SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
With or Without Ellis according to ezPM
by Evanz on May 12, 2011 5:00 AM PDT
Email
Print
Disclaimer: If you're not statistically minded (or I would argue open-minded), feel free to ignore my shenanigans.
Last night I made some modifications to my PBP code so that I could look at stats with or without any single player. I'll definitely be posting much more of this type of analysis on my blog, but I figured I would give a taste of it here - starting, of course, with Monta Ellis. The advantage of using play-by-play data is that the "with" or "without" is actually determined at the lineup level. So, even though Ellis only missed a couple of games, I have data for every possession during the season where he was on the bench, too. So, from that perspective, these are pretty unique data you are about to see. :D
With no further adieu, here are the ezPM100 ratings for each Warrior when Ellis was "in" or "out" (along with number of possessions):
In/Out NAME POSS EZPM100
in Vladimir Radmanovic 1606 -3.62
out Vladimir Radmanovic 628 3.24
in Stephen Curry 4183 -0.50
out Stephen Curry 684 1.86
in Rodney Carney 451 -6.79
out Rodney Carney 201 -2.28
in Reggie Williams 1975 -0.80
out Reggie Williams 1147 1.80
in Monta Ellis 6343 1.62
in Louis Amundson 933 -2.45
out Louis Amundson 387 -0.03
in Jeremy Lin 188 -3.37
out Jeremy Lin 340 3.49
in Jeff Adrien 226 -0.84
out Jeff Adrien 146 -8.09
in Ekpe Udoh 1432 -5.32
out Ekpe Udoh 544 -1.43
in Dorell Wright 5409 -0.10
out Dorell Wright 785 2.90
in David Lee 4576 -0.68
out David Lee 567 -0.40
in Dan Gadzuric 431 -4.11
out Dan Gadzuric 138 -5.49
in Charlie Bell 142 8.15
out Charlie Bell 160 -3.65
in Brandan Wright 222 -2.11
out Brandan Wright 158 2.99
in Andris Biedrins 2575 -1.62
out Andris Biedrins 177 -4.36
in Al Thornton 319 -4.00
out Al Thornton 252 5.69
in Acie Law 704 -2.46
out Acie Law 481 -2.82
Like I said, I'll be posting more analysis of these data on my blog, but the main thing you can see here is that almost every player on the roster has a better rating when Ellis is OUT. In fact, in many cases, the differences are quite dramatic. It is important to take into account the sample size for each case, and it will also surely be argued that Ellis is often on the bench in garbage time. Even with those caveats, it's hard to imagine such a universal trend not having some meaning. In time, as I look at other players around the league, I will hopefully be able to put this in better perspective.
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!
291 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Say we trade monta and don’t get equal value for him. Do we really get better? It seems like people think trading Ellis would automatically mean steph curry turns into an all star. I honestly agree with people who want trade Monta, but don’t trade him for crap.
by DownGoesFrazier30 on May 12, 2011 5:56 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 2 recs
It honestly looks like trading him for nothing would make us better.
"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 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Dumping players constantly will never truly help
We have been down this road before
" Just dump Jack and we’ll get better!"
“Just dump Crawford!”
“Harrington should be dumped!”
“Dump Andris!”
Dumping is called dumping for a reason
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
would you rather still have SJ, Crawford, and Harrington?
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Jack and Crawford could be useful right about now
Makes us better and JC’s deal would be off the books this year, don’t know how much more money that’d give us though .
Jack would also make our defense better and we could go big with him at 2 and Monta/Steph at PG
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
I think our biggest problem is we simply have not executed a long term strategy. Dumping a player is only the first step, the next is to do something with the salary you save. That’s where we consistently fail.
by Missing Barry on May 12, 2011 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree
(Hi!)
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
Dumping is called dumping for a reason
Because you feel cleansed and relieved afterwards? ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
...
Would anyone here (other than perhaps Lat We N Trash) be that crushed if we dumped Biedrins?
Obviously, the idea is to maximize your return on any trade. If the dumpee has negative trade value (Biedrins, e.g.) you’re happy with a straight dump. If he has a little bit of value (as Monta probably does), you try to get a bit more than that.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm happy to dump Biedrins if it's a real dump.
On the other hand, if we get back equally-useless players on similar contracts, I’m opposed.
I do feel that Biedrins has a higher chance of turning back into a productive player than most guys you’re likely to be able to get for him. He’s got 2 yrs + player option left on his contract – if he’s playing like he is now, that’s three years.
So let’s say we dump him for a 100% worthless, never going to see the floor player. Are we happy to do that if the guy is on a two-year contract for the same money?
On a one-year contract, you probably do it. But on a two year, you’re only saving a year, and you’re giving up the small but non-zero chance of Biedrins turning back into a decent player.
by Ronaldinho on May 12, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Depends
Are we just getting another crap deal? Or are we actually clearing his money?
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
Yeah, those are things we need to consider. I think Monta’s definitely a more valuable player and trade piece than Maggette was last year. We were almost able to clear Maggs’ money completely (damn that extra stupid year on Charlie Bell’s contract!) In the case of Monta, I’d either want to (1) clear the money completely plus get a l’il something extra (say, Diaw’s expiring contract and one of Charlotte’s picks); or (2) get a productive player who fits our team better, perhaps with a slightly onerous contract (Iguodala, e.g.).
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
The challenge of dumping is that it costs talent (always dicey) and you have to wait a while before you reap any benefit beyond addition by subtraction.
Part of the reason why our bench was bare this year was because of past year’s dumping.
I still think removing Jackson was addition-by-subtraction. Crawford and Harrington, I’m less sold on.
I disagree, let’s just leave it at that.
by DownGoesFrazier30 on May 12, 2011 7:03 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Say we trade monta and don’t get equal value for him. Do we really get better?
I think that “equal value” may be the real issue. In terms of winning games, equal value isn’t all that much. By this measure, his perceived value, largely a result of being fun to watch and scoring a bunch of points, vastly exceeds his actual value.
What are you measuring?
is it each player’s average +/- either with or without monta ellis?
it's a statistical based +/-
So, in theory, if you add up any 5 players ezPM100, it gives you the +/- rating for that 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)
I should also clarify
statistical-based +/- means it is based on actual stats (shots, rebounds, steals, blocks, 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)
The way I read this
It potentially backs up what I have been thinking:
not that it is Monta who necessarily hurts the team, as much as our coaching staff who hurt the team because of the way they use Monta in the offense.
Running an offense through him where he is the primary ball handler and decision maker will never work. Yet this is exactly what it looks like so often. The offense looks flat and lifeless like everyone is just waiting for him to do an athletic move and create for himself.
It is an inefficient way to run an offense, and it makes sense to me that the combination of using Monta so ineffeciently plus the high volume portion of the offense dedicated to Monta would result in a minus across the boards for this team when he is in.
If this team were Voltron, Monta needs to be the right arm, but we are using him as the head (sorry for the bad metaphor). Monta needs to be used as a weapon on the court. A very potent option for our pg (and other players) in the flow of the offense. That is a coaching issue imo.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 7:57 AM PDT reply actions
How is ezPM defined?
Are you making any adjustments, or is it just the total net score with/without?
this is the same ezPM rating as always
just with or without Ellis
_______________________________________________________________
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)
it can also be broke down further into offense, defense, and rebounding components
WOWO NAME O100 D100 REB100
in Acie Law 1.55 -3.97 -0.05
out Acie Law -0.99 -1.34 -0.49
in Al Thornton -4.72 1.63 -0.92
out Al Thornton 3.52 2.98 -0.82
in Andris Biedrins -1.28 -0.59 0.26
out Andris Biedrins -3.26 -2.62 1.52
in Brandan Wright -1.52 2.04 -2.64
out Brandan Wright 2.14 0.71 0.15
in Charlie Bell -0.55 8.54 0.17
out Charlie Bell -5.66 1.86 0.15
in Dan Gadzuric -3.57 -0.01 -0.54
out Dan Gadzuric -12.90 -0.60 8.00
in David Lee -0.24 -0.07 -0.36
out David Lee 0.67 1.31 -2.37
in Dorell Wright -0.69 1.07 -0.47
out Dorell Wright 0.78 2.00 0.12
in Ekpe Udoh -2.30 2.51 -5.52
out Ekpe Udoh -2.53 2.09 -0.99
in Jeff Adrien -2.75 0.62 1.30
out Jeff Adrien -3.84 -6.04 1.79
in Jeremy Lin -2.06 -2.87 1.56
out Jeremy Lin 1.56 2.02 -0.09
in Louis Amundson -3.18 0.91 -0.18
out Louis Amundson -3.90 2.55 1.33
in Monta Ellis 1.28 0.92 -0.59
in Reggie Williams 1.12 -1.50 -0.42
out Reggie Williams 1.16 0.45 0.19
in Rodney Carney -3.94 -0.62 -2.23
out Rodney Carney -0.53 0.10 -1.85
in Stephen Curry 2.58 -3.15 0.07
out Stephen Curry 3.70 -2.83 0.99
in Vladimir Radmanovic -1.10 -1.14 -1.38
out Vladimir Radmanovic -1.15 4.18 0.21
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Ultimately, you've got to chalk this up as "not surprising" -
- unless you’re convinced that Monta’s low-efficiency shots are the price you have to pay to get everyone else high-efficiency shots, which isn’t a tenable position, really, when you look at all the numbers … or even if you watch Monta play.
But it’s not surprisingly because Monta’s worst shots – the long twos, and the driving into the set defense – clearly come at the expense of running the offense to get a good shot for someone else, without any corresponding benefit. (That’s even leaving aside the third category of his bad shots – when he creates a double-team but doesn’t pass).
actually
if you look closely at the numbers, the biggest effect on many of these players comes in the rebounding improvement without Ellis on the floor. Maybe that’s not surprising either, but in a different way.
Players that improve rebounding with Ellis
Lee +2
Law +0.44
Thornton +0.1
Lin +1.47
Bell +0.02
Players that improve rebounding without Ellis
Biedrins +1.26
B. Wright +1.49
D. Wright +0.59
Udoh +4.52 !!!
Adrien +0.49
Amundson +1.51
Reggie +0.61
Carney +0.38
Curry +0.92
Vlad +1.59
Biedrins, Vlad, and Curry all benefit on the rebounding when Ellis is off. Udoh suddenly becomes a rebounding monster!
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Udoh suddenly becomes a rebounding monster!
Well, not really. But he doesn’t look like the worst rebounder in history, at least.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Maybe that’s not surprising either, but in a different way.
You thinking that not giving up so much penetration lets the other defenders stay in rebounding position better?
that's certainly plausible
_______________________________________________________________
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)
there's some correlation between shot distance and rebounding
When I looked at this I found that teams that force more mid-range and long 2-pt tend to have higher defensive rebounding %’s.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I’d expect that. When you get the defense rotating and out of position – like when big men have to come help on a driver, it creates rebounding opportunities.
by Missing Barry on May 12, 2011 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah
but it’s also possible that good defenses (and defenders) are also better rebounders. I found it’s not so easy to tease that apart.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Did you break that down to offensive vs defensive rebounds? The rebound total, as opposed to the rebound rate, could be a factor of the sheer number of opportunities with and without. Made baskets can’t be rebounded, and lousy defenders give up more made baskets. Just a hypothesis, but it could prove interesting.
I can look at that
I penalize players for missing rebounds, too, but volume can still make a difference.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Here's a thought-
What if we add pieces and get the 8 seed. (something like dumping andris, and getting a legitimate center, solidifying our bench and getting a good coach).
Monta’s contract would then be down to 2 years/22 mil (much more attractive in terms of tradE).
I agree a team with CurryMonta backcourt will likely not make it out of the 1st round unless both make big steps or Dwight Howard decides he loves the Golden Gate bridge, sourdough bread, and bay area liberal elitism. But maybe striving to make playoffs + monta’s contract being a year shorter will make him a much more attractive trade chip next summer and allow us to get some actual value for him, making us a team capable of going farther in playoffs come 2012-2013?
+1
Go for the playoffs now and build up the value of our entire team to try and get a big star
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
how do we get a "big star" exactly?
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Give Chris Mullin and St. Jean sterling recs and hope he becomes GM or Hornets and Magic
Get a favorable trade for Howard or Paul. Preferably both.
Or trade with Minny
they still have Kahn
Wanna feel real torture? Try being a Warrior fan.
you think we can convince him that klove is no good
and get him to trade us for beans?
Lee + Love frontcourt eh?
We better start Udoh…
"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition
by don't leave Morrow! on May 14, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
That would probably be it.
I just meant Udoh with either.
"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition
by don't leave Morrow! on May 18, 2011 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Top shot blocker and top rebounder together, huh? I like the sound of that.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
thats what i was thinking
they both account for each others weaknesses defensively. too bad it’ll never happen
We could probably convince him Acie Law is better than KLove
Kahn loves his point guards…
Wanna feel real torture? Try being a Warrior fan.
Exactly why he would love Acie Law.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 14, 2011 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
something like dumping andris, and getting a legitimate center
There are 2 points made in this single sentence that are mutually very hard to accomplish.
Kinda similiar to “dumping Monta and getting Igoudala”
“Dumping player X for expirings” seems to be our mantra and doesnt really seem to work out. Sigh……
by Only In Fairfax on May 12, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Yea I see where you are coming from and moves are tough to make, but perhaps they are repeated so often because they are the most logical and easy to see moves.
In the same way that the 2 points taf made “are mutually very hard to accomplish,” the 2 situations you highlighted: trade up for a better player (i.e get more talent), and dump player X for expirings (i.e restructure our team contracts to get the most efficient bang for our buck), are both issues we need to address.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
All for this
(something like dumping andris, and getting a legitimate center, solidifying our bench and getting a good coach).
But does mgmt have the cap space/wherewithal to get all of the above done?
dumping biedrins would give us the space
Which is much easier said than done
If VladRad and Maggette can be moved
I have faith our new GM boy can move a young, former top 10 rebounder
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 10:35 AM PDT reply actions
Good stuff Evan
Ideal lineup:
Bell
Ellis
Adrien
Gadz
Biedrins
SUCCESS!!!
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
seriously though....
Curry
Williams
Dorell
Lee
Udoh
+4.73
You know what the Adjusted +/- of that lineup was this year? +4.6. You know how many minutes that lineup played together? A whopping 57.
http://basketballvalue.com/amofunit.php?year=2010-2011&unit=821-869-214-377-890
_______________________________________________________________
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)
You know what the Adjusted +/- of that lineup was this year? +4.6. You know how many minutes that lineup played together? A whopping 57.
Fire Smart!!!
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Not a stats expert, but a born skeptic
Am I wrong in thinking that if you did this same type of analysis about lots of star players who need the ball to be effective (Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc) you would have similar results?
I think Monta needs to be reigned in and needs more support in post, off bench – but he is an amazing talent and an offensive force.
One thing stats can’t measure (I don’t think) is how much other teams have to plan for how to stop him. If he is not on team and we have a decent SG who maybe allows other guys to play better, the assumption is that the team will win more games. But if their is no great threat on the floor like Monta presents than other teams can play tougher defense on guys like Dorrell Wright, for example, causing players of his level to be less effective, right?
Also, this whole team is still young and learning to play together. When our “big three” all played together we had a winning record. It seems like a lot of fans on this site are so used to the dubs constantly starting over and over that they lack the ability to let a team build over time.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Am I wrong in thinking that if you did this same type of analysis about lots of star players who need the ball to be effective (Kobe, Wade, Lebron, etc) you would have similar results?
Definitely agree the next step is to apply this same thing to other players. Very well could be that what’s happening with Monta is what we see with lots of other players.
As for your point about teams focusing on a certain player, I think +/- variables should capture that. By comparing team results when Monta is on the court compared to when he is off, we should see how much of an impact that has, right? If his presence helps make things easier for his teammates, when he’s not on the floor, we should see the team performance suffer for it…so there are ways of accounting for what you’re talking about.
by Missing Barry on May 12, 2011 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
so there are ways of accounting for what you’re talking about.
that’s kind of the whole point of this analysis
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I see you point, but...
you could argue this in multiple ways (like with lots of data sources)
Evidence suggests that Warriors are better when Monta is on the bench –
however, maybe this is because they see the ball more when monta, the clear first option is off the floor, and so they produce more effectively (coaching problem in my mind)
or
monta’s play is hurting the play of other guys – i think monta merits blame but at the same time, the other players bear responsibility for this as well. I can think of numerous games when Monta was being effective and demanding the ball and Curry seem to wilt. When they both played well together it seemed like we won more than we lost.
Expanding on my comment about how monta makes teams plan for stopping him, not sure you got my point. If they have PLANNED for Monta, then when he is on bench they are less prepared to defend players on the floor. Plus, Monta played SO many minutes, not sure that we can gauge the quality of the team when he was not on the floor because they did not represent real game time conditions (we were either in the lead or we were losing big). Times lack that it would seem stats not as reliable in terms of gauging players.
Without a doubt, the team played better at times when Monta was out and Curry was dishing out dimes, but I blame a coach not knowing how to use his players well and Monta not doing enough to make players around him better and the other players not stepping up when Monta was on the floor – blame goes out to everyone.
Overall, I want us to stop trying to rebuild and instead build on what we have for a change.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
however, maybe this is because they see the ball more when monta, the clear first option is off the floor, and so they produce more effectively (coaching problem in my mind)
Yes. The team runs a more consistent offense when Monta is not on the floor, because Monta often does not run any sort of offense. He takes the ball at the perimeter, and either launches a long two or drives into a set defense.
i think monta merits blame but at the same time, the other players bear responsibility for this as well. I can think of numerous games when Monta was being effective and demanding the ball and Curry seem to wilt.
Could you name a specific example of this? Because I sure can’t think of any. I can think of the opposite. In one of Monta’s last-second game-winners in January, for example, two plays before Curry had hit a clutch pull-up 3. I sure didn’t see any wilting there.
Furthermore, for a player to “wilt” they actually have to touch the ball in a position where shooting is appropriate. And that, again, is something I just haven’t seen. Most of Monta’s bad shots come early in the shot clock, without the team running any sort of offense – eg, without giving other players the CHANCE to wilt.
If they have PLANNED for Monta, then when he is on bench they are less prepared to defend players on the floor.
Team’s don’t game-plan extensively for each other in the regular season. There isn’t time. They tend to focus the practice time they have on improving the things that they can apply to every game. There are some players who are exceptions to this rule, who seem to soak up whatever info the assistant coaches give them (Shane Battier is a well-documented example of this) but they are by far the exception.
Monta played SO many minutes, not sure that we can gauge the quality of the team when he was not on the floor because they did not represent real game time conditions (we were either in the lead or we were losing big)
Monta missed two games this year and 18 last year. So we have 20 games of “Real game conditions” included in the mix, it’s not just garbage time.
There was almost 8 minutes a game this year – when he did play in the game – that he didn’t play. These minutes were not exclusively garbage-time minutes. In fact, they often were in the first half. We frequently saw – and complained about – Monta still being on the floor in garbage time. It was one of the regular things we complained about this season in game threads when we were well ahead or well behind.
It didn’t make any sense for Smart to keep playing him in those situations, but he often did.
blame a coach not knowing how to use his players well and Monta not doing enough to make players around him better and the other players not stepping up when Monta was on the floor – blame goes out to everyone.
Lots of us blame the coach. You won’t find many people lamenting the fact that he’s gone.
But the other players not stepping up thing – well, I don’t know how you can blame, say, Lee, for a long jumper Monta takes early in the shot clock, or for not receiving the pass when Lee is in perfect position and his man has left to double Monta.
So long as that sort of player is a regular part of what happens when Monta is on the floor – and we saw it time and time again, all season long – then I have a hard time blaming the other players for not “stepping up.” They’re in position waiting for the pass. It’s not coming. That’s not their fault. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do.
I want players to hold each other accountable
That is what I am seeing happen in the playoffs. I think your portrayal of Monta as an unwilling passer is overstated but even if you are correct, if it isn’t benefiting the team then players like Lee and Curry need to demand the ball from him. Hell, even the demure Durant called out Westbrook for being too much of a shoot first PG.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes. The team runs a more consistent offense when Monta is not on the floor, because
…
The because is your opinion, just as others have the opinion that the because is due to coaching
Monta missed two games this year and 18 last year. So we have 20 games of "Real game conditions" included in the mix, it’s not just garbage time.
That is still a small sample size, no? I think the point and fact still stands that Monta is one of the most used players in the league, so it would be resonable to assume that when he is not on the court, a higher percentage of those minutes would be “garbage” or end of quarter minutes, than with other players.
They’re doing what they’re supposed to do.
Our offensive plays looked pretty bad throughout the year and that was a team effort. To say everyone else was doing what they were supposed to be doing, but Monta wasnt, is not a fair statement to make.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
everyone else was not doing what they were supposed to be doing
they were standing around watching monta go 1 on 5 because they knew he wasnt going to pass the ball.
they were standing around watching monta go 1 on 5 because they knew he wasnt going to pass the ball.
Perhaps. This says something about the quality of play at the NBA level if this is the way an entire teams acts on the floor, and if this is ok with the coaching staff. But hey, let’s just blame Monta.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
That is still a small sample size, no?
Not really. If it showed us something other than what the other numbers we have showed us, then it might. But it doesn’t.
so it would be resonable to assume that when he is not on the court, a higher percentage of those minutes would be "garbage" or end of quarter minutes, than with other players.
Why is that a reasonable assumption? Couldn’t you argue the opposite – since he’s on the floor for so many minutes, he’s probably on for most of the garbage time.
I remember one game where he went off early when it was out of reach. I remember thinking how remarkable that was. I don’t think you can “assume” it’s the norm.
Our offensive plays looked pretty bad throughout the year and that was a team effort. To say everyone else was doing what they were supposed to be doing, but Monta wasnt, is not a fair statement to make.
Let me be clear:
On Monta drives.
When Monta drives, the weak-side wing is supposed to find an open spot, and be ready to catch a pass if he man doubles. I saw this happen time and time again where Monta didn’t make the pass. WIth respect to these plays, it is a 100% fair statement to make.
When Monta drives, and big-man help comes, the big man is suppose to move behind his defender towards the basket., or to a spot for a mid-range face-up jumper, depending on what’s easier based on the location of the players. He should be facing Monta with his hands up, until Monta goes up for the shot, then he’s suppose to turn and look for the rebound. I saw David Lee do this countless times this season, and not get the pass. So, in this case, it’s a fair statement to make.
There may have been other situations where those players were not doing what they were supposed to be doing. But generally, on Monta’s drives, he had options.
He didn’t take them. This is one of the three biggest problems with Monta’s offensive game. If you watch replays with this in mind, you’ll see it too.
Heck, you’ll often see it in Monta’s highlights – because many of his most dramatic made shots come on shots he should never have taken.
Why is that a reasonable assumption? Couldn’t you argue the opposite – since he’s on the floor for so many minutes, he’s probably on for most of the garbage time.
the game against toronto, monta was still in the game when the warriors were up 35 with 9 minutes left in the game
I think thats the point he's trying to make
'Oh low' 'I think it's pronounced hello'
Patatoe tomato patatoe tomato
Minion Code get the car
i know
i was just trying to give an example of what he was talking about
He didn’t take them. This is one of the three biggest problems with Monta’s offensive game. If you watch replays with this in mind, you’ll see it too.
I do see it in specific cirumstances like you mention above. I’m not saying Monta doesnt make mistakes, or isnt limited as a player. Just that the blanket statement and assumption that all the blame goes to monta is probably not true imo.
Why is that a reasonable assumption? Couldn’t you argue the opposite – since he’s on the floor for so many minutes, he’s probably on for most of the garbage time.
Let me put it this way, if Monta get’s the most minutes in the league, than where do the minutes he’s not playing come from? What type of minutes are those?
Not really. If it showed us something other than what the other numbers we have showed us, then it might. But it doesn’t.
So what are the other numbers, other than the minutes he doesnt play? Monta’s per minute numbers are discredited due to his high usage of playing time, but his low minutes of not playing are ok for stats?
I dont know, but Im not sure you can pick and choose when you have enough of a sample size, based simply off what the data is telling you. I dont think stats work that way.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Let me put it this way, if Monta get’s the most minutes in the league, than where do the minutes he’s not playing come from? What type of minutes are those?
That’s a reasonable question.
What’s not reasonable is assuming, absent evidence, that the answer to that question is one which supports your argument.
For example, one of our worst losses of the season was at Houston on March 23rd. Monta played on 35 minutes – below his average – but Curry played only 29. Big Win over the clips in October? Monta played below his average … but so did Curry. So there’s no way to look at those numbers and conclude the “garbage time effect is making Monta look relatively bad.”
But rather than scour through individual box scores, first, let me ask you a question: what are the criteria for which you expect the defenses to be “easier” and thus number inflation to happen?
Monta’s per minute numbers are discredited due to his high usage of playing time, but his low minutes of not playing are ok for stats?
No – nobody is discrediting Monta’s PER MINUTE numbers. In fact, you’ll see that we use PER MINUTE numbers all the time.
The numbers we don’t like are the PER GAME numbers when you’re comparing players who play a different number of minutes per game.
We don’t “pick and choose” – you’ll see that those of us pointing out how per game numbers make, for example, Monta’s assist skill look higher than it really is use PER MINUTE numbers (usually p36, sometimes per48, depending on the source) whenever possible.
That’s a reasonable question.
What’s not reasonable is assuming, absent evidence, that the answer to that question is one which supports your argument.
That’s true, but isnt it also true that we cant accept the small sample size of minutes on the bench just because it says what we want it to say? What would be the threshhold anyways, I wonder? I dont know, I’m just saying that out of everyone in the league, Monta’s time on the bench is of the smallest.
what are the criteria for which you expect the defenses to be "easier" and thus number inflation to happen?
That’s a good question, and Im not sure exactly because the makeup of each team is different. But Im sure factors to consider would be some sort of rank of the other team/players on the floor (2nd string vs. starters, offensive and defensive ratings, injuries…) and the competitiveness of the game (is it a 30 point blow out with 2 minutes left?), even attitudes of players (is the guy who’s in the last 2 minutes trying to earn a spot, or is he unhappy with play time and looking to be shipped?). I dont know all the answers, just that the last few minutes of an NBA game can look much different than the first 2 minutes, or even the first 3.83 quarters.
No – nobody is discrediting Monta’s PER MINUTE numbers. In fact, you’ll see that we use PER MINUTE numbers all the time.
My bad, I meant per game. The pick and choose I was referring to was not about per36 or per 48, but rather the decision to accept a limited sample size with the explanation that it tells you what you want to hear so lets accept it. I’m not sure what the sample size would need to be in this case though.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 13, 2011 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions
That’s true, but isnt it also true that we cant accept the small sample size of minutes on the bench just because it says what we want it to say?
The small sample size of minutes on the bench was smaller this year than last, but it continues to point to the same conclusion: the team gets better when he doesn’t play. This year, it may be a larger percentage of ‘garbage time’ but last year it included a reasonable number of whole games that he did not play in at all, games where the team had a better record than the games in which he played.
Given that the pattern of the team doing well when he sat but terrible when he was in didn’t hold in the slightest for the guy with the next highest number of minutes, the assumption that the skew was largely the result of ‘garbage time’ where the Warriors did great is one that takes a considerable amount of special pleading. It’s an argument that requires far more special explanation than the alternative. If the reason for the net plus minus difference was largely a result of ‘garbage time’ when the Warriors did great (another assumption here, that the Warriors actually played well in ‘garbage time’, that hasn’t actually been presented as anything other than an assumption) we’d expect a similar pattern for Dorell. But we don’t see it. We don’t see it at all.
Good points
And let’s not forget, some of monta’s best games are when his minutes were limited, and when he was on floor he was more impactful (Clipper game comes to mind, 30 points in 31 minutes, he got an extended rest, came in with 7 left in 4th, looked fresh and went full energy on both sides instead of taking plays off. Whether that’s a small sample or not, I’m not sure, at some point I want to break down his games by minutes played and useage and see the effects)
Eitherway, yes he has great stamina (you have to, to play those minutes) but i think all his numbers point to fact, on a lower useage (33-36 minutes, 20-23% useage) he has much more of a positive effect.
My bad, I meant per game. The pick and choose I was referring to was not about per36 or per 48, but rather the decision to accept a limited sample size with the explanation that it tells you what you want to hear so lets accept it. I’m not sure what the sample size would need to be in this case though.
Well, all sample sizes are not created equal.
Here’s the issue.
THe bigger the effect you’re measuring, the smaller a sample you need to know to have confidence that it’s something real.
FOr example, let’s say we put you or me on the basketball court for two games. Pretty small samples size. During that time we’d probably get nearly ever shot blocked, turnover every time we tried to dribble, and get torched by the guy guarding us every single time.
We’d be pretty confident, just looking at the stats – not watching the game – that neither you nor I were an NBA-level player. Tiny sample size. But the mountain of statistical evidence would dwarf the uncertainty.
Similarly with Monta, with have 800 minutes this year, and about 1400 last year, of non-Monta minutes. That’s minor-rotation player this year, and major-rotation-player last year. Is it a huge sample? No. Put together, however, it’s a number of minutes that only two warriors surpassed last year, and only four this years.
So we’re not talking about a tiny sample. So now let’s look at the numbers.
His two-year adjusted plus minus is -5, with a SE of 2.8. In other words – the size of the effect is nearly twice the size of the standard error. This is not a marginal case. It’s, really, quite convincing. His one year defensive unadjusted is so bad there are only four players in the league worse than he is.
Nor should it be surprising. It you look at what Monta brings – he’s a low efficiency player on a team with higher-efficiency players, who takes a ton of shots. Just stop and think about that for a moment – that’s not going to make your team a lot better, is it?
He doesn’t rebound his position adequately – compared to other players who play the position. That’s not going to make your team better, right?
His opponents, when he plays his normal position, shoot with a TS% of .556 – a nice solid nudge above average. That’s not going to make your team better, right? And to take it further, he’s a guy who gets torched a lot, so the defense has to collapse to cover for him, that’s not going to make your team better, right? (Let’s not make this just about stats – the thing that Monta’s supporters say he does for our offense – collapse the D and create opportunities for other players – he gives up, in spades).
Since the individual statistics paint an ugly picture, we’re left trying to conjure up some “creator effect” – does his play create easy looks for his teammates. This is, for example, the sort of thing that makes one think Rose’s impact is greater than his individual statistics.
Except that, compared to players like Rose, Monta gets a lot fewer assists. His ratio of FGA/AST is really low. So it seems likely that he’s not, actually, creating as much for his teammates as he could or should, compared to those players. So, again, adj +/- isn’t telling us something that other statistics – and our own eyes – aren’t telling us. Monta is not good at finding the open man when he collapses the defense. All adj +/- is really adding to the conversation (aside from quantifying just how bad his defense is) is pointing out that no, there isn’t any evidence for some “Creator effect” where he makes opportunities for his teammates that somehow don’t show up in the assist column.
I haven’t seen his per minute stats ignored because of his minutes. I’ve seen his per game stats ignored because of his minutes. It seems to me that per minute stats are the most acceptable references on GSoM.
I guess I should clarify and say that the regular participants all favor per minute statistics. Per game numbers don’t carry the same weight… except mpg, since mpm would be redundant.
by Uwe Blog on May 12, 2011 6:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Thanks Uwe, I meant to type per GAME. lol
by WestCoastWarrior on May 13, 2011 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Overall, I want us to stop trying to rebuild and instead build on what we have for a change.
There have only been two players worth building around in the current 18-year run of suck, imo: Webber and Baron Davis. Curry may well be a third; we’ll have a pretty good sense of that by the time his rookie contract expires.
What you tend to get when you build around pricy third and fourth tier talent — Jamison, JRich, Dunleavy, Foyle, Murphy, Biedrins, Maggette, Jackson, Ellis, e.g. — is a one-way ticket to perpetual crappiness. We’ve clearly seen the results of the approach: 17 of 18 seasons out of the playoffs, in a league where half the teams make the playoffs.
The real “change” would be stop committing big money to third and fourth tier talent, jettison the expensive third and fourth tier talent we have, stay financially flexible and vigilant, and make a bold, strong move for a first or second tier guy when the opportunity arises.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
i feel like that could easily have built around curry/AR
but they felt the need to trade for lee and get stuck in mediocrity
Lee is better than AR now
And he will be long term – book it.
AR was fun to watch but he had zero fundamentals, too much of a tweener, lacks maturity and is a bad teammate. I’m rooting for the guy, but I think the trade for Lee was a good call if we keep building on that.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
you can say it all you want
but the fact that randolph is 6 years younger, cost 10M less, is more athletic than lee, and that lee’s defense is god awful, there is no way you can be sure that lee is a better long term option than AR
basically lee is not worth his contract (which pays him until he is 33)
and i would much rather have the pieces we traded for him long term (more flexibility, more potential).
Lee is a better defender than AR
AR better at blocking shots and looking good while doing it, but I saw Lee shut down Dwight Howard and Kevin Love in the same week – something I doubt we’ll ever say about AR. Lee is a better defender than he gets credit for on GSOM. Of course, if we used GSOM as a guide we would have thought this team was ten games worse instead of ten games better than the year before.
Lee is overpaid, but he is better than AR, and he is not waaaay overpaid. Put a good center alongside Lee to mask some of his drawbacks, and get a coach that can help put this team in playoffs again and nobody will care about Lee’s contract.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know exactly who you're watching.
Are we talking about the same David Lee that gave up a triple double to CHUCK HAYES?
this is true, that was bad
So, do we judge him based on one game against Hayes or one game against Howard? Obviously, he is in the middle – a mediocre defender.
But he has no real center with him and when he came over we knew he wasn’t a good defender and once his injury healed up (took a long time) I saw games where he played good defense against some of the stars in the league. I’m not asking him to be Mutumbo, but his defense was not as bad as people on this site say,
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, and as for AR
my two year old daughter understands how to box out better on defense than he did. He got shoved around in the post like a 14 year old college freshman with a genius IQ joining a frat
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
i'm not saying he's a bad player
i just think that in no way was he worth the trade that netted him. he could help a team that was better off defensively but with the warriors, when we needed help with defense, it was completely the wrong move, even if lee turned out to be an average defender (which i still don’t believe he is)
well, you said Lee is mediocre
And that sticking with AR would have put us over the top if we stuck with him.
Lee is a good offensive player, a great passing big man, a good rebounder, a guy who plays his heart out and is a good team mate, a mediocre defender and has limitations athletically that Deandre Jordan would help fix.
AR is, well, not those things I just said about Lee.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Mediocre is being kind (to his defense).
by Spider Jerusalem on May 12, 2011 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
i never said sticking with AR would have put us over the top
i said we had a better CHANCE of getting over the top with AR and some cap flexibilty than with lee, who is going to keep the warriors stuck in mediocrity and never have a chance to get over the top. the odds of both players putting us over the top are very, very slim, but if given the choice, i’d much rather have the cheaper, younger player with more potential than the overpaid, older, currently better player.
i said we had a better CHANCE of getting over the top with AR and some cap flexibilty than with lee, who is going to keep the warriors stuck in mediocrity and never have a chance to get over the top.
I tried to console myself in that I suspected we got a little better with Lee. We probably did. But then I realized we paid 8 trillion dollars to get a little better. That… sucks.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
is more athletic than lee,
Lee’s problem is not a lack of ‘athleticism’. He’s one of the better athletes at the position.
i do agree that lee is very athletic
i just think that AR is even more athletic, and that speaks quite a bit of his potential as he matures.
I think that people have this hyper-inflated idea about Randolph’s “athleticism”. He wasn’t remarkably fast at the combine (Lee was faster in the sprint and much faster in the agility drill) and didn’t have an overly impressive vertical leap (his max vert was better than Lee’s but his no step was not as good). I realize that these are not the end all of ‘athleticism’ but I honestly think that much of Randolph’s hyped ‘athleticism’ is a result of everyone repeating that he’s some sort extraordinary example of athleticism. It’s something that hasn’t paid dividends on the court at this point, I suspect because it’s not quite up to the hype. Is he a good athlete for a guy his size? Yeah. But I don’t know if he really rates better than above average.
by jae on May 12, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Jae...cmon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyRhAc6yUE&feature=fvst
"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 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgyybTWnyaY&feature=related
i was thinking more about the play starting at 3:08
That's mostly length/wingspan, though.
Guys with really long wingspans are often mislabled as freak athletes.
by Spider Jerusalem on May 12, 2011 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions
haha
was that a joke highlight?
AR almost didn’t make that dunk!
"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 12, 2011 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
click it…
Lee is more athletic than you think
…but AR does seem to have a little bit of a quicker first step – maybe that’s partially length
"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 12, 2011 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually think you're confusing athleticism and coordination
Randolph, lacks coordination and body control. The opposite of this would be Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant or Derrick Rose, or for someone close to Randolph’s size…. Garnett, Blake Griffin, Pau, Odom.
He would make some freakish athletic plays, such as weakside blocks, but he generally was uncoordinated. Always off balance, unable to change speeds and directions with fluidity etc. Whether it’s an issue of growing into his body or he’s just generally not coordinated, i dunno
I think your mostly right but
I think people also sometimes mistake Randolph’s lack of coordination for being more athletic than he is. It’s a matter of perception: people see Randolph make these amazing plays where he’s out of control but still makes it work, and think it’s just raw athleticism, but then see someone else make a similar play, that they can do just as fast, jumping just as high, being just as quick, but that player stays in control so it doesn’t look as athletic. Randolph made the slightly better than ordinary look super extraordinary. There’s lots of players who make the slightly better than ordinary look mundane.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
I don’t know. His ball handling suggests he has superior hand-eye coordination. What makes Randolph awkward is his lankiness and height. If the guy could fill out and get shorter, he’d be a monster. Somehow, I don’t think he’ll fill out much and the chances of him getting shorter aren’t… possible.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
It’s amazing to me how attitudes towards Randolph have changed now that he’s no longer on the team. Do we not remember some of the games he had as the youngest player in the league his rookie year? Let’s just say those performances didn’t come because of a high basketball iq. That was pure physical talent.
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Meh… my concern with Randolph was him staying healthy, more than anything. While I agree the Lee deal was garbage, he’s so long and thin and plays so recklessly, I just don’t see him lasting long in this league. He’s already having back problems at his age, for example. Not promising.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
I definitely see plenty of reasons to be skeptical about his future success. I just find it odd that we’re to the point where even his athleticism is in question. Yes, Anthony Randolph is extremely athletic. His physical tools are excellent, and really, they’re the only reason he’s in the NBA at all.
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks Jae,
AR also seems to be uncoordinated in both mind &body.
by Only In Fairfax on May 13, 2011 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
But if their is no great threat on the floor like Monta presents than other teams can play tougher defense on guys like Dorrell Wright, for example, causing players of his level to be less effective, right?
Well, there’s no question that a creative player can create good shots for his teammates, and there’s no question that Monta can be one of them.
However, I think if you pay attention to how teams sceheme, defensively, you’ll see that teams aren’t particularly afraid of what Monta’s going to do with the ball. They don’t try to deny him the ball in key situations. They don’t double him on the perimeter. All they do is collapse on him when he drives, the same as they do for almost any player who gets past his man. It’s basic basketball defense.
If what you were saying was the truth – if playing with Monta made other players more effective – you’d see the OPPOSITE of what you see here. You’d see their production drop when he was off the floor, because the team no longer had the creative spark he was providing.
When our "big three" all played together we had a winning record.
Even if this is true, honestly, every team has to deal with injuries. So sure, take away our injuries … but take away our opponent’s injuries, too. How does that change things?
Ultimately, it’s pretty unambiguous: over the last two years, we’ve been a better team when Monta wasn’t on the floor. This can’t be explained away by small sample size or garbage time issues. THere’s reason to think that Monta should be able to play smarter and change that, but you’ve first got to accept that there’s something he’s doing which needs to change.
Team is not better without Monta
The ONLY way this could be settled is to replay the whole season, with Reggie as the starter and Monta not on the team and then compare the results. Everything else is speculation.
Monta brings good and bad to the team:
bad – not efficient at times, not a good defender at times, tends to forget the rest of the team is on the floor at end of game situations
good – tremendous scorer, improved passer, improved team leader, can play PG in small amounts, teams have to plan for him which (under a good coach) should improve chances for Lee and Curry
Give the team time to gel, a good coach, some depth and center and keep on believing!
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
bad – not efficient at times, not a good defender at times, tends to forget the rest of the team is on the floor at end of game situations
What is this “at times” business? You don’t get to pick and choose when it’s ok for a player to be efficient or a good defender.
Oh, he missed that shot? Well, that’s ok, he just wasn’t that efficient that time. Next time when he makes it, he’ll be more efficient.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
bad – not efficient at times, not a good defender at times, tends to forget the rest of the team is on the floor at end of game situations
Let’s try this again:
Not efficient. Terrible defender. Tends to shoot when he has wide-open teammates (not just at the end of games).
You calling him a “not a good defender at times” is burying your head over the sand. He appears to be one of the worst starting 2-guards defensively in the game. He might well be the worst.
He’s not a tremendous scorer. Tremendous scorers don’t miss that many shots.
Being an “improved” passer (and I’m not sure that’s really true) doesn’t matter if you’re still not an adequate passer – and Monta still shoots far too much when he should pass. Nor do I consider a player a “team leader” if they continually make decisions on the floor which hurt the team.
Monta IS really good at beating his man and getting to the paint. He’s fantastic at it. One of the best in the league. The problem is, once he’s there, he’s really not particularly good at deciding what to do with the ball.
Oh, it’s decided what he’s gonna do with the ball when he beats his man. What he’s not particularly good at is changing his mind.
by Uwe Blog on May 12, 2011 6:24 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
"at times" is used because I prefer not to make sweeping statements
Having seen Monta be extremely efficient as a shooter in some games, and struggle in others, I can say he is efficient “at times”. His shooting percentage is better than Rose, the same as Kobe, and just a shade worse than Durant.
Having seen Monta play good defense “at times” I can say he is a good defender at times.
His struggles with defense come from playing only in offensive minded teams his whole career, physical limitations because of his size, and his effort to “gamble” for steals because he struggles to do much else which exposes his problems as a defender.
Monta is an improved passer, he gets more assists a game than any other SG beside Iguodala. Part of that is the style of play, but part of that is Monta being a wiling passer.
You describe Monta as if he never passes the ball to the open man, ever! He needs to do this more often, but he does it more than many others at his position.
Look, I can see you don’t like Monta, I just try to what a guy brings to the team, not just what he needs to get better at. Your last sentence is a good example of your unwillingness to see what he is good at – most would agree that Monta is not only good at beating his man and getting to the basket, but he is also one of the best finishers in the game! He knows what to do with it.
I mostly agree with what you're saying Togna
The facts are in, more analysis is needed though.
If a coach is trying to use Monta correctly, and he refuses, then I give him the blame But if Monta is being who he is, working on his game, and making efforts to be more of a “team player” and the coaches choose to make him a bigger and bigger part of the offense despite it being a poor way to run an offense, than that’s a coaching issue. Monta is probably the most talented basketball player at the moment on this team. He’s a factor. When you misuse a (relative) major force, like 1-dymensional plays, you get negative results.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks! nice to see one perso who isn't over reacting to a team
that is getting better and better! Let’s try to take solace in that everyone! Go Warriors
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Monta is an improved passer, he gets more assists a game than any other SG beside Iguodala. Part of that is the style of play, but part of that is Monta being a wiling passer.
to be completely fair, part of that is also due to him playing 40+ mpg
by this logic and call for fairness...
part of that is also due to guys hitting shots when he passes it to them
if biedrins had played well maybe Monta would have had 6 assts
part of that is due to guys deferring to Monta instead of being aggressive themselves, then Monta gets doubled and passes out of it to an open man
my point was that much of the knocks posted here about Monta was that he never passes the ball. could he pass the ball more (especially with game on the line)? yes. does he pass the ball pretty regularly for a SG, more than most.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
if biedrins had played well maybe Monta would have had 6 assts
Actually, the evidence suggests that Monta didn’t have a problem missing assists due to people not finishing his passes. His passes were converted at an above-average rate (as we have discussed earlier, this is actually another piece of evidence arguing that he doesn’t pass enough).
i thought it was stated somewhere
that monta led the nba in assisted fg%
sorry i didnt mean assisted fg%
i meant teammate fg% off assists from monta
Everyone’s FG% off of an assist is the same.
by jae on May 12, 2011 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
youre right, i obviously worded that wrong
what about teammate fg% when shooting after a monta pass?
I don’t know where that data is recorded. It would be interesting, but I’ve never seen anything reliable reporting that number.
The source is reliable (a STATS presentation at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference), but not open for examination at the moment.
All we have is the number that got spat out. No clue on the sample size or the method.
by Spider Jerusalem on May 13, 2011 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
You may be right.
The stat was given before the end of the season, last time I heard it, and I don’t know exactly how it was defined. So I hedged. He’s very high at it.
So the argument that he would only have gotten more assists if his teammates were better seems suspect.
His shooting percentage is better than Rose, the same as Kobe, and just a shade worse than Durant.
Do you understand why shooting percentage is a poor tool to compare, for example, Monta and Kobe, or Monta and Durant?
His struggles with defense come from playing only in offensive minded teams his whole career, physical limitations because of his size, and his effort to "gamble" for steals because he struggles to do much else which exposes his problems as a defender.
No disagreement as to the “why,” really – except that I wonder why it matters. Monta’s size isn’t going to change. It’s part of the reason why he’s gambles so much – he doesn’t have a choice.
You describe Monta as if he never passes the ball to the open man, ever! He needs to do this more often, but he does it more than many others at his position.
Not really. Pretty much everyone who drives as much as he does as effectively as he does dishes more than he does. To say “more than others at his position” is misleading, because the relevant comparison is as a function of his usage. Monta has sky-high usage, and that pumps up all his numbers.
most would agree that Monta is not only good at beating his man and getting to the basket, but he is also one of the best finishers in the game! He knows what to do with it.
Monta is a very good finisher. One of the “best in the game?” Depends how you define best.
Monta’s problem is that he’s good enough to convince himself to try to finish shots he couldn’t.
I absolutely agree that Monta is better at finishing in traffic than almost every other player in the league. He’s really really good at it.
The problem is, most of the time, when you’re in traffic, you shouldn’t try to “finish” – you should be dishing.
And that’s the whole problem in a nutshell. Monta goes for circus shots far too often (the correct frequency is close-to-never). He creates a lot of highlights … but also a lot of misses. You don’t get extra points in basketball for making the shot over two defenders. Until Monta learns to consistently get his teammates an easy shot rather than take a hard one himself, I have a hard time praising his “finishing” ability. It’s not just about knowing HOW to finish, it’s about knowing WHEN to. Monta’s very good at the former and craptastic at the latter.
the same could be said about Rose or Westbrook
but the difference is that Rose has true post players to give the ball up to and that he has a great coach and he STILL does the crazy circus shots – that is his (and Monta’s game). Monta is going to dish it to…who exactly?
Look, at the end of the day, I agree that Monta has limitations and needs more support and better coaching. I also think he needs veteran players (like he had with Baron) to check him.
I think that the warriors record this year would have been worse this year without him and you seem to think they would have been better if Monta was out all season. Stats aside, that just seems strange to me. But you could certainly be right!
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
they did win their fair share of games last year
when monta was hurt and curry was running an offense with a bunch of d leaguers. this is why i dont understand how people think curry cant run a team of players that are clearly better than d leaguers and do just fine.
ok, real quick cause I need to stop and get back to wok
Curry played lights out last year, and imo seemed to take a step backwards this year – probably due to being burned out. He has not had a break from basketball and I expect his third year to be more like his first if not better – love the guy.
That team, which he led very well, would get beat 7 or 8 times out of ten against this years team. The run of which you speak was after we were pretty much out of the playoffs and the games mattered less and curry, was playing out of his mind. Of course, lots of the so-called fans on this were hoping we would tank those same games. Sigh.
Finally, I believe you root for the team you have, especially if they are IMPROVING, than the team you don’t have.
by Togna Balogna on May 12, 2011 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
was curry playing out of his mind?
or is that just how good he is if you put the offense in his hands rather than monta’s.
Finally, I believe you root for the team you have, especially if they are IMPROVING, than the team you don’t have.
i disagree.
rather than rooting for the team you currently have, i would much rather root for ways to make the team better. based on a reasonable sized sample, the team is better with monta off the floor than on the floor. therefore, i would be inclined to root for reducing monta’s playing time and to put the offense in curry’s hands to see if the team improves.
i would be inclined to root for reducing monta’s playing time and to put the offense in curry’s hands to see if the team improves.
I think the team would see an improvement with this approach
by WestCoastWarrior on May 12, 2011 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Curry played lights out last year, and imo seemed to take a step backwards this year – probably due to being burned out.
I really don’t understand this statement. A lot of guys seem to be saying it, but:
Curry scored more points with a higher efficiency this year. His assists were slightly up this year. His defense was better this year. Yes, his TOs were slightly up and his REBs slightly down, but overall, he was just better this year. .030 of TS% is huge.
I think it’s not that Curry played worse this year, but either a) people had unreasonable expectations or b) Monta got so much press this year that there was a sense of this being “Monta’s team” – meaning that it must not be “Steph’s team” and that is somehow indicative of Steph going backwards.
I suppose his improved scoring would be more noticable if his minutes didn’t go down, which they did.
they are more comparing curry this year to curry's 2nd half of last year
rather than all of last year. using those numbers, there is a small drop off, but that has to do with monta missing a lot of games last year while remaining healthy this year. it does not have to do with steph regressing.
Monta is going to dish it to…who exactly?
There’s that guy who’s looking to be one of the best 3-pt shooters in NBA history on his team. Last year he had TWO great 3-pt shooters on his team.
David Lee is very good at finishing off the dish.
So who exactly is he supposed to dish to? Curry, Lee, and Dorell.
The problem with comparing his to Rose or Westbrook is the following:
Rose Westbrook Monta
Asts per 36 7.4 8.5 5.0
Westbrook and Monta are similar in scoring efficiency – and yes, I think Westbrook shoots way too much, too, he’s got freakin’ KD on his team – but Westbrook is a MUCH better passer.
Rose is a more efficient scorer, and thus justified in taking more shots … and he still passes more than Monta.
If those guys are the comparison you want to make, that’s fine …
… make the comparison. Monta ends up looking pretty bad compared to those two guys (who, by the way, both rebound better than he does, too).
If Monta was assisting at an 8.5/36 rate – that is to say, taking probably five or six fewer shots per 36, and passing the ball instead – I would be making this complaint about him at all. To take away Monta’s five or six worst in traffic shots a game and turn them into passes? That’s EXACTLY what I want to see happen.
Monta is going to dish it to…who exactly?
Anyone else on his team who isn’t faced with a difficult shot in a double-team. Three of the other 4 starters were more efficient from the floor than Monta, and you’d expect that to be even more true if he’d drawn a double team meaning that there’s a chance that one of them is left unguarded, but almost certainly isn’t being doubled.
The “who is he going to pass to” makes it sound like the Warriors, minus Monta, were equivalent to the T-wolves or the Cavs. This isn’t true. As a team, the Warriors were well above average in eFG%. The “who is he going to pass to” is an apologetic that aims to dismiss substandard play as somehow a result of his surroundings. Given that the players did better when he wasn’t playing, and have done so not only in the “garbage time” but in games he’s missed now for 2 seasons, the apologetic stance just looks lamer and lamer.
IMHO
The biggest weakness Monta has when compared to those guys is that they get to the line a lot more. They also are better free throw shooters by percentage.
Monta: 5.4 fta/gm
Rose: 6.9 fta/gm
Westbrook: 7.7 fta/gm (!!!!!)
And would Monta’s TS% be higher with more free throws and less field goals? Yes. So would his PPG.
What I am wondering most of all is why does he get less attempts?
"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition
by don't leave Morrow! on May 14, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
What I am wondering most of all is why does he get less attempts?
Because he avoids contact.
The refs tend to reward players who play strong to the hoop – eg, Kobe Bryant. He plays through a tremendous amount of contact.
Whereas Monta, when he’s presented with a help defender between him and the basket, tends to dodge and weave around him. He avoids contact. Those players not only create less contact (you have two players trying to avoid contact, rather than one) but tend to get rewarded by the refs less.
This is something Monta has spoken about
He needs to get stronger to get to line more and to be a better defender. This is why he’s said his goal is atleast 10 lbs of muscle in offseason, he said he’s shooting for more.
The other major difference is length though. All the players whop draw contact, have a lot of length, the ability to draw and finish. They don’t fear contact cause they are strong and long enough to get a shot off. A lot of time when Monta gets contact he can’t finish just as much cause of his length and his strength.
It’s not surprising a player like Durant who is probably lb for lb, skinnier and weaker than Monta, is a free throw line machine without really seeking major contact, his arms are so long, he gets contact on literally every lay up.
The other major difference is length though. All the players whop draw contact, have a lot of length,
This is not universally true. There have been more than a few smaller players who were exceptional at getting to the line who were not overly “long”. Iverson was very good at it. Kevin Johnson was absurdly good at it.
Monta’s problem is that he’s good enough to convince himself to try to finish shots he couldn’t.
Or he’s not being coached, cause i don’t recall him doing this in 07-08. I don’t recall him taking nearly as many poor shots.
I think that part of it is that in those days, Baron was running the show, a strong alpha-dog personality who was also a more gifted distributor than anyone Monta has played with since. Couple that with Jax being around to assert his personality and to handle the secondary passing/ball handling load and you’ve got a situation where Monta played off the ball as second/third fiddle by strength of will. Monta’s convinced himself that he’s got to try to do it all and there’s really no one on the coaching staff who has said no to that, nor has there been anyone on the team who says no to it by simply being more dominant.
by jae on May 13, 2011 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Beautifully said
This is the clearest, most simple, accurate explanation of what is going on with Monta and the Warriors imo.
by WestCoastWarrior on May 13, 2011 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't disagree
But I don’t find monta particularly uncoachable either. Yes we had veteran players Monta clearly looked up to but that’s not totally it. He’s led nba in minutes per game last two years? How is that for coaching? It’s basically sending the message “Monta we need you to score 40, we need you to be MJ, etc. etc”. I don’t need to get into Smart but Nelson’s last year wasn’t any better. How does it help when Smart basically praises him daily to media as being ‘the best player’ and ‘we need him to take all those shots’. Or how does it help him when Nelson was halfway checked out and just criticized as opposed to coach. Neither were ideal.
A smart coach (no pun intended) should be able to get Monta to buy into his role and figure out a scheme which maximizes him and Curry at least on the offensive end. It’s not super complicated. And if the results come with it, he’ll believe it. I’m not asking a lot, play off ball move. Attack more, don;t settle for as many mid range jumpers, shoot in rotation, rotate the ball more etc. All things he’s shown at times and things he’s capable of.
I know it’s very easy to paint Monta the villan and act like he doesn’t want to be coached and he’s selfish a la iverson or marbury or he thinks he’s ‘big time’ but that really hasn’t been the case for majority of his career. Players like Jason Terry, Tony Parker etc. all excepted heavy criticism and adjustment to there games at same age or older than Monta is now.
Considering we won’t get value for him at this moment, might as well try a coach who wants to reform him, and put out a scheme to maximize our ability to win.
Last year's high minute volume was because Smart was an idiot.
The previous year’s high minute volume was because half the team was hurt. I’m sure at full strength, Nellie wouldn’t have asked Monta to do everything like Smart did.
Possibly
Nellie also checked out. He blasted both Monta and Biedrins (not undeserved but not the right route either). He had his favorites and seemed to just coach them (Curry, Tolliver, Morrow). This is just as bad in my opinion, it gives player the mindset ‘f coach, im just gonna go play’. Problem is most players just don’t know how to play to win in NBA.
Nellie wouldn’t have asked Monta to do everything like Smart did.
I don’t think this is true. Nellie has often used players in very, very high number of minutes played. It’s not universal. He kept Nash’s minutes under control, but he had Jax playing the 2nd most minutes in the league. Was that really out of necessity? When he had Azubuike, Barnes and Pietrus available as wings?
I’m not at all convinced that Nellie would have cut Monta’s minutes this year.
correct me if i'm wrong
but i thought both seasons where jackson played the 2nd most minutes in a league came after barnes and pietrus were gone.
and for a good portion of 07-08
barnes, azubuike, and pietrus were splitting minutes at the wing, while sjax was playing the 4, where we really had no depth
if sjax sat more in those games
it meant that croshere, o’bryant or bwright would have played more, which was pretty out of the question for a team making a playoff run.
basically, nellie had no choice but to play sjax major mins.
Yes and no. In reality, all four of those guys were wings and declaring any one to be the “4” is highly artificial in the sort of offense and defense that Nellie had them running out there. But on a more specific, when Barnes was in the game, he was more of a forward than Jax. I don’t really see how it was better to have Jax play over 39 minutes while Barnes, Pietrus and Azubuike were each getting just about 20mpg is somehow something that a lack of depth forced upon us.
Barnes was capable of playing 2 or 3more minutes a night while Jax sat. While I have issues with their methodology, they classify a higher percentage of his minutes that year with him playing the ‘4’ than was true for Jax. This notion that Barnes was getting run at the wing forcing Jax to play the ‘4’ doesn’t have a whole lot of actual support.
It should also be noted
Both Jack and Barnes were our two next post defenders. Undersized? Sure, but they fit the defensive philosophy of that team and frustrated most face up 4s, which is basically most 4th in the NBA
Rec'd Jae,
My thoughts as well…at the time , the team was being traded away and by the time Jax was demanding to leave, Monta seemed to be the only rainmaker left. They were desperate to keep him happy and at the time I remember feeling grateful that Monta was loyally hanging in there for the Warriors….there seemed to be a lot of pressure for him to step up and be “the man” and a lot of concern played out in the media that he was too reluctant to be the team leader due to his unassuming personality …it seemed like he forced himself to step up and once he did “with mucho Warriors and fan’s encouragement” he seemed to feel that he had “carry” the team…the coaches reinforced this by playing him with insane minutes….not a lot of criticism untill Curry came into the picture….we needed a coach to balance out the synergy with Monta but dispite his enefficiency Smart played him like he was the only key to winning.
by Only In Fairfax on May 15, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
here is the breakdown for the starting lineup used for most of the season
NAME POSS EZPM100
Monta Ellis 1370 2.45
Andris Biedrins 1370 -0.29
Dorell Wright 1370 -0.56
Stephen Curry 1370 -1.90
David Lee 1370 -2.07
Curry and Lee had the worst ratings. Ellis was the only positive. Biedrins actually looks average in this lineup.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Adj. +/- for this unit was -8.6
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Opposing players against this unit
NAME POSS EZPM100
Manu Ginobili 79 22.00
Steve Nash 75 19.80
Kevin Durant 64 17.96
David West 69 15.35
Tim Duncan 92 12.48
Trevor Ariza 69 9.77
Thabo Sefolosha 62 9.50
DeMarcus Cousins 59 9.41
Deron Williams 65 8.15
Blake Griffin 109 7.29
Beno Udrih 66 6.89
Andrei Kirilenko 78 6.88
Kevin Love 83 6.29
Tony Parker 90 6.00
Grant Hill 72 5.15
Chris Paul 69 4.90
Wesley Johnson 74 4.16
Eric Gordon 111 1.12
Channing Frye 75 0.79
Al Jefferson 107 0.74
Dirk Nowitzki 63 0.39
DeAndre Jordan 80 0.02
Nenad Krstic 60 -1.06
Luke Ridnour 81 -1.68
Richard Jefferson 87 -2.90
Danny Granger 70 -3.50
Jeff Green 61 -3.60
Jason Kidd 85 -3.62
Ryan Gomes 109 -3.79
Raja Bell 78 -4.08
DeJuan Blair 69 -5.71
Michael Beasley 71 -6.80
Paul Millsap 104 -7.71
Darko Milicic 66 -8.81
Brandon Rush 67 -11.20
Baron Davis 97 -17.41
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Funny that Baron Davis is last by far. I thought he played really well against us 1 game though.
go rowand
by lincypoo i wuv u on May 17, 2011 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions
lee's adjusts +/- was poor for 1 reasons
Andris Biedrins
And then it begs the question, why the heck do you pay a system guy 6/80mil if he can’t finish with help defense?
huh...?
Lee’s adjusted +/- is poor because he’s a poor defender and played a good chunk of the season hurt. Playing with Biedrins might have hurt him since Biedrins was a complete train wreck this past year. Lee playing Udoh was pretty good.
What exactly is Lee’s “system” if he’s a system player? He seems to have an offensive game that works in up tempo or slowed down systems. He can pick and roll, pick and pop, iso his man, has some post scoring ability. The price we paid for Lee is a pretty much market value for a player of his skill level.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
No, he doesn't not have post scoring ability.
"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 13, 2011 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Let me elaborate
Lee in NYK played center in a uptempo gimick system. His power forward’s were Harrington and Gallinari. Both of whom spaced the floor. It’s by the PnR worked so well with him. He’d set a pick at the top of the key for the PG. It’s important to note where his other teammates are. The 2 3 and 4 are all around the perimeter. All can shoot so the opposing defenders have to honor them. The opposing team’s 4 man has to honor Harrington or Gallinari who are atleast 15 feet from the hoop. So now he has a clear lane. He’s likely just as athletic and quick as the opposing 4, so that players ability to come over and help is minimized.
Now let’s say we run the PnR with Biedrins on the floor. No one on earth is going to honor Biedrins more than 5 feet from the hoop, especially in his current form. Biedrins can stand 15 feet from hoop like Harrington did, but it makes no difference, the opposing center will stay in the lane. Now Lee runs that same PnR but when he roles, there’s an opposing center who is likely a good shot blocker and bigger than him to defend. This is why he rarely roled and settled for mid range jumper.
It’s not surprisng his BEST numbers came next to VladRad. It was same system he ran in NYK, defenses had to honor Vlad and it took a big out of the lane. It’s also similar to how we ran the PnR with Biedrins during the 07-08 season.
Keep in mind, this sort of stuff isn’t as big a problem with legitimate all-star PFs like Amare, Bosh etc. Because they have more athleticism, and beyond that more length to finish when contested at the rim. Something Lee struggles with.
Lee’s defense was always attrotious but at least he brought efficient borderline elite offensive production.
One thing Lee can do to counteract this is learn how to draw fouls better. When rolling, and with a center coming over, if he can get his body into the center he should get to the line more. Note Amare averaging 8.1 FTA per 36 v. Lee’s 3.8 FTA per 36 for career.
Another factor that will massively help is having a center with some offensive game to be honored. Marc Gasol for example, has to be guarded 15 feet out or even in the post. Nene same thing. Actually if we can steal anyone, I’d want mehmet okur. He’s off a terrible injury laden year but he’s an expiring deal (10 mil), has rebounded and defended post better than he gets credit for (this isn’t bargnani) and has a versitile offensive game which opens up the court.
Like I said, Lee’s a system player because he’s not overpowering, athletic or big enough to work his game in all systems. These aren’t problems for Amare, Bosh etc.
by tafkasam on May 13, 2011 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The price we paid for Lee is a pretty much market value for a player of his skill level.
Notice that no good teams went after him. Yeah, the market among dumb teams, we got him for market value. The smart teams pay the big money to bigs that are not undersized and can play help defense.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
We might have paid market price for his offensive skills + rebounding numbers. Problem is, the rebounding is overrated, the offense is complementary (basically, he doesn’t provide post offense, which limits who he can be paired with), and we aren’t factoring in his defense, which is flat out terrible and negates most of his value…
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
He may have been worth 10 mil a year, at best. But teams weren’t even offering him that. We got stuck with a really bad contract for a so-so player.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
Well, whatever teams were willing to pay him, I personally don’t hold Lee in very high regard. No reason to spend much money on a below average starter.
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
See....Lacob, Riley, and West all think he's a good starter.
Or at least thats what they keep saying.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2011 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I would say that too if I was in their position and stuck with him. And what has West said about Lee, specifically?
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
The press conference.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2011 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Anyone wanna provide me with a specific quote?
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
He said we have good core and don't need to add much.
And the core is Curry, Ellis, Lee.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2011 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions
So that really doesn’t even say anything specifically about Lee, in addition to the questionable nature of taking PR material seriously….
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Why would he say PR material?
I mean i just saw some other comments that i liked a lot, so i’m not disappointed anymore.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2011 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Because he works for the Warriors organization? I know I’ve never been a part of an organization that just lets employees go out and say whatever they want about it. My employer is very careful about it’s reputation and what’s said publicly, as well….
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
did you see his comments about Ellis yet?
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Well, I saw his comments about size if that’s what you’re referring to.
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah
you don’t think that’s meaningful?
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Ha, I was a believer in Jerry West from the beginning. Didn’t need any confirmation! ;)
by Missing Barry on May 24, 2011 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Works? He's a part owner.
I mean i dunno, he can say what he wants.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 24, 2011 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions
to be fair
if they said hes awful, his trade value would be even worse
second most used unit with Udoh subbing for Biedrins
NAME POSS EZPM100
Monta Ellis 704 4.49
David Lee 704 3.19
Dorell Wright 704 2.73
Stephen Curry 704 0.83
Ekpe Udoh 704 -7.23
_______________________________________________________________
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)
if that doesn't show how a player's stats may not reflect his true value
I don’t know what does
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Honestly, I’m not sure what that shows. Is EZPM100 not a stat? Can you elaborate a bit?
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 12, 2011 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
what I mean is that Udoh looks really bad by it, but I don’t think it is reflecting his value (i.e. notice how every single other player is vastly improved playing with him)
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Adj. +/- for this unit was +6.15
_______________________________________________________________
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)
opposing players against this unit
NAME POSS EZPM100
Chuck Hayes 42 17.19
Tyson Chandler 68 15.68
JaVale McGee 65 12.16
Kobe Bryant 37 8.29
Kevin Durant 86 7.41
Grant Hill 38 4.84
DeShawn Stevenson 58 4.45
Kendrick Perkins 46 3.37
Maurice Evans 49 2.63
Nick Young 63 1.35
Kevin Martin 42 0.46
Courtney Lee 42 0.11
Thabo Sefolosha 53 -0.93
John Wall 88 -1.51
Channing Frye 38 -1.64
Steve Nash 38 -1.64
Derek Fisher 37 -1.68
Serge Ibaka 74 -2.13
Jason Kidd 62 -2.57
Luis Scola 38 -5.79
Kyle Lowry 38 -7.14
Yi Jianlian 42 -7.46
Dirk Nowitzki 57 -9.19
Rodrigue Beaubois 45 -11.51
DeMar Derozan 39 -13.10
James Johnson 39 -16.74
Russell Westbrook 72 -17.35
Jordan Crawford 45 -24.94
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Third most used unit...+11.59 Adj. +/-
NAME POSS EZPM100
Dorell Wright 281 7.82
Monta Ellis 281 7.58
Stephen Curry 281 2.12
Vladimir Radmanovic 281 -0.51
David Lee 281 -4.59
_______________________________________________________________
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)
opposing players against this unit
NAME POSS EZPM100
Kevin Love 25 19.03
Thaddeus Young 20 15.61
Chris Bosh 34 15.03
Jrue Holiday 18 10.66
Steve Nash 18 7.58
Nazr Mohammed 22 7.39
Zydrunas Ilgauskas 27 6.90
Michael Beasley 29 6.28
Channing Frye 18 1.35
Dwyane Wade 31 1.06
Anthony Tolliver 29 0.79
D.J. Augustin 45 0.28
LeBron James 34 -0.02
Carlos Arroyo 27 -1.46
Boris Diaw 41 -2.01
Gerald Wallace 45 -12.68
Stephen Jackson 45 -19.94
Evan Turner 22 -23.54
Wesley Johnson 19 -24.73
Luke Ridnour 20 -37.68
_______________________________________________________________
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)
amazing how much these numbers change with one substitution
Biedrins→Udoh→Radmanovic is like a completely different team with each one.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
There Is Big Problem With This Stat
It does not account for the quality of the opposing players on the court during these minutes. More often then not when Monta is on the court the other team’s A Team is also on the court and more often then not when Monta is not on the Court the other team’s B Team is on the court. It is to be expected that most players will play better when facing the other team’s B Team then they do when facing the A Team.
Bottom line, this stat tells me nothing I find useful or even marginally meaningful.
actually...
Monta plays so many minutes that he is usually on the court for both the other team’s A team AND B team. Meanwhile, regular starters like steph or lee are the ones that would more likely be on the court against mainly against the opposing team’s A team.
Doesn't Mean Much
Still most of Monta’s minutes are against the other team’s A Team and most of the minutes Monta does not play are against the other team’s B Team.
Dorell Wright
averaged 38 minutes per game, so he was playing against the “A” team too. I don’t know the numbers but I’m sure he didn’t make the team worse the same way Ellis does.
I Think You Might Be Suprised.
The amount of minutes one was on the floor and the other wasn’t is likely to be so small that one would be foolish to use such a small sample size to measure anything.
by giantsrainman on May 13, 2011 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
And yet the difference in their Adj +/- is huge.
The only way that happens is in those small chunks of minutes, the team is A LOT better.
And, as I explain above, how big a sample size you need depends a lot on how big the effect you’re measuring is.
The only way that happens is in those small chunks of minutes, the team is A LOT better.
Not true. The sampling error can be very large in a small sample size. That’s the point of SSS being a problem. Not saying sample size is entirely to blame, but we can’t say in certain cases SSS is a problem and in other cases it’s not. It either is or it isn’t.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Not true. The sampling error can be very large in a small sample size.
What isn’t true?
I don’t think that Ronaldinho was in any way, shape or form disputing this.
A: It was a small sample. This is true.
B: In that small sample, the team was a lot better.
Whether A was responsible for the effect seen in B is not a given, but the observation that the team performed better without Monta is true.
Whether A was responsible for the effect seen in B is not a given, but the observation that the team performed better without Monta is true.
Right, better in that sample. Obviously, the question is whether that sample represents a true value.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I don’t know the numbers but I’m sure he didn’t make the team worse the same way Ellis does.
Adjusted plus-minus: Dorell +4.0, Monta -6.8
Two-year adjusted plus-minus: Dorell +5.8, Monta -5.0
Very few good players make their teams worse the way Monta does.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 13, 2011 3:31 AM PDT up reply actions
random side note
on the topic of adjusted plus-minus, did anyone notice chris paul’s absurd +18.54?
opponent quality
It does not account for the quality of the opposing players on the court during these minutes. More often then not when Monta is on the court the other team’s A Team is also on the court and more often then not when Monta is not on the Court the other team’s B Team is on the court. It is to be expected that most players will play better when facing the other team’s B Team then they do when facing the A Team.
Of course, you could have simply asked if this was possible, or if I was willing to address, instead of simply dismissing the entire post. Having read some of your other comments around here, however, I am not surprised you took this dismissive tone.
FWIW for folks who are interested, I calculated a weighted average of number of games started by opponent when Monta is in the game vs. out. I also calculated the weighted average for ezPM100.
When Monta is in the game, the opponents average ~46 games started and +0.23 ezPM100.
When Monta is out of the game, the opponents average ~30 games started and -0.30 ezPM100.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I should also point out...
That difference in ezpm rating is like facing a 44-win team vs. a 37-win team (to put it in terms that are more immediately obvious).
_______________________________________________________________
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)
That Is Useful And I Thank You
So the players playing with Monta on the floor were playing against a team that was 7 wins better then when they played without Monta. This is a pretty big difference in my view and supports the point I was trying to make that of course they will do better as individuals when on the floor without Monta in these circumstances.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Nice post
But instead of trotting out adjusted plus/minus and saying “Ellis should play less!”, how about combining it with some actual play breakdowns of exactly how they improve without Ellis? Is it better rotations? Stopping more penetration? More ball movement? If I wanted to know adjusted plus/minus, I’d just plug in the data and get a result.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
exactly how they improve without Ellis?
The main way we improve without Ellis is through the draft.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
if we simply want a cheaper version of Monta
let’s sign Nick Young – I think he’s actually underrated, but Washington may let him go
_______________________________________________________________
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)
No
We should give Okur a max deal
"There is nothing like a wise phrase or quote to help convince others that your decision makes sense." - Anon
"If you're ever in a fair fight, then your tactics suck." ಠ_ಠ
if healthy, i'm all for okur
Incredibly underrated player
too bad he's almost 32
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Here is the list of opponents when Ellis is on the bench
Players with > 25 possessions played. I have to admit, the quality of opponents generally looks a lot worse on this list:
NAME POSS EZPM100
Marcus Thornton 68 24.19
Zabian Dowdell 31 22.88
Kosta Koufos 39 22.22
Rudy Gay 26 21.18
Nene Hilario 53 20.50
Chris Andersen 54 17.73
Shannon Brown 41 17.50
Jason Terry 29 16.29
Manu Ginobili 42 14.21
Raymond Felton 72 14.16
Pau Gasol 42 12.87
Baron Davis 43 10.20
Chase Budinger 36 10.03
Mike Conley 30 8.17
Tyreke Evans 52 8.15
Paul Millsap 32 8.04
Eric Bledsoe 51 8.03
Matt Barnes 42 7.07
Samuel Dalembert 56 6.92
DeAndre Jordan 33 6.78
O.J. Mayo 38 6.56
Kevin Martin 31 6.04
Al-Farouq Aminu 63 5.50
Jarrett Jack 29 4.20
Blake Griffin 62 4.10
Steve Blake 29 3.27
Earl Watson 42 2.97
Francisco Garcia 39 2.46
Armon Johnson 78 2.37
Al Jefferson 39 1.78
Arron Afflalo 58 1.57
Courtney Lee 44 1.48
Ryan Gomes 53 1.27
Marcin Gortat 52 1.17
Dirk Nowitzki 30 0.49
Tony Parker 39 0.37
DeMarcus Cousins 66 0.34
Kobe Bryant 37 0.24
Nick Young 29 -0.23
Luke Babbitt 82 -0.41
Tiago Splitter 49 -0.43
Dante Cunningham 27 -1.35
J.R. Smith 82 -1.42
Wes Matthews 70 -1.70
C.J. Watson 26 -2.04
George Hill 50 -2.29
Shawn Marion 28 -2.98
C.J. Miles 64 -3.04
Patrick Mills 89 -3.23
Kenyon Martin 77 -3.28
Ronnie Price 43 -3.29
Richard Jefferson 38 -4.46
Mickael Pietrus 54 -4.93
Chris Johnson 87 -4.99
Andrei Kirilenko 36 -5.04
Jared Dudley 53 -5.16
Darrell Arthur 41 -5.67
Rudy Fernandez 96 -6.26
Kyle Korver 27 -6.50
Kyrylo Fesenko 30 -6.82
Damien Wilkins 28 -6.91
Ty Lawson 91 -7.10
Randy Foye 48 -7.55
Beno Udrih 83 -7.80
Gary Forbes 68 -8.22
Earl Barron 75 -8.86
Eric Gordon 52 -8.94
Derek Fisher 31 -9.00
Hakim Warrick 46 -9.29
Gary Neal 48 -9.66
Josh Childress 26 -9.85
Jose Barea 45 -10.24
Donte Greene 28 -10.29
Jason Thompson 59 -10.30
Greivis Vasquez 26 -10.75
Chuck Hayes 31 -10.98
Matt Bonner 39 -13.57
Marcus Thornton 29 -15.34
Devin Ebanks 33 -18.63
Lamar Odom 36 -22.85
Marvin Williams 28 -31.30
Derrick Caracter 28 -35.28
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Hollinger's PER
Off the topic a little but is there another metric out there that does not have any anomolies as far as player ratings?
In science, one bad data suggest the theory is not complete or wrong.
PER seems to produce the least “That player has that rating !!?!”. Could it actually be the best measure out there today?
PER seems to produce the least "That player has that rating !!?!"
Does it?
_______________________________________________________________
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)
PER seems to produce the least "That player has that rating !!?!". Could it actually be the best measure out there today?
Hollinger has used the “it seems to agree with popular opinion of who is good pretty darn well” as support for PER. That’s not a good argument for it. It means that if our popular perception is wrong, PER tells us nothing new.
My question is actually coming from a different point
In science, you know a theory is off if the data is very out of whack. So one instance of that can’t be true says something the theory. So if Troy Murphy is consider a top 25 players, it makes you take notice.
Since when does one odd observation invalidate a theory? Maybe it’s reason to think about why that observation is different than expected, but it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s anything wrong with it. If Kevin Love ranks as the best player in the NBA by a metric (like Wins Produced)….well, maybe you want to dig a little deeper and you find out the metric doesn’t handle defense well and heavily weights rebounds. All of a sudden that datapoint makes sense. It may or may not be correct, but I generally find it’s pretty easy to understand why it came about.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
The thing about PER is that it rewards usage.
PER will like a guy who shoots alot, even if he’s hitting those shots at a rate that is almost certanily hurting his team. I think the cutoff for 2-pt shots is in the low 30s – don’t remember offhand. But basically, it doesn’t penalize you for missing a lot of shots.
Just asking
Is there a better measure out there? All the others seems to have a few head scratchers.
Personally, I don’t think there’s a pressing need for a single magic-bullet number. I like to look at: scoring, rebounding, assist, turnover and foul rates; blocks for big men and steals for little guys; true shooting percentage and adjusted plus-minus. All based on the largest possible samples. That’s not too much to keep track of, and it paints a much more nuanced and descriptive picture than PER or WP or any other single metric, imho.
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on May 13, 2011 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I've never understood the need to narrow down every player to one number
It works in a discrete game like baseball, but in a game with continuous action like basketball it often causes more problems than it solves. Win shares, wins produced, PER, they all have their problems because they assume every player is attempting to do the same thing and play in the same way. Instead of trying to consolidate a player’s performance into one number, we should try to break it down as granularly as possible. There seems to be a lot of movement towards this: 82games.com, hoopdata.com, synergy sports, and NBA.com’s statcube are all breaking down performance in different ways. Of course, analyzing players this way can also cause some problems when you drill down too far and start looking at numbers with a tiny sample size, but hopefully common sense prevails.
Monta Ellis's #1 Fan!!!
*Note: This post probably doesn't exist. The author of this post has to be dreaming. He's going to wake up and it's going to be November 1st again. Because there's no way that this really happening.*
by philthiest on May 13, 2011 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Wins Produced is a better tool than PER -
- they’re actually pretty similar except that WP punishes missed shots at a more reasonable rate.
WP tends to overrate players who rebound well individually but don’t seem to help their team rebound better (unfortunately, David Lee may be one of these players) – suggesting that they get their rebounds mostly from their teammates. It also doesn’t really say much about defense, so will overrate really bad defensive players. (Like most statistical measures, it rewards steals, so it rewards gambling for steals).
But WP does what PER does, doing a much better job of it. Which is not to say it’s not without its own (major) flaws.
You know I was actually going to give this a shot until I read this.
If you’re not statistically minded (or I would argue open-minded)
Pretty much sums up the “I’m better then you” attitude that has been a big turn off of this site for a while now.
Too bad, there were some voices here that I really enjoyed listening to.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
glad I put that disclaimer to help you avoid wasting your time
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Just Proves It Is You That Is Not Openminded.
by giantsrainman on May 13, 2011 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Not really.
Look, everytime somebody makes a statistical argument that is negative about a player on GSOM, a bunch of people come out of the woodwork attacking the whole notion of statistics as an analytic tool in basketball.
I strongly suspect that if somebody raised an original and compelling argument against the specifics of this statistical analysis, Evanz would be all ears. He seems pretty willing to change his mind about things.
But I read that quote as simply saying, “Not interested in having the same-old arguments we’ve had 100 times.”
Seriously – you think the garbage-time argument hasn’t been brought up a dozen times before this thread? You think the “somebody has to create a shot” argument hasn’t come up before? This stuff comes up every. single. statistical. thread.
Seems pretty clear to me that Evanz wanted to have a discussion about this analysis. Not rehash the old stuff.
That Is Not Clear To Me At All.
In fact I just got a warning for the above post. Why can Evenz call out posters that disagree with him as not being “open minded” but those of us that disagree with him are not allowed to point out when he is not being “open minded”?
This is a clear unfair double standard to me and if the mods want to ban me for pointing this out then have at it as you will just be proving how un open minded you are.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Why can Evenz call out posters that disagree with him as not being "open minded"
I’m not aware that I “called out” any specific poster for not being open-minded.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
It Came Accross As Calling Out All Of Us That Disagree With You.
I can see that you likely did not mean to call out those of us that disagree with your but that is certainly how what your wrote read to me before you clarified it.
I am not looking for a fight and in fact I like alot of what you have to say and very much appriciate your reply above where you provided some of the context that I think is needed to make this stat useful.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
well
I said that anyone who is not statistically minded OR open minded can feel free to not read this post. If you are claiming that applies to you, then it logically means that you are calling yourself out for not being either of those things.
Do you consider yourself open minded? If so, then my statement should not have offended you.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Here Is How Your Words Came Accross To Me.
If you do not believe stats are the end all be all you are not open minded and i don’t want you joining into this discussion.
I would not have taken it this way if you had not equated being statistically minded with being open minded. I like stats. They have value. But they to me are not the end all be all and I believe one should always endevor to understand their limitations.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
You are equating them in your head
and projecting your insecurity onto me
I understand some people don’t like stats, but if they are open minded, they still might find the post interesting. If they are neither of those things, then why would they bother reading the post in the first place?
_______________________________________________________________
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)
just to fight?
or be a troll?
That’s how you are coming off here, at least, to me. That’s why I put the disclaimer. Apparently, it wasn’t strong enough.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Now You Call Me A Troll And Insecure?
This name calling on your behalf is not helpful. I thought we were making some progress in coming to an understanding that would allow us to then have some rational discussions.
I am not alone in interpeting what you wrote as I did. Qin above seems to have done the same.
Tell you what, i will accept that this is not what you intended to communicate if you will accept that it is what you communicated to some of us and perhaps you should have choosen different words. Believe me I understand how easy it is to come accross different then you intend. It happens to me alot. I too need to make an effort to choose my words more carefully.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
why are you here?
you are not adding anything to the discussion.
I’m not going to keep replying to you unless you start talking about basketball, and not how offended you were by my shenanigans.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I Thought I Had Above.
I found our opponent quality discussion very useful.
In retrospec I wish I had excluded the last line of my first reply starting this discusion.
Bottom line, this stat tells me nothing I find useful or even marginally meaningful.
For this unnecessary and unhelpful comment you have my appologies.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks
_______________________________________________________________
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)
If you do not believe stats are the end all be all you are not open minded and i don’t want you joining into this discussion.
Wow. So now Evanz isn’t just responsible for what he writes … he’s responsible for the crazy, nonsensical interpretations of his stuff that you come up with?
So when you write, “But they to me are not the end all be all,” if I take it to mean that you think the sky is purple, can I lay that on you?
I would not have taken it this way if you had not equated being statistically minded with being open minded. I like stats. They have value. But they to me are not the end all be all and I believe one should always endevor to understand their limitations.
I would hope everyone would agree with this. I certainly do. Being openminded means being willing to accept any method of evaluation that can be shown to provide value. Statistics are one part of that, but hardly the only.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Why can Evenz call out posters that disagree with him as not being "open minded" but those of us that disagree with him are not allowed to point out when he is not being "open minded"?
He didn’t?
He told people who weren’t interested in engaging in a statistical discussion to walk on by.
Different thing entirely.
It’s like having a discussion about the evolution of the elbow joint. You don’t want to waste time arguing with the creationist down the hall – yet you know if you leave the door open he’s likely to stick his head in and start ranting about how evolution is a crock.
I Am Not A Fan Of Your Analogy.
It comes accross as being very un open minded coupled with a superiority complex. What is being discussed here is not at all the equal of Evolution vs Creation. This anology comes accross as an attempt to belittle those of us not on the same side of the argument as you are and it is not appriciated.
by giantsrainman on May 14, 2011 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
This anology comes accross as an attempt to belittle those of us not on the same side of the argument as you are and it is not appriciate
That’s in your head. Don’t know what to tell you. If somebody wants to be insulted, it’s pretty hard to avoid insulting them.
This is so true.
If somebody wants to be insulted, it’s pretty hard to avoid insulting them.
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 14, 2011 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah.
Plus, don’t argue with Evanz. He is a HUGE contributor to this site and he just wanted people who aren’t statistically inclined to leave this post alone.
Plus, go Padres!
(I couldn’t resist throwing that in there)
"Morrow... That's a two pointer!"
-Kevin Harlan for the 22nd time during an NBA 2k11 exhibition
by don't leave Morrow! on May 18, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 18, 2011 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a clear unfair double standard to me
The double standard is because one side of the “debate” is looking at the facts, while the other side is dismissing them. Call it elitism, “I’m better than you” attitude, whatever you want, but to put it simply….there is a correct side to be on here.
Don’t misunderstand that as a “stats are everything” argument. It is not. It’s simply saying that the person who uses all the evidence they can/that’s available to them, and seeks out the best evidence to help them find answers, is doing it right. The person who has decided to reject a certain way of evaluating things without basis is doing it wrong.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with the notion that the Warriors need a larger back court and I love the ezPM
stats. One issue I have with this is that Monta played 40+ minutes every night, he got significant rest really only when the game wasn’t on the line in any way, therefore I think these numbers can be a little unfair to Monta considering the differences in the way opponents played when he wasn’t on the court(when they had nothing to gain.) Then if you take the 3-4 minute a night Monta did get some rest in a standard game, you have two categories one category with a huge amount of minutes and one category with a tiny amount of minutes comparatively.
I actually think there might be something to these statistics, but I don’t think this really proves anything. I hope the Warriors get a standard back court, I am a big Curry fan and therefore do not approve a Curry trade unless we are getting better in return.
I don't need ezPM to tell me we need a larger backcourt
That’s basically just reality. We have two huge defensive liabilities in the backcourt. It’s not very hard to see ‘long term’ this team has little future beyond being a 2nd rd team with this backcourt leading them, unless we magically get lebron and howard or something (in which cause, Monta and Curry wouldn’t really be ‘leading’ anyway)
But what I do hate is the notion, if we trade one (monta) for nothing we’ll be a better team. We won’t. We might be better long term cause we’d likely lose more games get a higher pick, who is likely a player who can help us more than monta long term, and then turn it around, but thats a different argument (and one I don’t disagree with).
Even if I am to believe, Curry, Lee can make up for the points monta gets (ok). Even if I am to believe, they can make up for opportunities he creates soley on his penetrating ability (I don’t but ok). We still have way too many defensive liabilities even if he was traded straight up for Aron Afflalo. We still can’t guard the 4 or 5 spot. We still got a huge hole defensive at PG, which is a bigger issue than people want to pretend it is. Especially the way they league is trending if you can’t stop a penentrator (like Rondo or Rose, both of whom Curry cannot for life of him stop) your whole defense can collapse. It’s not like Dorell is an amazing defender either, he’s just a bad one, and understands concepts of team defense.
I guess I’m saying, Monta gets a lot of blame, that is unjust, JUST like how he gets a lot of media credit which is unjust. He’s not our savior/star/carrying us anymore than he’s a poison who’s keeping us out of the playoffs. Our lack of overall talent and inability to play team defense is keeping us our of playoffs.
And it seems to me..
Sometimes people dislike Monta because of Fitz. Projecting there dislike of Fitz onto Monta because of way he praises Monta
without trading Monta, Lee, or Biedrins (preferably two of those)
we have no chance of fixing any of those problems in the near term or long term
_______________________________________________________________
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)
tue
you should include curry in there too though.
I mean we got 4 defensive liabilities on the court at once. You can hide 1 or 2. Obviously from the perspective of what curry brings offensively, he’s at bottom of list of one’s you’d wanna trade (offense for defense) but then when you consider contracts and value it becomes frustrating.
two things make Curry different
1) He’s on a rookie contract.
2) Defense is least important at the point guard position.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I want to refute this
2) Defense is least important at the point guard position.
Maybe in the past, but the way the league is going, with increasingly athletic players at PG who penetrate at will and set up offense, i think it’s actually becoming more and more important.
We need to look no further than the Lakers problems. Or how about NYK, who couldn’t stop rondo and thus got ate alive.
I’ve read the articles on why it’s less important, but I just don’t buy it. Or atleast I believe it’s something that’s likely to change.
Maybe in the past, but the way the league is going, with increasingly athletic players at PG who penetrate at will and set up offense, i think it’s actually becoming more and more important.
Without hand checking, most point guards are simply not long enough to play up on their man. In order to effectively guard, then, he needs to play off his man, but that leaves open a shot (frequently a 3-pt shot). If you can switch a longer 2 onto the PG, he can play off the man a little bit more and use his length to bother the shot or use his quickness to prevent the penetration.
The way the league is going, it seems obvious to me, that length is becoming more and more important as a way to counteract quickness.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
consequently, this is why a Monta/Steph backcourt is so weak defensively
Monta is quick, but he’s not long enough to play off his man.
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Good points
And then of course defensive fundamental’s help too. Neither of which have them or have ever been properly coached. We’ve seen enough quality defenders who only have average size or athleticism but know HOW to defend. Yeah they’re a disadvantage but a high bbiq and good fundamentals + desire you should be atleast passable. That’s what i’d be hoping most to gain from someone like Mike Brown. Curry won’t ever be Rondo, but he’s smart and hungry enough, the right coach can make him less of a liability… until he turns derek fisher old and can’t move. Luckily that won’t happen for 14-15 years
We’ve seen enough quality defenders who only have average size or athleticism but know HOW to defend.
I’m actually curious, have we? Off the top of my head I honestly can’t think of many, but I might just be missing some obvious ones. Shane Battier comes to mind. I always thought he had decent lateral quickness, but he’s not long, and definitely doesn’t have great athleticism or anything. Most of the good defenders I tend to think of are guys like Gerald Wallace, Mbah a Moute, Tony Allen, Dwight Howard, Noah, etc. Guys who really do have some very nice combination of length/atheleticism….
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Artest and Hayes are strong, but not extremely athletic or long
_______________________________________________________________
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)
I always just assumed Hayes was really long. Looking at DE, he looks more average length for his height. That’s impressive.
I think Artest has very good defensive tools. Granted, at this point in his career, he’s starting to lack footspeed a bit, but he used to be a very good athlete. Dude was a physical monster, and still is – just a slower version. I don’t know about his length, though, do you?
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
not sure about length
_______________________________________________________________
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)
Battier does not have an impressive reach, but I think that people forget that he’s as tall and strong as many a PF. He’s less than an inch shorter than Udoh. He has enough lateral quickness to not get abused by most wings when he pairs this with a good understanding about a player’s tendencies. Admittedly, he’s probably something of a unique case in the latter case but I think simply being taller and stronger than most 3s gives him an advantage that tends to be undersold when evaluating him.
Wasn't he a 4 coming out of college?
"If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball." - Phil Jackson
by GovernorStephCurry on May 19, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Eh. Their best lineup was Williams, Duhon, Dunleavy, Battier, Boozer. I don’t see much reason to put traditional positions on to that group. Scary how stacked that team was, especially considering Williams was the best player of the bunch.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
bruce bowen, ben wallace, manu off top of my head all overachieved based to there physical tools. But beyond that, i’m just talking about making them competent defenders. Not great ones, just average…. at the moment there defensive fundamentals and concept of team defense beyond ‘forcing TOs’ is awful.
Like I said, even moving this team from 26th to 16th defensively (still below average) will go miles. And beyond that, it’ll increase every players league value
bruce bowen, ben wallace, manu off top of my head all overachieved based to there physical tools.
Ben Wallace? Not tall, no shooting touch, but a very, very, very good athlete. In his prime he was stronger and faster than most players in the NBA.
Always seemed incredibly long to me, but I’ve never seen measurements to back that up.
by Missing Barry on May 20, 2011 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I think these numbers can be a little unfair to Monta considering the differences in the way opponents played when he wasn’t on the court(when they had nothing to gain.)
I don’t really think “unfair” is a good way of putting it. It might be very fair to say we could put Monta in a different situation that produces better results, but “unfair” suggests something unjust is going on here. I hardly think we can call measuring what actually happened “unfair”.
by Missing Barry on May 19, 2011 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Basically a dream would be to trade Monta(or Beans or Lee) to Cleveland for the #4(they can absorb the salary) ..rather do it with the Wolve’s for Kanter/Williams but they will hold out for a better deal or take the pick first. Get Vesely or Kanter then shore up the 2 with the 11th pick.
by Only In Fairfax on May 21, 2011 11:10 AM PDT reply actions
They’re going to get Kyrie, a smallish PG. They wouldn’t want Monta. They might consider Lee… if they’re dumb. Ya’ never know. We’d have to provide cash considerations perhaps, not to mention our pick. Maybe throw in D.W. instead. Something to get them to take Lee’s salary.
I'm the soul brotha' like no other!
I'll play devil's advocate on Monta Ellis. I don't have a blog, but do have Yahoo Team Report.
I’ve been away from this board, so excuse. I’m looking forward to the Evanz’s ezPM and stat analysis, but will have to learn about ezPM. Anyway, the Yahoo Team Report. My comments in bold.
Warriors Team Report
Yahoo! Sports 11 hours, 45 minutes ago
GETTING INSIDE
The Warriors hired Hall of Famer Jerry West to become an adviser in the franchise’s front office and a member of the executive board. Yahoo!
West will work with the basketball operations staff and report directly to Warriors owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber.
West, 72, spent 18 seasons as the Lakers’ general manager and seven in Memphis’ front office. He is a two-time NBA executive of the year.
"We are elated to add Jerry West and his incredible list of credentials to our Executive Board," Lacob said. "His accomplishments in this business as both a player and executive are almost beyond comprehension and certainly well-documented. He’s simply a winner and, quite honestly, you can never have too many of those in your organization."
West is better known for his accolades on the court, where he was a 14-time All-Star with the Los Angeles Lakers and the inspiration for the NBA’s logo. He is one of only seven players in NBA history to play at least 14 seasons in the league and be selected as a member of the All-Star team every year.
The Warriors are in the process of looking for a coach to replace Keith Smart, whose contract was not renewed in April. Under Smart, the Warriors finished the 2010-11 season 36-46, improving their record by 10 games from the year before, but management felt the need to go in a different direction.
Larry Riley was retained as the Warriors’ general manager last month, and the team also hired former NBA agent Bob Myers to be the assistant general manager and Riley’s eventual successor.
• The Warriors haven’t offered their head-coaching position to anyone, but already three leading candidates have said no.
According to various news sources, longtime head coaches Jerry Sloan and Jeff Van Gundy and Spurs assistant Mike Budenholzer turned down Warriors requests to be interviewed for the position. Ouch on Jerry Sloan and I hear Budenholzer would have been a good pick.
They were far from the only three men contacted by Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob and general manager Larry Riley.
Even before the second round of the playoffs had ended, the Warriors had interviewed Lakers assistants Brian Shaw and Chuck Person, former Cavaliers head coach Mike Brown and two other current assistants, Lawrence Frank of the Celtics and Dwane Casey of the Mavericks.
The Warriors appear to be in competition for some of the candidates with other teams whose offseasons have begun with coaching vacancies.
Shaw, who grew up in the Oakland area, is considered a candidate to replace Phil Jackson in Los Angeles. Frank and Casey are said to be on the Rockets’ short list to replace Rick Adelman.
Hornets assistant Michael Malone is another name that has been linked to the Warriors’ search.
Season Highlight: The Warriors finished the season on an upbeat, beating the Mavericks, Trail Blazers and Lakers in consecutive games in April. But no doubt the most encouraging thing that occurred all season in fact didn’t happen during the season at all. When a group led by Joe Lacob acquired the Warriors from Chris Cohan last summer, Golden State fans began to believe again. Adding David Lee and Dorell Wright along the way helped in the rebirth as well.
Turning Point: As with the Season Highlight, this occurred in the offseason as well. When Stephen Curry sprained his ankle in the lead-up to the World Championships, Warriors fans held their collective breath. It appeared he would have time to make a full recovery before Opening Night, but Curry reinjured the ankle in the final preseason game, a precursor to having to sit out games in two stretches early in the season because of subsequent flare-ups. Curry’s minutes were limited most of the season and he never really recaptured his rookie season’s magic, which many attribute to an ankle that was never 100 percent. Speaks for itself.
NOTES, QUOTES
• Even though they had less than a one percent chance of winning the NBA Draft Lottery, the Warriors walked away a bit disappointed.
Why? Because the first two ping-pong balls to come out of the chute were 14-13, a starting combination the Warriors had on two "tickets."
The final two balls were numbered 7-8, however. The Warriors’ tickets had numbers 9-8 and 10-8.
"One number away from getting the No. 1 pick. One number," Warriors representative Joe Lacob muttered to Warriors.com. Ooooooh…
The Warriors wound up right where they began the evening—picking 11th.
• The Warriors are expected to think big on draft night, especially with the 11th pick in the draft. So early speculation on the selection focused on Lithuanians Donatas Motiejunas and Jonas Valanciunas, Kansas’ Marcus and Markleff Morris, Texas’ Tristan Thompson, Morehead State’s Kenneth Faried and The Congo’s Bismack Biyombo. I like Jonas V and then Donatas M in that order. Also, high on Pass on Kanter. Intrigued by Morris if they trade down.
The Warriors went big seven years ago with the 11th pick and the results were pretty good … a least for a while. Andris Biedrins, the No. 11 overall selection of the 2004 draft, blossomed into one of the most consistent big men in the league early in his career, but he has since slumped into one of the most disappointing.
The Warriors also had the 11th pick in 2003 and selected another foreigner who’s still in the league—guard Mickael Pietrus.
• The San Francisco Chronicle reported the Warriors’ new ownership will not be retaining director of athletic development Mark Grabow, strength and conditioning coach John Murray, director of scouting Scott Pruneau and scout Jim Mitchell.
The report noted that Troy Wenzel, who replaced longtime athletic trainer Tom Abdenour on an interim basis late in the season, will remain with the team.
Quote To Note: "Changes are taking place within the organization from top to bottom. We’ve talked at length about improvement and a new direction. Joe Lacob’s goal is to get every piece of this organization to be top-notch."—General manager Larry Riley.
ROSTER REPORT
Most Valuable Player: Monta Ellis. The Warriors haven’t had an All-Star since 1997. In fact, they haven’t even been in the conversation much. The latter changed this season. Ellis, who ranked among the league leaders in scoring all season, was considered by many to have been snubbed when he was not selected to make the trip to Los Angeles. Ellis played 80 of the 82 games, scored 20 or more points more times than not, moved over to point guard when Stephen Curry was on the bench or injured, and was almost always called upon to take the big shots at crunch time. He not only had his best season, but also solidified his position as a foundation block in the Warriors’ future. Yup. I agree.
Most Disappointing Player: Stephen Curry. It would be easy to pick Andris Biedrins, who not all that long ago was deemed good enough to get a $54 million contract extension. But the big left-hander was just as ineffective last season, so at least his poor play could have been predicted. Curry wasn’t nearly as embarrassingly bad, but he certainly rated as a disappointment. Here’s how far the second-year guard fell: He entered the season as an untouchable in the team’s rebuilding effort; he ended it as the most likely player to be dealt in the club’s effort to find an upgrade for Biedrins. I would have picked Biedrins.
Biggest Needs: The Warriors fixed half their frontcourt problem with the addition of David Lee last offseason. He’s a top-flight rebounder who can step away from the basket and keep his defender honest. So now the Warriors need to solve the other half of the equation—finding a complement for Lee. That guy ideally would be a low-post scorer and low-post defender. The Warriors might have to trade Stephen Curry to get this guy, which in turn would make finding a guard complement for Monta Ellis their greatest need. Whether Curry is traded or not, drafting a backup point guard is a must. Trade Curry and not Monta. LOL. I’m not advocating trading Curry unless it’s for Chris Paul or Deron Williams. I doubt Cleveland would give up #1 Kyrie for Curry. That said, I’ve stated build around Monta, Lee and Curry.
Free Agent Focus: The Warriors have their top four players (Monta Ellis, David Lee, Stephen Curry and Dorell Wright) locked up, and they’re stuck with Andris Biedrins, so their pending free agents aren’t big-name guys. Louis Amundson, a disappointment this season as a first-year Warrior, has a player option on a $2.4 million second season. It’s possible he’s as interested in leaving a bad situation as the Warriors are in erasing a signing mistake. It would be a surprise if both Reggie Williams and Al Thornton, a pair of free agent swingmen, are retained. With $49 million in guaranteed contracts, the club figures to be at least a small-time player in the free agent market, depending upon where the salary cap lands in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Player Notes:
• F/C Ekpe Udoh didn’t exactly have a stellar rookie season, but that could be blamed on a thumb injury that cost him much of training camp and almost the entire first half of the season. Most people expect the Warriors to draft a big man with the 11th selection in June, but that might be considered a slap in the face to Udoh, last year’s lottery pick. The Warriors finished the year expecting Udoh to be their starting center of the future. With David Lee set at power forward, you might conclude a team that missed the playoffs by 10 games has greater needs than a backup big man.
• G Jeremy Lin was a great story coming out of the Warriors’ training camp. News that he had signed a two-year deal delighted most fans. But recently it has been reported that the second year of his contract is not guaranteed, rendering him to just another player at training camp this fall. I was rooting for him, but JL is gone next season if we can get a bench.
• G Acie Law has been the Warriors’ backup point guard at the end of each of the last two seasons despite never holding the position at the end of training camp. Considering that he’s a free agent again, it’s possible his status will be the same—not on the roster—come opening night next season. If the Warriors go big with their lottery pick in June, they might look for their backup point guard of the future with the No. 44 selection of the second round.
Medical Watch:
• G Stephen Curry (sprained right ankle) played the Warriors’ final 54 games, so obviously the injury wasn’t serious. Or at least Curry never told anybody it was. But he didn’t play nearly as well in 2010-11 as he had the previous season, after having injured the ankle in the offseason. After playing for the United States team in the World Championships last summer, what Curry needs now is a long vacation. That should assure his ankle is 100 percent for the start of training camp in October.
"Go ahead. Make my day."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
