense in the beginning of the season may have been bad because of the initial ankle injury, which pretty much skewed everyone’s opinion of his defense.

by Prince.Charming on May 14, 2011 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think teaching Monta to defend the 2

will be a challenge for any coach. He isn’t physically built to be able to stop opposing 2 guards. I’d be much more interested in seeing if he could turn Lee into a reasonable defender.

by bigkino217 on May 14, 2011 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, Lee has the tools at least.

"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson

by GovernorStephCurry on May 14, 2011 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

why are we comparing Ellis to Curry?

bottom line is neither are superior defenders in a league where most good teams have at least one defensive stopper in the backcourt.

Miami has Wade. Chicago has Brewer (who doesn’t start, but plays more than Bogans). Memphis has Allen. OKC has Thabo. Only Dallas seems to get by with Terry playing most of the two, and my guess is that’s why they play so much zone (and the fact that Dirk is a non-conventional 4).

But, hey, that’s probably why we were looking at Dwane Casey.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science." (Lord Kelvin)

by Evanz on May 15, 2011 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

No just no

I would burn down the Warriors HQ if this happened.

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 1:40 PM PDT reply actions  

And

where are you getting this rumor from, it sounds like you just pulled this out your head

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 1:42 PM PDT reply actions  

Maybe he’s from our front office, gauging fan reaction. ha ha

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

This shouldnt

even be called a rumor hahaha

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’d definitely trade into next year’s draft.

by Uwe Blog on May 10, 2011 2:46 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Bucks do that why?

Also, can the Dubs really just ask them who they want to pick, pick the guy, and then immedeatly send him to the Bucks?

If so, what’s the big deal about supposedly not being able to trade our first rounder? This seems like a pretty big loophole

"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 May 11, 2011 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

It’s not really that big of a loophole. It pretty much prevents us from trading our first rounder at any point but on draft day.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or afterwards. The spirit of the rule is to prevent crappy teams from crippling their franchises by shipping off consecutive future first-rounders. Once you’ve drafted a player and signed him, he’s effectively part of the present. Based on the “bird in the hand” tendencies of human nature, you trust that NBA GMs won’t just casually ship off young players that they’ve diligently scouted, interviewed, worked out, and signed.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Here is the difference:

Before a pick is made, it can be traded without any regard to the salary cap. Capped teams can acquire picks without it counting against their salary total and do not have to move players to make space for the pick. After a pick is made, the rookie scale for that selection immediately counts against the team that made the selection and a team acquiring the draft rights has to have cap space or make space for that pick. This may or may not be significant depending on who the trading partner is. It does complicate deals, albeit not to the point of outright stopping most of them.

by jae on May 12, 2011 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

This Would Be A Great Trade For The Warriors!

Collison (not Wright) should become the 6th man with Monta playing the point and Granger and Wright on the Wings. If the Warriors do this trade and sign Nene they will be able to defend and rebound enough without any loss in offense to have a solid payoff team and maybe even a long shot contender for a championship.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 3:56 PM PDT reply actions  

How So?

Curry has shown himself to be no better a pure point guard then Monta is. The only skill Curry exceeds Monta at is 3pt shooting. Monta is the better of the two a getting to the basket, getting to the foulline, and the mid range game.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok I'll break it down for you in words you may understand.

1. Monta is not a PG. As Ronaldinho has already stated, when Monta has the ball, the offense is extremely stagnant. There is a reason the offense looks much better when Monta is not in the game.

2. Collison IS A PG. Why would you bring a PG off the bench and let a SG start at PG? Miami doesn’t even do this with Wade.

3. There is no way the warriors can sign Nene. With the assets we have, you’d be lucky to even trade for him.

4. You somehow claim there would be no loss in offense, despite trading the most efficient shooter on our team. Clearly you are just looking at PPG and somehow think that Granger can still get his while Monta gets his.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I Am Not Buying What You Are Selling.

I understand all the sabermetric basektball stats probably better then you do because I also understand their deficencies.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Curry’s midrange game is actually quite superior to Monta’s, and Curry’s vision, passing, ballhandling, and ability to run an offense (so, PG skills) are also far superior to Monta’s. One of Curry’s main problems is he still makes too many bad passes, but that’s something that should improve with more experience. They’re basically dumb, young player mistakes. No big deal. The raw PG skills are there with Curry, though, in a way they’re not with Monta.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Long 2s Are Not Part Of A Midrange Game.

They are spot up shoting just like 3s. Drive pull up and pop under defensive pressure is the midrange game and Monta is far superior to Steph in this regard.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Curry has a higher FG% at every shot distance except at the rim

so how can you say Monta has a better mid-range game?

The only thing I’ll give Monta is that he can get to the rim and finish better than Curry.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 11, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Curry Doesn't Drive, Pull Up, And Pop Under Defensive Pressure

Because he knows this is not a good part of his game. Monta does.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

The problem is that it's NOT a good part of Monta's game, either.

So I’m not quite sure why you’re harping on it as a plus.

But Curry’s not just a spot-up shooter. He creates with his threat to shoot.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

No.

I am saying Steph doesn’t have the game to get himself an acceptable shot when the clock is running out or the game is one the line. Yes, these shots are more difficult and thus while Monta takes then he misses more then he makes. It is not to Steph’s advantage tat he does not have the game to get and take these shots.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m curious – how much of the end of last season did you watch? Curry flourished when Nellie finally gave him a bigger role in the offense.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, even going by your definition of midrange, Curry also shot a higher percentage of his 10-15 foot jumpers, and 16-23 foot jumpers, on unassisted shots. Curry’s pullup midrange is wet.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

oh, there you go

Using all of your fancy facts.

by Uwe Blog on May 11, 2011 11:42 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Curry is one of the best long 2pt jump shooters in the league

I wrote about it in a couple of posts on my blog. You might be interested:

Monta Ellis and The Long Shot

Long Shots: Part Deux

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 11, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

“I understand all the sabermetric basektball stats probably better then you do because I also understand their deficencies.”

What deficiencies are these?

You keep talking as if you were making an actual argument, but you’re talking around it.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

Curry has shown himself to be no better a pure point guard then Monta is

Ha, Bob Knight would slap you silly if you said that to him, and then throw a chair at you. ;)

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I Am Confident Knight Would Have A Different View Now.

Whatever Knight saw in the NCAA has simply not materialized in the NBA.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

And why do you say that, exactly?

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, he does make too many careless passes, I agree. I wouldn’t even call them “stupid”, honestly. They’re just mistake passes – something young players do, and I have very little doubt he’ll get over. It basically has nothing to do with his raw abilities, it’s just that he’s still figuring out what passes are good ones and which ones are bad ones. Takes some practice to get it to the point of consistency that we’re looking for. The raw ability is there, though, and I’m also pretty skeptical of the idea that there’s an “especially when the game is on the line”.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thats the joke.

Bob Knight said Curry was the best passer in college basketball. MB was being sarcastic.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 12, 2011 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

This Trade And A Nene Signing Will Give The Warriors Great Flexability.

They can choose to go Small (Nene or Lee, Granger, Wright, and Ellis and Collison) or Big (Nene and Lee, Granger, Wright, and Ellis or Collison). This would be significantly better roster then the Warriors have had since Rick Barry last played for the Warriors 35 years ago.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

how do you suppose we get nene...

with around 7 mill in cap space and without giving up lee or curry?

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

danny granger is not very good

yet he gets paid like a star. thats like…pretty much the opposite of steph.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Granger Is Tougher, Better Defender and Better Rebounder.

And on offense he gives us a second true end of the game option to pair with Monta that Steph simply does not provide.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Eh, I’d never base any decisions on “end of the game/clutch” kinda thinking.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Because You Fail to Account For Human Nature.

Being able to maintain performance under pressure is a real skill even if your sabermetric stats can’t see it. This failure is one of the defiencies of these stats.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ah yes, and of course you have a great way of evaluating this, of course. Just like all GM’s understand that the guy you want shooting the ball with the game on the line is Kobe Bryant, aside from that little inconvenient bit of information that he doesn’t actually make many of those shots he takes….

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

i don't know about any one else but based off what i have seen

i would want ray allen taking the last shot every time. not sure how the actual statistics match up but i have to think he is much better than kobe at taking the final shot. anyone have stats?

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

There are clearly some people who shrink from the moment.

I think we’d all, probably, agree on that.

The problem is that people seem to generalize about these things from a very small sample size, often ignoring large chunks of evidence to get there.

Kobe clearly doesn’t shrink from the moment – on the other hand, his decision-making is so bad in those situations that he’s not an effective player.

Lebron has had a couple of big misses, but also some huge makes. I therefore find attempts to generalize about his ability to be somewhat absurd. The best players miss game-winning shots.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Do you

seriously believe Curry isnt a better PG than Monta? Thats funny. All you have to do watch to understand

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 5:04 PM PDT reply actions  

Exactly lol

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Was suppose to be replied to giantsrainman

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, I Do. I Watch Just As Much As You And With A Better Ability To Evaluate Talent.

All you have is some sabermetric stats that you really do not understand because you do not know their defiencies.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

keep telling yourself that.

I’m sure there are (roughly) 30 GMs that would disagree with you.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

the only reasoning i have seen from you that monta is as good a PG as curry...

is his ast/TO ratio. basically you’re saying if we had chuck hayes on our team, he would be the prime option at PG because he has a higher ast/TO ratio than monta and steph.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

I Stated Stats Because That Is Your Language.

I rely on my eyes more then stats and I have seen zero from Steph that tells me he is a better PG the Monta. The only thing Steph has shown me he is better at the Monta is shooting the 3.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Seems about fair.

You haven’t made much of an argument.

Monta is not a great P&R player because he defaults towards shooting too much. The only time he’s been an above-average offensive player from an efficiency standpoint was when he was predominantly off the ball.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's a nonsensical statement.

Curry turns the ball over HALF a time more every 36 minutes than Monta does.

Monta, on the other hand, misses TWO more shots during that same time.

(That actually underestimates the difference, since Curry shoots more threes – so he scores more on his makes than Monta does).

So you don’t get one Monta “shot” for that extra Curry turnover. You get FOUR misses.

Still want to make that trade?

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, You Are Ignoring Monta's Trips To The Foulline.

Curry’s 93% is almost meaningless because he is almost never at the foulline.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Monta barely does either.

He makes no attempt to draw contact. Plus he’ll turn the ball over if pressured on the dribble. Also, keep in mind that his whole game is based off of his athleticism, which is usually the first thing to go as a player ages. He’s 4 times more expensive, a less efficient scorer, older, and a worse ball handler than Steph. Granted I like the changes he seems to be making to his overall repertoire this last season, but to throw away a player with a ceiling as high as Curry’s to bank on Monta and his ability to get to the line seems preposterous to me.

ANIMAL KINGDOM FTW!!!!

by Butterknuckles on May 10, 2011 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Curry scores more points per shot than Monta, even when you account for FTAs.

In that same 36 minutes, Monta gets to the FT line an extra 1.5 times. That doesn’t tip the ledger, again, because Curry’s threes are more valuable.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Difference Is Not Significant

And has nothing at all to do with either player’s ability to run the offense.

by giantsrainman on May 10, 2011 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Difference Is Not Significant

True shooting percentage
Curry .595
Ellis .536

That’s a hugely significant difference, in a hugely important area. Curry is also much better at rebounding and defending his position. That’s three skills that are vitally important to winning games — so it should come as no surprise that Curry’s effect on the team has been much more positive than Monta’s over the past two years.

Your contention that three point shooting is the only skill in which Curry surpasses Monta is simply not true.

(On a side note: does your left finger not get tired from typing all your subject lines in title case?)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 10, 2011 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ellis Is The Better Defender And Rebounder From The One.

Curry’s TSP is inflated because he does not take the big shots when the defensive intensity is at it’s highest. Curry prefering to let Ellis take these shots just shows that even Steph thinks Monta is the better option when the game is on the line.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

You do realize that Curry gets a decent amount more rebounds than Monta, right? Not for a 1. Just straight up.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Who You Are Competing Against For Rebounds Does Matter.

Most One’s are smaller the Steph while most Two’s are bigger the Monta therefore this comparison does not really tell us anything.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

basically youre saying that when curry gets a rebound

it is only over the opposing teams 1 guard? there’s no big men down there trying to get the ball?

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Most Of The Time, Not All, Yes.

Sure there is likely an oposing bigman somewhere near by but not close enough to have a real shot at the rebound.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Actually, it tells us something, and more. Despite your idea that “who you are competing against for rebounds does matter”, what we really see is that guys get more rebounds the higher up the position ladder they go (where PG = bottom and C = top). And I’m not talking about C’s getting more rebounds than PF, I"m talking about a given individual will get more rebounds when he’s classified as a C than as a PF (or as a SG than as a PG). Why is this? Well, it seems reasonable that going against taller players makes rebounding more difficult, but it’s more than offset by the position you play. It’s probably a function of where you are on the floor, the higher the position you play the closer to the rim you typically are, and thus, the more rebounds you generally get. And responsibilities matter, too – for instance, a PG will most often have transition D responsibilities, so they have to pass up chances at offensive rebounds to make sure they’re back on D.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes.

And that’s not magically going to go away.

And since he’s not a point guard because he doesn’t have the requisite skills, that’s exactly the problem.

If he were capable of playing the point, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

you do realize

that it is the responsibility of the 1 guard to get back on defense after an offensive shot and to make themselves available for an outlet pass after a defensive shot. the fact that steph can do that and still get more rebounds than monta has to say something

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not really, what it tells us is Monta is a pretty piss poor rebounder. Based on reality, we would expect his rebounding to be even worse at the PG spot, and 3.8 rebounds per 36 is pretty bad to begin with, while his 3.5 and 3.1 numbers of the last two years are scary bad.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Compared to Monta, everyone in the league is a dominant rebounder.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 11, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wrong Again.

Career 3.7 rebounds per 35.5 min/gm for a 6’3" player under 200lbs just ain’t all that bad.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

You don’t get bonus points for being small. Rebounds you don’t get are rebounds you don’t get, regardless. Monta doesn’t get a lot of rebounds.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Steph Gets All Of .5 More Per 36 Min For Their Careers

And Steph does not compete for these against 6’6"+ 2’s like Monta has going back to the BD days.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Like I said, players actually get more rebounds as they go up the position ladder.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

steph is also 6’3 and under 200 lbs and he averages 4.2 rebs per 35.0 mins. i still dont see your argument

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

by your logic

a good rebounding guard should be able to get as many rebounds as a good rebounding forward because they only have to get rebounds against their position.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

when you're competing for rebounds

you compete against EVERYBODY. not just the guy at your position. your logic is just awful

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Only Partially True

Positioning on the floor at the the time of the shot detacts who actually has a chance at the rebound and more often then not when you have such a chance so does your opposite number from the other team.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

so basically youre saying (hypothetically)

if steph was averaging say 6 rebs per game and david lee was averaging 5 rebs per game that doesnt mean steph is a better rebounder than lee because he only has to compete with 1s while lee has to compete with 4s.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Positioning on the floor at the the time of the shot detacts who actually has a chance at the rebound and more often then not when you have such a chance so does your opposite number from the other team.

Right, you have more opportunities, which is why Monta’s rebounding is bad, and worse than Steph.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

From what I’ve seen, neither does Monta.

by Uwe Blog on May 11, 2011 11:52 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

He gets 5.8% of all available rebounds. That’s a little above Steve Nash: 5.4%. But look at Jose Barea: 5.9% (He’s 6’ 175 lbs). Darren Collison (again, shorter and lighter): 5.3%. He rebounds like a small PG over his career. But over the last two years? He’s averaged 5.2%, which is worse than all of these midgets.

I have to admit, though, in looking at small SG’s, he compares about equally to Gordon and Terry. Still, that’s bottom of the barrel 2’s. Monta is a bad rebounder. Don’t make excuses, because the important thing is that we win. Good rebounders help us win. That’s not Monta.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 11, 2011 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Did I mention he’s lower than Steve Nash and Jose Barea over the last two years. He’s just a bad rebounder. Period.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 11, 2011 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

The evidence suggests otherwise. Players tend to get even less rebounds when they play PG than when they play SG.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

The evidence suggests otherwise

Dude, evidence is annoying him. The guy enjoys emotions more.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 11, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Another Strawman.

One’s tend to get fewer rebounds then 2’s does not mean the same player playing the One will get fewer rebounds then he does when he plays the Two.

What it does mean is that One’s tend to be smaller then Two’s.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

One’s tend to get fewer rebounds then 2’s does not mean the same player playing the One will get fewer rebounds then he does when he plays the Two.

What it does mean is that One’s tend to be smaller then Two’s.

No, I specifically told you that a given individual gets more rebounds as he goes up the positional ladder.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hmm, I’ll have to try to find you the evidence, because it is true. It’s for reasons you’ve even identified:

Positioning on the floor at the the time of the shot detacts who actually has a chance at the rebound and more often then not when you have such a chance so does your opposite number from the other team.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is basically how you argue, right?

Just say you disagree, no evidence, no logic, no nothing …

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Right. He gets 30. ;-)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Curry’s TSP is inflated because he does not take the big shots when the defensive intensity is at it’s highest.

Monta’s defenders always pull up this kind of thing, without any evidence to back it up.

THey were saying for a long time that his scoring was deflated because of late-shot-clock atttempts – nope, not true. Turns out he takes fewer than his fair share of very-late shot clock attempts.

So now it’s some bogus thing about end-of-games?

No. Actually. Monta’s TS% is low because, primarily, of two things:

First, he takes too many long twos. These are the worst shot in basketball and Monta takes a ton of them.

Second, he drives into a set defense, making it easy for the defense to collapse on him, and often shoots even when there are two or three players on him.

If you’ve watched him play, you’ve seen both of these happen. They’re both bad basketball. THey both have nothing to do with defensive intensity. They both have nothign to do with Curry “letting” him take these shots.

Do you deny that Monta does those two things? Or do you deny that they’re bad things? Or what?

You say that Curry “prefers” to let Monta take these shots, but I call b.s. on that. Curry takes plenty of late-game shots. He just doesn’t force dumb shots … and that’s the difference.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is this guy serious?

Stevie Wonder in a dark basement could see Curry is a better PG than Monta. I really dont see what your looking at. Are you listening to Fitz and what the Warriors want you to believe? The offense runs ways better when Curry is in than when he’s out. If you want to say Monta is a better player I can kinda understand but saying he is a better PG is absurd

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 10, 2011 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well lets not take it too far now...

I’m sure Stevie Wonder in a dark basement might think Monta was a better PG, seeing as all he’d be able to do is listen to Fitz and what the Warriors want him to believe also.

by bigkino217 on May 10, 2011 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm curious giantsrainman...

do you think that Curry has a higher ceiling than Monta does in terms of their potential? Don’t you think that, eventually, Curry will become better than Monta at being a PG?

by Warriors Fanatic on May 10, 2011 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, Monta Ellis Is A Far Superior Athlete To Steph Curry.

Spot Up shoting is Steph’s one and ony advantage over Monta. In every other aspect of the game Monta is and will remain the superior player.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Other than vision, passing, ballhandling, running the offense, shooting in general, basketball IQ….

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

So….the next step would be to go into details and explain what you’re seeing and why you’re right, and if you really want to take the time, provide film evidence to back it up (I’m not really expecting this, though – as I realize that’s a huge amount of effort)…..

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here, I’ll start things off by providing an example of a discussion about Monta’s dribbling ability.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

It Is Easy To Cherry Pick Examples

Any untruth can be made to look truthful this way.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

the problem with your argument here

is that he is not cherry picking examples. this is a monta ellis highlight clip, not a monta ellis bad ball handling clip. the fact that you can see hes not a great ball handler even in his best plays shows that he is probably not a good ball handler in general.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Never Said I Agreed With The Conclusions.

Just said I didn’t think debating a select few vidio clips had any merit.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

We’re all still waiting on a more details discussion of any of these topics you’ve brought up….

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

You’re welcome to discuss details in whatever manner you deem appropriate.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just to recap the conversation, you’ve made statements like the following:

I rely on my eyes more then stats and I have seen zero from Steph that tells me he is a better PG the Monta. The only thing Steph has shown me he is better at the Monta is shooting the 3.

Ok. However, you have not made any effort to discuss the details of most of what you’re said. That’s the next step of a good conversation. “You’re wrong” is just the beginning of the conversation, usually it’s followed up with evidence/discussion why. That’s what I’m asking for. The very few topic you have followed up with (like midrange shooting and rebounding), the evidence has seemed to disagree with your notions. FIne. Maybe you’re right about other stuff. Let’s discuss details. Otherwise, why are we even having the conversation?

I assert that Monta is a poor ballhandler. This is a topic I’ve discussed around here many times, as many know. A brief discussion of the details: good ballhandling (and by ballhandling I’m really talking about dribbling) involves dribbling low, dribbling fast/hard, head up, both hands, have moves and not having the fact that you’re dribbling impede your ability to move. I think Monta dribbles high, head down, lazy and slow dribbles, has no moves, and has the left handed dribbling skills of an 8th grader. That’s the short version. So….care to follow up your observations with something more than “you’re wrong”?

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

And of course, video evidence to show someone what you’re talking about is always good, though extremely time consuming.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sure, examples can be cherrypicked.

But if you want to actually claim that MB is cherrypicking here, you have to actually make an argument that he’s doing so, not just point out that it’s hypothetically possible.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

And just so we’re clear, I did not cherry pick that example – it was the first Monta highlight video I found, and I went over every play in it. However, it is not necessarily representative, of course.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

So….the next step would be to go into details and explain what you’re seeing and why you’re right, and if you really want to take the time, provide film evidence to back it up (I’m not really expecting this, though – as I realize that’s a huge amount of effort)…..

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

the great future together part

is up for debate. i personally dont see how it can work

by bigkino217 on May 12, 2011 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just got to get the league to change the rules so basketball becomes a 7 on 7 game, where each team gets to have a PG and SG that only play offense, and another PG and SG that only play defense. No big deal at all.

by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

they could also change the rules

so guards cant be any taller than 6’3 and weigh more than 200 lbs, and you have to have 2 on the court at all times

by bigkino217 on May 19, 2011 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Where is your evidence that this has been talked about? I barely read any of that article (because it’s crappy bleacherreport) and I don’t see any evidence that both teams have talked about it. Bleacherreport pulls crap from anywhere, so this really is nothing to think about at all.

by duballers23 on May 10, 2011 5:15 PM PDT reply actions  

Curry for Westbrook?

I think r. westbrook may be attainable this offseason and Steph may be enough to get it done.
 
Westbrook is getting heat lately for not deferring to Durantula, maybe he is tired of being the Robin to Durant’s Batman? Thunder had been interested in drafting Steph and a core of Durant, Curry, Harden (who is under rated imo), Ibaka, Perkins is going to be tough.

Yes, Ellis and Westbrook together means no one else shoots.

What about Ellis/Biedrins to ATL for J Smith/Hinrich (works in trade machine)
  -Why would ATL do this? Its general thought that Horford is a better PF than C—having Biedrins (whatever is left of him) allows them to do that. Ellis and J. Johnson would make a good backcourt and allow ATL to change their offense dynamics. Having another playmaker (esp if Crawford doesn’t resign) who can take over will be huge. J. Smith, although a fan favorite, has been dangled in the past and has clashed with their coach. Plus, they haven’t had much post season success lately (outside of this year but probably still get out the 2nd) and Ellis’ style of play IS extremely marketable so maybe they put a few more butts in the seats (damn sure they need it)

-why we do this: get rid of the contracts of Ellis/Beans (smith has 3 yrs, hinrich 2) and change the dynamic of our team. Bring in PROVEN, playoff tested vets, and more defense.

Sign a C (Gasol?, Nene?), slide D-wright to 2, draft smart, get a coach and i think we can be competitive in the west. Yes, we won’t be championship caliber, but we can get there with a few tweaks.

PG: Westbrook

by dsham001 on May 10, 2011 5:49 PM PDT reply actions  

oops...

pg- westbrook
sg- Wright
sf- Smith
pf- Lee
c- whoever we sign/Udoh

That starting five can bring D (hide Lee) athleticism (fast breaks, transition o, etc) and offense.

Major negative I can see right now in my hastily put together post is spacing on offense. Ideally, Smith would take 0 3’s and mostly shots in the paint thus hurting spacing. But Lee’s ability to play high post, PnR, PnP and D-Wright with his 3pt cabilities (and willingness to take them) should help that

by dsham001 on May 10, 2011 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah.

Unless OKC falls apart starting right now, because Westbrook doesn’t get it, they’re going to say, “Okay this is the area where he needs to improve going into next year.”

Things would have to get really ugly and ego-driven between him and Durant for him to even consider it. That just seems unlikely.

Stranger things have happened, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

by Ronaldinho on May 10, 2011 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

It already is bad, though.

They’ve had a players-only meeting already, yet it continues. It’s starting to look like Russell isn’t even looking for Kevin unless that’s what the play calls for. Durant is starting to get more and more frustrated, even when they win, because Westbrook is not sharing the ball with him. He’s trying to take over, when he should be looking to distribute.

I think losing this series would be the breaking point for Durant’s patience with Westbrook’s antics. Russ isn’t listening when he calls for the ball, and taking a lot of mid-range jumper/floaters instead. There’s been a ton of frustration written all over Kevin’s face this post-season, even though they’ve actually not really messed up yet. They’re still 2-2 against Memphis with home-court advantage, and they beat Denver in 5 games, when a lot of people thought Denver could make a good series out of it.

So, I’m worried for their relationship, should this series not end the way it was expected to. It seems that, if they do lose this series, it will come from the exact problems they’ve suffered through thus far. At that point, I think Durant would have to come out and say something to RW. Obviously we don’t know how he would react to being told that he was essentially the reason they lost the series. I think, from that point, there is definitely potential for relationship to fall into the dumps.

But this is all just speculation. I’m hoping that this doesn’t happen, because they have such a good thing going. Hope they solve the issues and win the series, even though I do like watching Memphis play a bit more.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on May 10, 2011 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

except for the fact that durant is one of the quitest stars in the game

and understands that the world, as well as winning, does not revolve around him. he’s a smart kid, if there’s a problem, he’ll try to fix it before jumping ship

It's lonely being the only Warriors fan at UMass :(

by j-spliff415 on May 10, 2011 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

i didn't say he'd jump ship.

i said when he brought the issue up to westbrook, we don’t know what would happen. Russ seems headstrong and he’s definitely believing his own hype. Durant cutting him down like that, even if it was true, would not be good for their relationship.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on May 10, 2011 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

There was a large period of game 1 where Westbrook played extremely poorly and tried to do too much at the expense of his teammates. His play has changed since then. When I’ve been watching, he really hasn’t done a bad job at all.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

I like Westbrook

But these playoffs have shown his low maturity level. Dribbling out the clock and taking a bad shot almost every single possession when you have the biggest scoring threat in the league right next to you is pretty bad. He’s like a Monta that can pass, but chooses not to. I’d rather have Curry until Westbrook matures.

Wanna feel real torture? Try being a Warrior fan.

by luvmydubz23 on May 10, 2011 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

so he's just monta

It's lonely being the only Warriors fan at UMass :(

by j-spliff415 on May 10, 2011 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Have you been watching closely? Excluding game 1, where he legitimately was a problem, on a large number of those possessions, it really isn’t his fault. He spends the whole time trying to get teammates involved, it doesn’t work, so then he takes it himself at the end of the shot clock.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Game 3 they could've won if Westbrook had been more willing to pass the ball

but he’s been better since then I think that all-players meeting really helped him.

Wanna feel real torture? Try being a Warrior fan.

by luvmydubz23 on May 11, 2011 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

it's not westbrook's fault that every possession down the court

he has a mismatch. meanwhile kd is being hounded by 2 of the best defensive swingmen in the nba and is struggling to get open. okc should experiment with kd bringing the ball up more often if they want to get him the ball.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think OKC has to get KD moving off the ball better, especially looking to backcut on his man a few times to get them to ease off on the pressure. There was a stretch last game where Harden took over ballhandling/PG duties from Westbrook and found him a couple of times (I was impressed by Harden’s effectiveness at this, by the way) – one of those times was because the second his man turned his head KD cut hard to the hoop to get the ball for a dunk. He needs to take advantage of the defensive pressure and make them pay for it. He’s been doing way too much standing around. Especially with his ridiculous length advantage they should look to get him a couple of oops, too.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

i agree.

i feel like westbrook is trying to make too much of an effort to get the ball to kd early at the top of the key, and if he can’t do that he just takes it himself without really looking for kd as he gets inside. harden was able to break down the defense with his early penetration which made it much easier for kd to get open as the defense was scrambling

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bad trade.

Granger is a good player. However, the two most positive things we get out of this trade are dumping Biedrins’ contract and a 15th pick in a potentially weak draft because Granger doesn’t really bring anything new to the Warriors. Just another wing scorer. We’d have a better bench after this trade, considering we could add another draft pick and move Wright to the bench, but that’s not a huge boost.

I definitely don’t like the trade-off of Curry for Collison. Steph is the most valuable player in this trade, because he’s already good and can still get better. Darren seems to me to be a good amount overvalued as a player in the NBA. I think his stats in New Orleans from last season are a direct reflection of simply plugging him into Chris Paul’s very large role on the Hornets. He got all the touches that CP3 had previously. I think he either is or can be a good point guard in the NBA, but he definitely doesn’t have the scoring potential of Steph. Considering that his passing (the one thing where you’d think he’d have an advantage in) is just average, the trade-off kind of sucks. Defensively, I feel like he’s a bit better, but his size does limit him there as well. Steph is much bigger, and even though his defensive footwork isn’t good, he has the potential to improve it (though it is far from a guarantee that he will).

All in all, losing Steph makes it a bad trade. Granger and Collison are nice pieces, but we have to remember that the Pacers weren’t any better than us this year. Curry may already be a better player than Granger, and I don’t think getting their 1st round pick or dumping Biedrins’ contract is enough motivation to give up Steph.

http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/

by Brownie13 on May 10, 2011 6:08 PM PDT reply actions  

Curry may already be a better player than Granger, and I don’t think getting their 1st round pick or dumping Biedrins’ contract is enough motivation to give up Steph.

You’re right. Steph may have significant upside, while we certainly can’t expect Granger to improve.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 10, 2011 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

I view Collison as a good backup/bad starter. He’s alright, but definitely not something I covet.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bleck-er Report as a source?

Oh no he didn’t!

"It's like Will Smith, remember the Fresh Prince? Get the ball don't let nobody else shoot? That's kinda what the offense can be sometimes, and they're just standing around waiting for Monta to make a play"
-MT2

by golden_solitude on May 10, 2011 7:39 PM PDT reply actions  

I'd rather trade Curry for a package of Bogut than a package of Granger.

But I’d rather keep Curry first above all unless Superman was coming back to us.

"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."

"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart

by kenntoe on May 10, 2011 9:56 PM PDT reply actions  

I like Granger and I think he is actually worth his contract.

He is pretty efficient at scoring. He gets to the line and he is a good defender. The problem is that D. Wright is all of those things except someone who gets to the line. I like Collison too, but I think that his defense is only maybe a small bit better than Curry, who is constantly berated for his defense despite the fact that he is merely a smidgen worse than mediocre. A combo of Collison and Ellis therefore is only a smidgen better than Curry and Ellis. Curry is an absolutely one in a thousand shooter, he may will end his career as one of the best shooters the game has seen, this ability is hard to find. If we are trading Curry we need something better, we need the one thing that is even harder to find than an elite shooter, we need an elite defender who can run the floor, rebound and score efficiently at center.

The best thing about this trade is actually getting rid of Biedrins contract. In my opinion we should not include Curry in a trade where the best aspect of that said trade is to get rid of Biedrins contract. Curry is better than this. I am not over valuing Curry. Curry could be the center piece in a trade for someone the caliber of Al Horford or even Dwight Howard(if these teams must let their star centers go.)

These are the things we need

1. Defense and efficiency at the C position
2. A bigger backcourt
3. Someone who gets to the line at a good rate
4. Better defensive rebounding.

We can get 1, 3 and 4 from one player. If we trade Curry it needs to be for someone that does that. Then we need to slide Monta to PG(If we are trading Curry) I know the offense is more “stagnant” but I have seen Monta develop better PG skills, I think with the right players around him Monta could be a passable PG. Then we need to use our MLE on a defensive minded SG.

Honestly I keep Curry at all costs if I am the Warriors GM. I trade Ellis(for less talent but more depth) and get rid of Biedrins at the soonest available time for whatever I can get.

by brutusbrutus on May 10, 2011 10:36 PM PDT reply actions  

There is no way the Magic give up Howard for Curry nor would they make any trade without getting a solid center in return. You’re absurdly overvaluing Curry, unless we throw in a very good center with him. Of course, we don’t have that.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 11, 2011 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Um….not really? Granger was basically at league average as a rookie. Since then, he’s been above average every single year of his career, including getting to borderline elite level two years ago, while doing it on almost 26 points per 36. Monta’s efficiency last year was very bad. This year it was a bit below average.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

sorry if i'm misunderstanding but all i see with granger

is his steadily declining TS% and PER for the past 3 years

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, his TS% declined, but is that just random variation or a trend? And, as I said, he’s still above average despite the decline while Monta is below average.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

(And by “a trend”, I mean, “a trend that will continue in the future”)

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

i was slightly mistaken

i had read somewhere that his TS% was down in the 54% range when i made my statement but that must not have been updated because i see he finished the season at 55.4%, which is not near monta. however, in the event that it is a trend and not random variation (not saying that it is, just hypothetical), he may be approaching monta pretty soon

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t know if it’s meaningful or not, but it’s definitely something I’d at least be concerned about.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am speaking of this scenario

Howard says he is going to leave. He talks with the Warriors, the Warriors have the ability to sign him long term if he comes here. The Warriors trade Curry to the Magic with other things, like 1st round draft picks and other valuable players. I didn’t mean to say ONLY Curry would be in that trade. I also think there is a 0% chance of this happening.

Curry would just be the centerpiece for the Magic in that completely specific scenario. Other teams would love Curry and would be willing to trade for him if a star was leaving like Anthony did last year. IMO the Knicks gave too much for Anthony… But in Howard’s case I really don’t think that anything would really be “too much.” Considering his ability.

by brutusbrutus on May 11, 2011 3:03 AM PDT reply actions  

there's ø evidence in the bleacher report article

by Jonathan Owens, 26 Apr., to indicate that any trade at all is being discussed between the Ind and GS brain trusts. The writer is speculating how Bird can improve the team. There are probably many fans of other teams fantasizing how to acquire Curry.

Apparently there’s also an abundance of fantasy trades over many GS fan sites involving Biedrins with the assumption that including Curry would make it work — yet Riley/Lacob have given ø signs that they’re desperate to unload the Latvian, or that they don’t consider Curry and elite-level talent whose development got sidetracked by Smart. Many teams have endured having an expensive reserve with chronic injuries or other compatibility problems, yet Biedrins is supposed to be so unsupportable that the team would give up its most valuable player ?

Music is the Healing Force of the Universe (a.ayler)

by the.monk on May 11, 2011 11:14 AM PDT reply actions  

Curry is our only trade bait

Is Indiana the ONLY team that trades with the Warriors ?? Curry is a “nice” PG, but he will never lead us to the Promise Land. He is soft and does not push the ball upcourt. He does not put the opposition on their heals like Derrick Rose, Michael Westbrook, Deron Williams. I say package Curry with “anyone” that Orlando wants and lets get Dwight Howard. Dub fans do not want Lakers to get Howard. Howard will be our first legit BIG man since C-Webb.

by gomerpyle on May 11, 2011 11:21 AM PDT reply actions  

He is soft and does not push the ball upcourt. He does not put the opposition on their heals like Derrick Rose, Michael Westbrook, Deron Williams

These aren’t exactly necessarily qualities to win. Anyways, as for Dwight Howard, if you’re the Magic, and someone offers you a player that’s “soft, doesn’t push the ball upcourt, does not put the opposition on their heals, and will never lead a team to the Promsie Land”, why would you trade the second best player in the NBA for him, exactly?

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

These aren’t exactly necessarily qualities to win.

True, but you have to admit Michael Westbrook would be a beast on the fastbreak. We could sign Kordell Stewart to throw him long outlet passes.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'd still rather have Brian Westbrook

Wanna feel real torture? Try being a Warrior fan.

by luvmydubz23 on May 11, 2011 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, look -

- on a certain level, it would make sense to offer our entire roster for Dwight. He’s the second-best player in the league. A team with him and even a set of horribly mismatched pieces is much better than we are now.

But to get Dwight and keep him, you need to be able to put players around him who complement him. After all, if he wants to play with a bunch of guys who’s games didn’t mesh with his, he can stay in Orlando.

Realistically, Monta, Lee, and Dorell are all players who make sense to keep alongside Dwight if you can. Whereas Monta is not – Monta is the exact same type of player we’ve seen fail to mesh well with Dwight over the past few years: Arenas, Vince, etc.

Now, again – sure, Dwight is easily worth any two of our players if he signs an extension with us. No question. He’s probably worth any three.

But if the goal is to win a championship, then you need both Dwight and a plan to get the right players around him. Any plan to acquire Dwight has to account for the second half of the equation, too.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

huh?
Realistically, Monta, Lee, and Dorell are all players who make sense to keep alongside Dwight if you can. Whereas Monta is not – Monta is the exact same type of player we’ve seen fail to mesh well with Dwight over the past few years: Arenas, Vince, etc.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

by Evanz on May 11, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

just guessing...

the first one was supposed to be steph

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, sorry.

Meant to say that Curry, Lee, and Dorell are guys who’s games make sense next to Dwight, whereas Monta’s doesn’t.

Brainfart. Sorry about that.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

How Might The Minutes Breakdown If This Trade And Signing Nene Happens?

I would expect this trade to reduce Monta’s minutes down to 36 and thus more in line with his career average then his recent season’s average.

Overall when everyone is healthy I would expect something like this.
Monta, Granger, and Lee 36 minutes each.
Nene and Wright 32 minutes each.
Collison 24 minutes
Udoh and 2011 #1 (I suggest a 2/3 combo player) 16 minutes each.
Non 8 Man Rotation Players 12 minutes total per game.

This will very from game to game depending upon matchups and when it is desirable to go big and when it is desireable to go small. In this rotation on average Collison will play the One 24 minutes and Ellis will play the One the other 24 minutes thus Ellis will still play the Two for 12 minutes.

Can someone explain to me how this is not a vastly impoved team that is very likely to make the playoffs and perhaps even move beyond round one?

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:04 PM PDT reply actions  

Well, the team still sucks defensively, and still faces the issue of Monta trying to do too much. Of course, Nene definitely makes the team better, though I’m not sure how you go about acquiring him, exactly…

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess the trade does help cut salary, so maybe it’s enough to make it possible? Could be, though it’s very unclear right now. So let’s assume that happens. What’s the future of that team, exactly?

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Longshot Title Contender Every Year They Stay Healthy.

No, it is not a plan to get to where the elites are now but then I just don’t think it is realistic to ever expect the Warriors to have such a plan. We will win a title again only when everything goes right light it did in 75 and this is the only way that will ever happen.

The Warriors are just never going to punt the coming season and thus revenue to put togeather the type of plan you desire.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see it more as a bottom playoff seed that likely gets knocked out first round for a couple of years, and slowly declines as the team ages. Can you make the case that team is better than Nene’s Denver team? I’m not so sure.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

definitely bottom seed in the playoffs

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

In My View A Much Better Defensive Team The Denver Had.

Granger and Wright will put more defensive pressure on Durant then anyone at Denver did and Monta and Collison will do the same with Westbrook.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Westbrook might die from laughter

if he heard you saying monta was going to put defensive pressure on him

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, it would have helped Denver to have a healthy Afflalo. I think he’s a much better defensive wing than anyone we’d have. I’d put JR Smith on a similar level to Dorell/Granger – has the physical tools, but the consistent effort and focus isn’t always there. End results are somewhere around average. Wilson Chandler and Kenyon Martin are good on D, too.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

My biggest hesitation with trading Curry is I see him as really the only thing we have going for us long term. So if we’re sacrificing him to become a first round exit team, I’m not so sure it’s a good move.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

well thats what they tried to do with AR

and it didnt even get them into the playoffs.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

The #1 Coming Back To The Warriors Balances Bell's Salary.

Net this only saves the Warriors a little more then $1M in 2011/12. This trade has little to do with finding the cap space to sign Nene. Going from a softcap of $58M in 2010/11 to a hardcap of $65M in 2011/12 is what provides the cap space to sign Nene.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I guess the trade does help cut salary

A bit. Granger + Collison actually make a bit more than Curry + Biedrins. I guess shedding Bell’s $4M gives us a tiny bit of room, but why would Indiana take on Bell? It’s already asking a lot for them to take on Biedrins’ $9M.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, Steph’s a pretty excellent prize, but $13M in useless stuff seems like a lot for a small market team to take on.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

$13M in useless stuff might seem bad

but when you change it to steph + useless stuff for $16.5M, it stops looking so terrible

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good point.

OK, let’s keep Steph and our useless junk. ;-)

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not A Started But Still A Useful Rotation Player.

This is where I ment to have the above cap comment post. I do not at all know how it partial posted here and then completely posted in the wrong spot above.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I think there’s a very distinct possibility we get something worthless from the draft. Of course, there’s also the possibility we get something useful. The pick has value, I’m not sure it’s very much.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

The #1 coming back too

In a silly fantasy trade conjured by a 12 year-old on Bleacher Report.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I See This Team As A Vastly Better Defensive And Rebounding Team.

Where do you see this defensive weakness? Monta can defend any One and Collison ain’t chopped liver at defending One’s either.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Better? Probably reasonable. I don’t see them as “good”, though. I don’t think any of Collison, Monta, Lee, Dorell or Granger are good defenders. Lee is particularly inept, and I’d probably say Dorell is about average, and the rest below average. Nene and Udoh help, but it’s definitely still a weakness.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I Think Granger And Wright Just Might Be The NBA's Best Pair To Defend Against James And Wade.

Personally, I like the potential defensive abilities of this possible new Warriors team alot.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

i disagree

Tony Allen and Shane Battier are EASILY the best pair to defend Wade and Lebron

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

You Are Ignoring That Allen And Battier Will Put Little Pressure On James And Wade to Play Defense Too.

Granger and Wright will make James and Wade work on both sides of the ball and thus have less energy to focus on just their offense. This to me matters. Overall I give the edge to Granger and Wright over Allen and Battier.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

well now you're changing your argument...

if we’re talking about BOTH sides of the ball, not just defending as you initially stated, ray allen and paul pierce are way ahead of granger and dorell in matching up with lebron and wade

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

and i'm telling you ray/pierce or kobe/artest

would fare much better defensively against lebron and wade than granger/dorell when factoring in defense through offense. it’s not even close

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Allen/Pierce Maybe Kobe/Artest Noway

Artest has lost alot on defense and Kobe is overrated.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

And I Think You Are Underrating Wright And Granger.

So let’s just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

i can see how you judging everything based on what you see, rather than based on statistics

would lead you to believe that dorell is a significantly above average defender. To be fair, he is a much better defender than anyone else in the starting lineup (barring Ekpe). The reason for that, however, is not that dorell is a very good defender. It is because everyone else is so bad.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Dorell wasn't that good in Miami.

He’s got good tools, and understands defense well, we just haven’t seen the results yet.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, how much D do you really think Lebron and Wade will have to play on them? Monta’s going to take a lot of touches, Lee and Nene need touches. Dorell is the worst offensive player of the group and should honestly do nothing but catch and shoot. Granger’s a good scorer. How many touches is he going to get?

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good Question

However, I think their are enough touches to go around. If you use the minutes estimate I provided I think you can then estimate touches (which for this perpose I will define as FieldGoalAttempts + FreeThrowAttempts/2) as follows:

Ellis-20
Granger-17
Lee-15
Wright-13
Nene-11
Collison-8
2011#1-6
Udoh-4
Others-4
Total-98 vs 2010/11-97

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

i like how you just throw out some random statement

and follow it up with the old “anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong”

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

are you personally going to go tell monta that he has to stop shooting so much?

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

He Passes Too.

And on the Warriors teams he has played on he shots the amount he should shot. Monta does not just gun to gun. When he shots under pressure it is because he got the ball with 5 seconds left on the clock or because his teammates are shying away from taking big shots with the game on the line.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

as we have stated over and over but you refuse to listen...

almost all statistics show that monta shoots way more than he should

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

once again, statistics show

that monta shoots LESS than his share of shots as the shot clock is winding down.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

there are seriously statistics for everything

the fact that you think monta is an exception to statistics while no one else in the nba is is laughable

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

any statistic that shows something that you dont believe to be true from watching games

is obviously a bad statistic and theres a lot wrong with it. you’re pretty much like every lakers fan that stands by kobe being clutch.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Kobe Is Clutch

These are more difficult shots and will be made less often. But Kobe is not afraid to take them unlike most of his teammates and for that matter most NBA players.

The same applies to Monta.

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

this is hilarious.

what part of 28.1% fg for kobe versus league average 28.0% fg for game winning or tying shots in the final 24 seconds of a playoff game do you not understand. This statistic includes EVERY player that has ever taken one, and stats show that kobe is really no more likely than any other player to make this shot. It is not because his shots are “tougher” either.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

this

is what most people dont understand. go back and look at the player that Kobe is often compared to in Michael Jordan. How many highlights are there of Jordan drawing defenders and hitting teammates for game winning shots? Now how many highlights are there of Kobe drawing defenders and hitting teammates for game winning shots? Jordan was smart enough to know not to take a difficult shot if a teammate has an easier, higher percentage shot. I have never seen Kobe give up the ball for a game winning attempt.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Kobe's had 1 game winning assist in his career.

Pretty horrible, right?

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Still, just wow.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

So you're getting mad at us for not providing evidence?

WHy don’t you provide some – anything. Even an argument.

Maybe you’re just a troll. Either that, or 15.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think

he’s a troll that doesnt like Curry, loves Monta and hates stats unless his eyes prove them

Golden State Warriors Fan 4 Life!!!
Biggest GSW fan in NY!
Get Marc Gasol this summer Lacob!
Coach: Budenholzer or Shaw
Twitter: @GSWarrior9
..............SC30..............

by GSW9 on May 11, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure he's an intentional troll.

This is who he is.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

82games.com has statistics on when in the shot clock shots were taken.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Indeed.

But we’ve addressed that, too – talking about his long twos early into the shot clock, and his tendency to drive into a set defense.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2011 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would actually say Granger is the closest one to a black hole. I’m not sure he is – I honestly don’t watch the Pacers enough to say he is, but let’s just say setting up teammates isn’t exactly his specialty. I’m actually concerned that there won’t be good perimeter ball movement from that group. Lack of a PG, and while I don’t think those guys are black holes, necessarily, I also don’t think any of them have shown they’re capable of running an offense or creating good ball movement/looking for teammates. The two bigs are probably the best passers in the starting lineup….

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I Don't Think They Would Be Defient In Ball Movement

Sure it would be nice to have a Nash like player to dish out 10+ assists per game but Curry ain’t that player either and in my view never will be

Hardly proof but, the assists per game of the 7 in this rotation that played in the NBA in 2010/11 were Ellis 5.6, Collison 5.1, Lee 3.2, Wright 3.0, Granger 2.6, Nene 2.0, and Udoh 0.7 which leads me to believe the ball movement will be just fine within this group..

by giantsrainman on May 11, 2011 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Even ball movement and assists are kind of different. Let’s use Miami as an example. They don’t have very good ball movement, especially among their perimeter players. Both Lebron and Wade are very good at creating for teammates, but they both do it off the dribble, and they essentially have to take turns playing offense. That’s kind of what I’m concerned about – I like Dorell a ton as a catch and shoot shooter, and I think he’s even more versatile than that, but when he does something it’s usually to create a shot for himself. Granger isn’t much of a passer/creator. Monta does create shots for teammates, but it’s almost all when he’s dominating the ball, which isn’t necessarily a good thing for the offense. On the other hand, Monta is shown he can be fantastic off the ball as a cutter like he did when Baron was around….the problem is, who’s going to take that ballhandling role if it’s not Monta? It’s just a concern. There’s lots of offensive talent among that group, so it seems like a good coach should be able to figure out how to get them to play good offense. Not sure how likely that is. If it turns into an offense where players basically just take turns creating shots for themselves (like the Heat frequently do), I’d be much less optimistic about their chances.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Eh, I think those guys are more physical tools kinda guys, but aren’t actually great defenders on a consistent basis.

by Missing Barry on May 11, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I Think Granger And Wright Just Might Be The NBA’s Best Pair To Defend Against James And Wade.

Seriously, Dude, Why Do You Insist On Typing Like This?

Not only is it bad style and hard to read but it must be a pain in the butt to type.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's kinda a running joke that he did at MCC.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Apparently they weren’t amused enough to spare him the ban.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think MB and I would disagree that he was given a fair trial there. I mean he got banned for something miniscule when people on that site consistently go after others and do a bunch of stuff. GRM was the only person to really oppose the groupthink on that site, and i think thats why he honestly got banned. Just my opinion, not sure if anyone else on there agreed.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or at least i remember MB being confused on why they did that to grm.

"Of course, these people couldn’t really have predicted...the joke of a mockery of a sham of a circus of Keith Smart’s nightly rotations. " - Sleepy Freud
Steph Curry and Reggie Williams all day baby!

by GovernorStephCurry on May 11, 2011 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

dorell may be an average defender

but the warriors would be much better off if everyone on the team was just an average defender.

by bigkino217 on May 11, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Haha, how did Nene find himself involved this hypothetical trade? Our chances of signing him are slim-to-none whether we make the trade or not.

Apples to apples, the main changes this trade brings are at starting PG and SF, where we get Collison and Granger instead of Curry and Dorell. Meh. Lateral at best.

The Ws could use a bona fide stud at any position, but if you consider salary and production, starting PG and SF are the probably the team’s two strong points right now.

As long as we’re talking silly fantasy trades with Indiana, I’d be more interested in a Monta for Granger swap, with Dorell and ReggieW (or possibly JR Smith) sharing the SG duties. That doesn’t make us world-beaters either, but at least it makes us bigger rather than smaller (while also ridding us of our least efficient scorer and worst positional rebounder among the five starters).

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 11, 2011 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

While we are talking about random things and using this unlikely trade as

a forum to voice our bored opinions… What do you guys think of D. Wright as a SG, is that possible? I personally think it could work if we did trade Monta or Curry and fix our back court size.

by brutusbrutus on May 12, 2011 2:26 AM PDT reply actions  

A wing is a wing is a wing!

by Missing Barry on May 12, 2011 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

True, though with Curry as your PG, you ideally want your wings to be decent passers and ballhandlers — perhaps a bit better than Dorell has been over his career (2.5 ast/36). Of course, Iguodala at the other wing solves that problem. (Monta does too, but he gives a lot back by being small and an atrocious defender and rebounder).

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’d definitely want a slasher next to Curry and Dorell.

by Missing Barry on May 12, 2011 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

How would you feel about JR Smith? Good size, picked up his rebounding big time last year (5.9/36), and slick enough handles that Karl occasionally had him playing a bit of PG. Plus, even though he’s been around forever, he’s only 25.

Seems like a pretty ideal MLE target to me, depending on what happens with ’Tay.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

Damn, that dude sounds dope. Makes me doubt we could get him for the MLE.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 12, 2011 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

His career TS% is better than Monta’s and his 3 point FG% is solid.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 12, 2011 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

When Dorell plays the 2, he fouls at double the rate, although his opponents TS% is about the same. In other words, he defends 2’s worse than he defends 3’s. Of course, he still defends better than Monta at the 2.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 12, 2011 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

When Dorell plays the 2, he fouls at double the rate,

No he doesn’t.

Someone posted that when Dorell is the nominal 2 (data that 82games determines with methodology that isn’t available to critique), the opposing 2 takes more FTs. This is not the same thing as Dorell committing more fouls. When Dorell is the nominal SG, he fouls at nearly the same rate that he does when he is the nominal SF. When Dorell is the nominal 2, the opposition’s nominal 2 (who may or may not be the guy that Dorell is guarding) takes about twice as many FTs per minute on the court, but that is a product of someone else committing the foul.

And all of this is based on a rather small sample of minutes.

although his opponents TS% is about the same. In other words, he defends 2’s worse than he defends 3’s.

His defense is worse, but the TS% is the same? What makes it worse then?

by jae on May 12, 2011 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

His defense is worse, but the TS% is the same? What makes it worse then?

If you foul more, that hurts the team in the long run. It also forces him to sit more often. That said, assuming that he doesn’t foul more at the 2 or isn’t the reason the 2 he’s defending gets fouled more, then his defense is the same.

If you’re over the limit, obviously, you give up more points. If you’re sitting, you can’t play any defense.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 12, 2011 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you misunderstoof what jae is trying to say

I believe the statistic that you are referring to is that the opposing 2 shoots twice as many free throws when Dorell is the warriors’ 2 guard. This stat alone really is not enough to tell us that Dorell is worse at guarding 2s than 3s.

Scenario 1: Dorell is the (supposed) 2 guard on the court for the Warriors. However, on defense, he is guarding the opposing 3. Meanwhile, the 2 guard is getting to the line against a (probably mismatched) Warriors defender. This scenario tells us nothing about Dorell’s ability to guard the 2.

Scenario 2: Dorell is the (supposed) 2 guard on the court for the Warriors. He is consistently getting beat by the opposing 2 guard, causing our other defenders to foul the opposing 2 as he attacks the rim. In this scenario, Dorell is not able to guard the opposing 2. However, it does not mean that Dorell fouls twice as much just because his opponent is getting more free throws (and as jae points out, he fouls at pretty much the same rate, not twice as much.)

Scenario 3: Suppose that the few times that Dorell was the (supposed) 2 guard and was guarding the opposing 2, it was always near the end of a quarter (this was a small enough sample size that its entirely possible). This would make it more likely that the opposing team was in the bonus (maybe he only played the 2 if monta and steph were both in foul trouble). In this scenario, Dorell could foul at the same rate as normal, but due to the bonus, the opposing 2 would take many more free throws than normal. This scenario doesn’t tell us anything about Dorell’s ability to guard the 2 either.

Basically, the fact that the opposing 2 is taking more free throws with Dorell as the (supposed) 2 doesn’t necessarily say anything about his ability to guard the 2. If the TS% was the same, I’d be more inclined to think that Dorell was just as capable of guarding the 2 as he is at guarding the 3. I would definitely want to see a bigger sample size though before making any conclusions

by bigkino217 on May 12, 2011 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

If the opposing 2 is getting to the line more, when Dorell defends him, that’s not good. That means something is wrong. You could make a case it wasn’t Dorell’s fault and that it was just a fluke. What we need is a bigger sample size. Also, what made you think I misunderstood? I included the possibility that Dorell wasn’t the one fouling. I understood that part. But it still isn’t a good sign.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 13, 2011 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

i have to admit

i must have only read your first 2 lines before i started writing lol. whoops…

by bigkino217 on May 13, 2011 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

If the opposing 2 is getting to the line more, when Dorell defends him, that’s not good.

And that’s a big “if” with many qualifiers. We do not know that in the minutes that 82games.com said Dorell played SG that he was guarding the opposition’s shooting guard. Their methodology remains more than something of a mystery. We have a very small sample to work from, small enough that it could be skewed by the late quarter minutes where the other team is already in the bonus.

Since it does not look like Dorell fouls more when he’s playing the 2, the assumption that the other 2 gets to the line because Dorell has to foul him because he’s beat is not a good assumption.

I included the possibility that Dorell wasn’t the one fouling. I understood that part. But it still isn’t a good sign.

You wrote:

When Dorell plays the 2, he fouls at double the rate, although his opponents TS% is about the same. In other words, he defends 2’s worse than he defends 3’s. Of course, he still defends better than Monta at the 2.

Those are your words. I did not take from that any possibility that anyone other than Dorell was fouling. It’s not mentioned anywhere in there. You do state that Dorell fouls at double the rate, something that the numbers we have available say is simply wrong. Conclusions drawn from facts in error are problematic.

by jae on May 13, 2011 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

You do state that Dorell fouls at double the rate

I did state it. Why are you bringing that up again? I didn’t keep arguing for it. Apparently, you wanted a humble confession that I got that wrong?

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 13, 2011 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

What we need is a bigger sample size.

Which we have. We can look at how Dorell defended two’s last year. We don’t see the same effect we saw this year.

by Ronaldinho on May 13, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Gotcha.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on May 13, 2011 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're making a classic bad small-sample size argument.

The sample size is tiny, and the moment you expand it … the effect you’re looking for goes away.

In other words, it does not support the evidence that Dorell can’t guard two’s effectively.

by Ronaldinho on May 13, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t believe that anyone wouldn’t consider trading anyone on the team. We suck.

There will be no extra point!

by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Horrible

I haven’t checked this board in a month, and I come back to this? Ugh. I wholeheartedly agree with MB’s multi-rec’d post above. This trade is ridiculous.

Let’s be clear: if the Warriors make a trade this offseason, any trade, Monta Ellis must be in the deal. Period.

by UncleCliffy on May 13, 2011 12:00 PM PDT reply actions  

nah

oversimplified
keeping Monta isn’t a totally bad idea (or at least not the sort of thing you want holding up an otherwise viable trade).
Trade Monta for something good, but don’t make getting rid of him the number one offseason priority

"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 May 13, 2011 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Two words

Bleacher Report

Bleacher Report masquerades as a legit site but is pure garbage. It’s read by low IQ homers who actually think anything printed is somehow worthy of taking seriously.

by supersugarCrisp on May 13, 2011 12:51 PM PDT 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