Warriors Game Day Links #24: Golden State Warriors 106 vs Houston Rockets 97 - We got shooters, we showed toughness, and we destroyed their bench
by IQofaWarrior on Feb 12, 2012 9:11 PM PST
in Links
Email
Print
SBNation Network
Warriors: Golden State of Mind
Recap: Recap #24: Warriors 106, Rockets 97 — Roll Back the Tank (for Now)
Game thread: Game Thread #24: Rockets at Warriors (or, JLFT#3 at JLFT#2) (840+ comments)
Rockets: The Dream Shake
Recap: Game 28 Recap: Warriors Ruin Rockets Road Run, Ride Ellis To 106-97 Win
Game thread: Game 28 Thread: Rockets At Warriors
Preview: Game 28 Preview: Houston Rockets vs. Golden State Warriors
Recaps
Associated Press: Guards lead Warriors past Rockets 106-97 | Photo Gallery
Sports Network: Warriors edge Rockets behind Ellis' 33
Matt Steinmetz: Monta lifts Warriors over Rockets, 106-97
Adam Lauridsen: Crunch Time (Warriors 106, Rockets 97)
Marcus Thompson II: Golden State Warriors, Monta Ellis on mini-run with two-game win streak
Rusty Simmons: Andris Biedrins still struggling, but Warriors win
Pregame News
- Sat: Adam Lauridsen looks at the Warriors decisions made so far and then tries to guess what changes the Warriors will make in the immediate future.
Adam Lauridsen: The Warriors’ Risks — Past, Present and Future
- Sat: Jarry West thinks the Warriors need to keep their lottery pick because he sees some guys worth looking at in the draft.
Rusty Simmons: Jerry West soon to step up Warriors involvement
- Previews of the game.
Matt Steinmetz: Rockets-Warriors: What to watch for
Pregame Videos
- Fri: Stephen Curry talks about his big game and playing the point guard position.
19:21 min: Stephen Curry with Ralph and Tom on KNBR - Fri, Feb 10
Sat: A look at autographed gear that goes to charities, events, and other special functions.
Sat: Raw practice footage.
Sat: Practice interview, Mark Jackson.
Sat: Practice interview, Stephen Curry.
Sat: Practice interview, Dorell Wright.
Sat: More practice interview tidbits.
Mark Jackson before the game.
Postgame News
- No postgame news found.
Postgame Videos
John Henry Smith interviews Klay Thompson right after the game.
Mark Jackson at the podium.
David Lee in the locker room.
Monta Ellis in the locker room.
Stephen Curry in the locker room.
CSN highlights, recap.
Highlights by gumbywithpokey.
Recap and highlights from nba.com's game page:
Rockets vs. Warriors: First half
Monta finds Curry
Monta's Heating Up
Marvelous Monta
Lee Hammers it Home
David's Up and Under
Amazing Curry Circus Shot
Rockets vs. Warriors
Postgame Quotes and Stuff from warriors.com recap
Audio
1:56 min: Tim Roye interviews Monta Ellis right after the game
9:19 min: Mark Jackson Postgame - 2/12
3:15 min: Monta Ellis Postgame - 2/12
Mark Jackson
On The Second Quarter's Defensive Effort:
"We did a great job of bouncing back. We gave up 29 points in the first quarter, turned the basketball over, allowed them to get it going in transition and we missed assignments. But I thought our guys did a great job of battling, competing and then regrouping once things were not going our way - second quarter was crucial for us. Just a great job of bouncing back against a team that has been playing well and they have been working extremely hard."
On Klay Thompson's Development:
"I watched him during a workout before the draft and he was by far the best player. The thing I love about him is nothing bothers him, it's absolutely funny - he doesn't care. He's a great shooter, but he's a big time competitor. Underrated defender, underrated defender and it's scary to think just how good he's going to be."
On Monta Ellis and Stephen Curry:
"They're a heck of a tandem. I think what they are doing right now is playing off of one another. They are realizing who has the hot hand and at all times they have been unselfish. From day one those guys look to make plays for one another - almost too much. They're a talented tandem and when they are clicking they are as good as it gets in this league."
Monta Ellis
On Being On A Roll Offensively:
"It just feels good. Shots are going in. Teammates are finding me and just making plays."
On Playing Well Defensively As A Team:
"Really we are just covering each other's back, scrapping and intensity. We are ready to turn this around. I think right now it's a great opportunity for us. We are trying to get back to .500 before we get to the All-Star break and put ourselves in a great position."
David Lee
On Playing Well Defensively:
"Our last two games here we have found our stride. We've had times in the first half where we had done a great job. Tonight we gave up a lot of points in the first quarter but at some point of the game it comes down to locking down on defense. The last two games we've done a great job in the second half of doing that and making a run."
On Living By The 3-Point Shot:
"We've also been attacking the basket. We do have great three point shooters. With guys like Stephen (Curry), Dorell (Wright), Klay (Thompson) and Monta (Ellis), it's not like we don't have guys who are not used to hitting them. We have guys capable of hitting those shots. The most important thing is we're not settling for contested ones. We are taking wide open shots and I trust those guys to hit those shots."
Notes
- Dominic McGuire DNP on a sore left knee. The tweak happened before the @Nuggets game on Thursday.
What's next?
- The first back to back in a while, but at least it will be here at home. It's the Suns, who just polished off the King last night, so they'll be more rested than we will be.
| Day | Date | Time | Opponent | TV | Radio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | Feb 13 | 7:30pm | Suns | CSNBayHD | KNBR 680 |
| Wed | Feb 15 | 7:00pm | Trail Blazers | CSNBayHD / ESPN | KNBR 680 |
| Fri | Feb 17 | 5:00pm | @Thunder | CSNBayHD | KTCT 1050 |
| Sat | Feb 18 | 5:00pm | @Grizzlies | CSNBayHD | KNBR 680 |
| Mon | Feb 20 | 7:30pm | Clippers | CSNBayHD | KNBR 680 |
272 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Klay Thompson's amazing
I’m really liking how your bench is doing this season so far.
Proud to be a brony.
Udoh or Klay
I thought Udoh or Klay should’ve get more votes, I mean Monta is expected, Udoh and Klay plays were a huge plus
It's a starting point.
Or are you just advocating against winning games in general?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
by Brownie13 on Feb 12, 2012 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
We aren’t going to win a championship so we should try and get our draft pick.
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 12, 2012 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
Right!
It’s 1/3rd of the way through the season – so it’s time to taaannnnnk! Gotta get that draft pick! (Sheesh!)
by Eric Rasmussen on Feb 12, 2012 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
I want to keep our draft pick.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
It's not going to happen.
You’re only realistic things to root for is tank bad enough for bottom 10 (not bottom 7), or getting to the playoffs.
No contest there.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
We have a shitty team.
It will happen if they don’t play Monta, Lee, and Steph 35+ minutes each game.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
No.
Limit their minutes and give the young guys more PT. You’ll be bound to lose more games + help their development.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 13, 2012 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
You really think holding them to 4 minutes less a game moves us down 2-3 spots?
Especially considering you think Monta and Lee are both net negative, that doesn’t make any sense.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Spurs sat Robinson even when he got healthy to solidify their tanking mission in order to get Duncan, and look how that worked out.
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 13, 2012 12:03 AM PST up reply actions
They were already at that point when he returned.
AND he suffered a major injury. Something that might actually benefit from a ton more rest.
If we were 9-40, and trying to win games would hurt our chances at holding onto the lottery pick, then YES, definitely, you don’t all of the sudden try to win all of your games and finish 8th worst instead of 4th (or whatever).
But we still have an opportunity to make the playoffs. Since we aren’t bad enough (or injured enough) to be a bottom 7 team, it makes more sense to try to get there. That will also increase the relevance of our franchise. It will make us a more desirable FA destination. It will show that we are no longer the inept franchise that missed the playoffs every year for 15 seasons.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Personally, if we're going to 'tank' we should commit to rebuild
That means move biedrins for ANYTHING.
Then move Monta or Lee for whatever can garner highest long term value, prospects or picks. Don’t consider price as much here.
Then you commit to playing the young guys more (klay, tyler, udoh etc.) and then you limit minutes.
I say win as many games possible and give Utah a shtty pick.
by J-RIDAH on Feb 13, 2012 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
all things aside...
A real NICE win… 4 to go. Than we can all talk some business.
"I'll have to look at the tape" - Mark Jackson
ya, already we are only 3 or 4 games out of 8th place... if we catch fire for a while, we got a chance at some playoffs...
i honestly dont think we are capable at busting.. and i bet vegas under estimated the warriors, largely due to klay and rush…
by PIRATEWARRIOR on Feb 12, 2012 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
Added
John Henry Smith interviews Klay. warriors.com audio and quotes.
Monta is the teams best player. I dont care what haters say.
by J-RIDAH on Feb 12, 2012 9:43 PM PST reply actions 11 recs
I agree he is the best player
But I still don’t think long term he is the right fit for this team IF we get the right trade for him OR we bring in a dominant big man to overcome his defensive deficiencies.
You know I spit technique to the freshest freak
Gimme a call you will see results in just a week
With the soul of a LOST HAWK
Is there a heaven for a Rap Cat, let's talk
I agree, Klay makes him expendable. Only if it was a fair deal tho. No fair offers for Monta has been made at this point. Teams want to steal him like we did Rush. Not gonna happen. Dwight wants him in Orlando but they have nothing to offer back.
Klay makes him expendable.
This was the plan all along. Jerry West knows what he’s doing.
But I agree with you, we’ve yet to see a deal for Monta that makes sense.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Also, I'm really not sure what kind of team we turn into with that kind of change-up.
Ideally, we trade Monta for a Center…but who?
From there, who becomes our main penetrator? It’s not like we have another option who can get in the lane anywhere near as much as Monta. None of our other guys is really all that aggressive off the dribble.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I'm trying to think of a list of guys that I'd actually do it for.
There really aren’t that many.
I mean, who’s actually available?
Centers:
Okafor
Kaman
Varejao
McGee
Noah?
Small Forwards:
Gay?
Granger?
I’m guessing Iggy and Deng are pretty much off the market completely at this point, as well as Hibbert. I mean, they’re all huge keys to their teams’ success. I wouldn’t trade them for someone who might not fit, even if I thought he was a little better player.
So the SF market is kind of weak, and the C market isn’t that great either.
I feel like we could probably find a way to get one of the centers for less than Monta (other than Noah). Especially a Varejao or Okafor, who are just contributing to losing teams while eating up salary space. I’m not really interested in Kaman, and if we really wanted Javale, I’d just wait until the off-season. I don’t see how Washington matches any significant offer for him considering how unhappy they’ve been with him. If nothing else we can do a sign-and-trade for him with non-essentially players and a 2nd round pick or two.
I just don’t see a good deal out there for Monta.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
by Brownie13 on Feb 12, 2012 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A high usage chucker?
We already have one on our team
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 12, 2012 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
Crap SuperCool is a supreme chucker. Do not want to pay the man.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
re: He’s a self shot creator.
I’m much more interested in getting guys who are self-shot MAKERS!!
it’s really not all that hard to get a bad shot off
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
How does he help us though?
He’s just as inefficient as Monta, not a good passer, and not a particularly good rebounder for his size/position. I’m not even really sure he has a position. He’s a talented player, but he doesn’t really seem to fit as a SF or PF. Seems best used off the bench when big men aren’t quite as tall and wings aren’t quite as quick.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Dude...
McGee isn’t that awesome,he’s got good numbers but so much to learn. If we had a lottery pick to deal I’d do that but trading a proven good player for him is iffy. He doesn’t understand defense at all yet
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
as an expiring
He has no value. Bet we could offload beans for beasley + some fodder who makes 3-4 mil
Only to unload Andris would I want him
Terrible fit for this team, doesn’t give us anything we lack or need
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
+1
My thoughts exact. Would be nice to get a average starting center like Okafor or Varejao without giving up much.
Varejao is playing really well right now, but under the radar.
He’d be a great guy to go get. His contract isn’t massive, and he’s a versatile defender who helps facilitate motion on offense. Very good at receiving the pass off a pick and roll or high post up and getting it where it needs to go. Doesn’t really pick up a lot of assists, but he’s an asset not just to any defense, but offense as well.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
How about Pekovic
Been beasting lately after starting over Darko. Not sure what it’ll take to nab him from Minny though.
He's their starter now. I don't see why they'd trade him.
He’s been playing way to well to trade him away for anything but a better proven starting center.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
AV would be great but he's hurt.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
I knew you didn't care much for logic.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
Logic is Monta is the best player on the team and its pretty obvious. He dont have to have a good shooting night to make his team better. Alotta guys get open 3’s because of his penetration.
by J-RIDAH on Feb 12, 2012 9:58 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
Logic is Monta is the best player on the team and its pretty obvious
actually, that’s called “opinion.”
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
That should be in reply to Gov
He brought up logic as it pertains to our best player.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Logic is defined as “the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.”
Correct is defined as “conforming to fact or truth”
Statistic is defined as “a numerical fact.”
Find me a “numerical fact” that suggests Monta is better than Curry. Until then I’ll “correct” your “logic.”
oh, and btw:
Opinion is defined as “A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.”
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
Where does logic say the evidence has to be a numerical fact?
I think you’re forgetting that logic, often, doesn’t use statistics at all.
If anything, your point only further proves that it is an opinion to hold any player as the best player on our team.
Logic doesn’t say that numerical facts are more valuable than visual observation. That’s an opinion. So therefore, when you draw a conclusion from that, it is also an opinion.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
by Brownie13 on Feb 12, 2012 11:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Also...
…. The world is flat.
by warriorsablaze on Feb 12, 2012 11:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, it gets down to what your definition of "best" is.
Some people use it to mean “most exciting.” Some people use it to mean “capable of the most amazing play.”
Other people use it to mean “the player who most consistently helps you win games.”
By that last definition, Monta is not our best player. By some other definitions, he may be.
by Ronaldinho on Feb 12, 2012 11:25 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
That last satatement is still an opinion.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
by Brownie13 on Feb 12, 2012 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's a testable opinion.
It’s an opinion on which we have data.
We know certain things about what wins games. We know that defense wins you games. Almost all of the available evidence suggests that efficiency is more important that shot creation in terms of winning you games.
So, yeah, you could be of the opinion that the best evidence we have on the subject is bunk.
But not all opinions are created equal.
In fact, there are plenty of opinions out there which are downright moronic. And defending them by saying “they’re just an opinion” is equally moronic.
by Ronaldinho on Feb 13, 2012 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
yup
yes, the conclusion is an opinion, no doubt.
But the problem is that when you compare this argument to a pro-monta argument, it’s pretty apparent that the Monta apologist argument is tenuous, at best.
When you are analyzing Steph, it’s relatively easy to use un-doctored numbers to prove your point. With Monta though, the whole argument is essentially discounting a wide variety of well-regarded metrics, and creating a scenario where Monta could play under ideal conditions and therefore supposedly improve.
Basically, looking at the evidence (IMO) it is pretty easy to conclude that Steph is the more valuable ball player; while concluding that Monta is the best on our team requires a fair amount of logical acrobatics
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
That's not the case either.
With Monta though, the whole argument is essentially discounting a wide variety of well-regarded metrics, and creating a scenario where Monta could play under ideal conditions and therefore supposedly improve.
All it requires is counting visual observation as more important than said “well-regarded metrics.”
And what makes them so “well-regarded” in the first place? That people who don’t really understand basketball came up with most of them? That a decent number of people on GSOM use them?
FOs clearly don’t value them as much as people here, nor do most other fan-bases.
I’m just unclear who appointed these metrics as the basis for most basketball evaluation. Just because they’re the best statistics we have at measuring or predicting things in the NBA, doesn’t mean they’re more valuable than visual observation, depending on the person or situation. Nor does it mean that it’s right in any particular case, even if it were proven a better tool than said observation.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
And what makes them so "well-regarded" in the first place?
That they’ve been proven to accurately correlate with winning basketball.
No.
They’ve been proven to better predict than anything we’ve had in the past.
It still doesn’t make them more valuable than observation. Obviously, you need a smart evaluator who can judge well for themselves, and visual break-down doesn’t work for everyone, but when it’s applied correctly, it’s just as valuable.
As I have said multiple times, statistics can be misinterpreted the same way that watching the game can be.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I'll make it much more simple
All it requires is counting visual observation as more important than said "well-regarded metrics."
This is also known as “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts”
bottom line is that Monta is pretty bad at a few key areas of successful basketball. And even though he is admittedly awesome to watch, turns out he is actually not that good of a scorer either (meaning he does not make enough of his shots).
sure, some of thismay be fixable, and/or can be explained away (system issues, he’s “being asked to carry the team”, yada yada yada)…but the thing is, there is a ton of concrete, unbiased evidence supporting the “anti-monta argument”…Literally everything (aside from PPG) supports this conclusion…
and then on the other hand, you have these old curmudgeons saying “nah, none of that matters, I trust my eyeballs”
this is what I was trying to initially point out:
yes, these conclusions are opinions…
but from a logical standpoint, the burden of proof is pretty squarely in the pro-Monta side; unfortunately, all that gets trotted out is these old tired regurgitated “arguments” that quite frankly suck.
one side, opinions supported by actual evidence, which leads pretty directly to the stated conclusion.
on the other side, opinions supported by…more opinions…which disregard (or explain away) a number of verifiable truths
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
No, no it's not.
This is also known as "my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts"
Because if I said “from watching the games, I think Andris Biedrins is a good FT shooter, maybe around 75%,” I could be shown wrong and accept that.
The thing is, with all encompassing stats, there’s so much to explain that it just isn’t as simple as one number proving my thesis wrong. You have to account for why things are happening, rather than just pointing to a number and saying there is no debating it.
Even in the instance of +/- many other things need to be accounted for than just which players make our team perform better when we’re on the court. Obviosuly we already know sample size, but there are also many other questions like:
Do any players play a different style of game while a specific player is on the court? Why?
Is anyone less aggressive in certain circumstances? Why?
It’s more complicated than “we don’t perform as well with Monta on the court.”
For instance, one argument I’d like to present is that Steph, is, in fact, much less aggressive a lot of the time that Monta is on the court. Rather than being just a product of Monta causing Steph to play worse, it also says something about Steph’s (over?)willingness to defer. I think that if the two could learn to be aggressive at the same time, things would work a lot better.
Bottom line, there’s just too many questions to be asked for me to take a stat and have it refute any argument. There is still much to be discussed even if it’s been brought up.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
this would be a good point
except that nearly every statistic favors Stephen Curry over Monta Ellis.
It’s not like adjusted +/- favors Steph and PER favors Monta. It all favors Steph.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
alright, well...I'm over it
this here is one nice strawman you’ve constructed
Because if I said "from watching the games, I think Andris Biedrins is a good FT shooter, maybe around 75%," I could be shown wrong and accept that.
this is actually a little extra funny to me, because this is exactly what’s happening within the anti-Monta debate. Someone will say “he’s a great finisher” or “he’s impossible to defend” or “he’s the only guy on the team who can penetrate”…the thing is NONE of these are really true (once you look at the numbers)….then the pro-Monta argument comes back with an excuse (“oh, those don’t matter becase x,y, and z”)…the thing is, this is really the only way to actually test a hypothesis, you take this away, and we may as well be debating the existence of god (where there is no real proof of anything for or against)
The thing is, with all encompassing stats, there’s so much to explain that it just isn’t as simple as one number proving my thesis wrong. You have to account for why things are happening, rather than just pointing to a number and saying there is no debating it.
here’s the problem, it’s not just one all-encompasing stat (although those are in favor of Steph too, as Brady2k points out), there are a bunch that we can look at, and they all tend to point towards Steph as being better/ more useful at basketball
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
Not to nitpick
but now you’re stating things that just aren’t true. This doesn’t have anything really to do with the original point, but
"he’s a great finisher"
is actually true.
http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=%25&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=30
sort it by FG% at the rim. He’s really good.
As far as penetrating
http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=%25&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=30
sort this one by how many attempts players have at the rim.
It’s Lee, then Monta, and after that it’s a wide margin between him and either of our other ball-handlers (Nate and Steph). Monta shoots at the rim more than 4 x more per game than either Steph or Nate. Also, while Steph’s numbers were better last year, Monta was still shooting at the rim twice as much.
So unless you’re considering Kwame, Lee, or Dorell “penetrators” I’m not really sure what you’re arguing. Monta really is our only conistent pentrator, especially so far this season.
All of these numbers are backing up what I see when I watch the games. Like FT%, they’re much simpler and more obvious, though even they don’t account for everything.
Back to the original point. You’re saying I’m constructing a straw man, but you’re not realizing that was the argument I constructed. I wasn’t saying that was your direct argument. It was a comparison to the response to your argument that came later.
If you’re attributing this type of argument to me:
this is actually a little extra funny to me, because this is exactly what’s happening within the anti-Monta debate. Someone will say "he’s a great finisher" or "he’s impossible to defend" or "he’s the only guy on the team who can penetrate"…the thing is NONE of these are really true (once you look at the numbers)….then the pro-Monta argument comes back with an excuse ("oh, those don’t matter becase x,y, and z")…
then you’re the one making the straw man. of course that’s only if you’re trying to say its the argument I’m using.
Anyway, many of the all-encompassing stats measure the same things, and therefore would miss many of the same things. +/- is distinctly different than most in what it measures, but things like WS, PER, etc are all pretty much variations of each other. They raise entirely different questions than an adjusted +/- number.
I really don’t see how that is that difficult to understand.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
ugh my second link is wrong
here:
http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=GSW&type=pg&posi=%25&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=0
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
All it requires is counting visual observation as more important than said "well-regarded metrics."
so you’re in favor of the BCS over a playoff system?
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
And I'm the one being accused of contructing straw men?
How is this even relevant.
In that case, the BCS rating IS the supposedly well-regarded metric. It’s not like people have a problem with the way it ranks teams (most people thought Alabama and LSU WERE the two best teams), they have a problem with the fact not all teams are given a chance to prove they are the best despite being ranked lower in that number.
Seriously, WTF kind of question is this?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
66% of the BCS ranking is voter-dependent. It’s one third metrics, one third harris interactive pollers, one third coaches poll.
The point being, the majority of BCS voting is based on what people see
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
Even if it was all based on the BCS number the teams generate based on the computers, there would still just be 2 teams competing.
That’s what your question pertains to:
How many teams get to participate
So it truly is a completely irrelevant topic.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
no
there is a 2-team “playoff” because they think that using the eye test is adequate to choose the two best teams.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
Um...
Very few are arguing for the voters polls to be disbanded…
What people want is more teams.
They DON’T want a 2 team “playoff” decided by just computer data.
They DO want a 4-16 team “playoff”
decided by the same ranking system we currently have.
So, still observation being part of the ranking process is not the problem. Most objectors to the BCS actually like the ranking process and think the best teams end up where they should, but despise how the system is set up into a a bunch of bowl games rather than a playoff.
How are you not getting the difference?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I understand the difference. I don’t mean to imply that I don’t.
But the people who devised the BCS system devised it because they thought that they could determine the top two teams in the nation based on watching them play.
I understand that the system for ranking teams is decent, and that the fight is for more teams. I’m simply saying that the current BCS format was constructed under the premise that you’re arguing: that you can deem who’s “better” simply by watching them play.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
You don't think that's possible to do?
It’s clearly not an exact science. Observation never is. But those who know what they’re doing have shown time and again that what you see is often just as valuable as the box score.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I agree!
What you see is every bit as far as the box score. I would posit that they are more valuable. Box scores don’t show hustle, charges, lucky shots, good screens, good plays where your teammate messed up, etc.
I fully, absolutely, completely agree that observing a game shows more than reading a box score.
With that said, advanced metrics look at the big picture. The importance of the aforementioned non-box-score things (such as charges, screens, etc.) will let their importance be known, and evened out over the course of a season, or more.
Stephen Curry could make a habit of pulling up for three 45 foot jumpers a game. We’d watch him and think “what an idiot!” even if he made all three on any given game. If you look at the box score, you’d think “woah, 3-3 on 3s!” and not understand the stupidity. But over the course of the 150 or so games that Steph has played, his 45-foot bombs would come to a normal average, around 5-10% which is what we can realistically expect. Long-term adjusted +/- take into account everything that factors into a game.
What goes on that’s not in the boxscore that we see? Charges, screens, loose balls recovered, bad passes forced, clutch shots, etc. But what goes on that we DON’T see? Leadership, heart, not making certain plays, etc.
We have no way of quantifying how important it is to set a good screen, or how important it is to be more competitive than your opponent. But what we do know is that, over time, statistics reach an average that preaches the law of diminishing returns. Monta’s +/- for one game may look drastically different than his adjusted +/- for a 5 game sequence, which may look vastly different than his adjusted +/- for a 40 game sequence. but his adjusted +/- for 40 games looks very similar to his adjusted +/- for 50 games looks very similar to his adjusted +/- for 75 games, etc….
paradoxical as it sounds, the things we can’t quantify show up, over time, in how a player quantifiably affects his team’s chances of winning. Yesterday may say differently, but a ~150 game sample shows us that Steph increases our chances of winning more than Monta does.
You can argue why. You can argue (as i have MANY times) that with the right coaching, Monta can buck this trend. But you cannot argue with the fact that, for a large sample period stephen curry has – consistently – proven to have a greater impact on winning than monta ellis has.
and this is coming from an ENORMOUS monta ellis fan.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
Logic doesn’t say that numerical facts are more valuable than visual observation.
I’m sorry, but this as an absolutely absurd statement. Let’s again look at the definition of logic: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."
Observation is neither correct nor reliable. Observation is defined as “the act of noticing or perceiving.” It has nothing to do with correctness or reliability.
You fail to understand that logic is based on things that we know. Statistics are things that we know. As Ronaldinho smartly said, if you define “best player” as “giving us the best chance of winning,” than we
know,based on facts and therefore logic that Stephen Curry is that player. If you define “best player” in some other way, then, well…..that’s weird.
Observation does not result in logic. After all, when I was four, I saw Santa.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
Ever here of Plato?
Socrates? You know the ancient philosophers who spent most of their time debating and arguing things using logic, while very seldom using numbers? I guess not.
You’re pointing to an argument against observation that doesn’t hold water. Just like an interpretation of statistics, the interpretation of what you saw is not always right. That doesn’t make it not valuable.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
from a debate geek
it’s really funny to me that you would use this reference because both of those guys (and their school of debate) are known for their reliance on solid logical construction of arguments, and an understanding of logical fallacies.
the pro-Monta arguments are extremely weak, and rife with logical fallacies.
the thing is, there’s not a ton of analysis going into the anti-monta conclusion…it’s pretty much this:
-the better player should be better at making shots, better at helping others make shots, better at defense, better at rebounding, less prone to turnovers.
maybe I missed one or two issues, but the key element here is that Steph is superior to Monta in nearly every aspect
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
Socrates? You know the ancient philosophers who spent most of their time debating and arguing things using logic, while very seldom using numbers?
you may have made a poor analogy. I’m a philosophy major, and think you actually helped my point.
it has nothing to do with numbers. it has everything to do with facts. statistics are factual evidence. I don’t care about integers, neither should you. it’s that these particular integers represent facts. visual opinion does not equate to fact. It equates to opinion.
It’s ironic that you bring up philosophers. I just opened up my copy of “Physics” by Aristotle. In case you didn’t know, this great work is not a book, but a compilation of Aristotle’s notes from classes that were taught by Plato, who you just mentioned in your argument. So, essentially, Aristotle is paraphrasing your Plato.
The opening sentence of the work is
in any subject which has principles, causes, and elements, scientific knowledge and understanding stems from a grasp of these, for we think we know a thing only when we have grasped its first causes and principles and have traced it back to its elements. It obviously follows that if we are to gain scientific knowledge of nature as well, we should begin by trying to decide about its principles
Last I checked, statistics (which are facts) tell us more about the principles of Monta Ellis than watching him does. FORGET NUMBERS. it’s not about numbers. It’s about facts, knowledge, and principles, which, fortunately for us can be quantified.
Think of it this way: I’ve watched almost Warriors game this season. I’d guess he scores about 24 points a game. Now, using the numbers you abhor, I can see that Monta Ellis actually averages 22.7 points per game.
Is it “logical” for me to say he scores 24 points a game based on what I’m watching? Or is it logical to say that he averages 22.7 points a game because….well….he averages 22.7 points a game?
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
I clearly stated that not all observation leads to correct inference.
I don’t get why you’re arguing that certain things can be wrong.
Break-down isn’t always correct. Just watch Magic Johnson try to do it. Or go to the local bar and ask people who way too little about the game. You’re not going to get good results.
However, informed people who can understand the complicated things that are happening on the court can make very valuable observations that are true (making them facts) that no statistic can explain or incorporate. Its not that hard to understand that stats do miss things and can be interpreted the wrong way, just the same as observation does.
Going back to the philosophers. My point is, that even with these numbers at hand, they’d wouldn’t rationalize their points based on them. They’d understand that a sport where 10 players, the crowd, and a few coaches are affecting the outcome at any given time is far too complicated to be measured completely by any of these numbers. They would realize there is a counterpoint to every stat or fact, just as they are counter points to the observation I claim to see.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Its not that hard to understand that stats do miss things and can be interpreted the wrong way,
this is true, but as it pertains to our argument it’s like saying the earth is almost perfectly round, which is a fact. you can interpret it the wrong way by saying “all planets are round.” but you can’t interpret the shape of the earth incorrectly. it is round. that is fact.
The fact of the matter is, in a game determined by the team with the most points, Stephen Curry contributes to a positive differential more than Monta does.
You are completely right that we can misinterpret facts. We can extrapolate things incorrectly. But it’s the same as the earth being round. We can misinterpret WHY Stephen’s stats are better than Monta’s. We can misinterpret what affect this will have on the future. But there’s no way to misinterpret when X > Y.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
Not a fact.
Stephen Curry contributes to a positive differential more than Monta does.
That’s a meaning you’ve extrapolated from the statistics you’re looking at. You came to that conclusion from the stats. What the stats told you was that there’s either a better differential of +/- for Steph. It didn’t tell you why. You’re taking it to mean that he is the best player who contributes most to the team. Even the adjusted number doesn’t tell you that it’s all a product of just him, because it assumes all players are supposed to be about even. It counts for strength of opponent, but not necessarily chemistry or match-ups, and all of the little things that contribute to the +/- number.
If you’re referring to Win Shares or PER or the like, then they measure exactly what their formula states and nothing else. It’s been covered far too many times that there is more to basketball than just the numbers calculated in those metrics.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
It counts for strength of opponent, but not necessarily chemistry or match-ups, and all of the little things that contribute to the +/- number.
but don’t you see? You can argue that Steph’s adjusted +/- is because of better match-ups, but what does that tell you? It tells you that, given the strength of respective positions in the NBA, Stephen Curry helps the Warriors win more basketball games than Monta Ellis does. I don’t think you get that that is incontrovertible.
It’s like saying Allen Iverson is better than LeBron James because he was 10 inches shorter and 100 lbs. lighter. It doesn’t matter! Sure, AI may be more impressive, but the nature of the NBA is that a guy with LeBron’s body has a huge advantage. I don’t care if that’s unfair. It helps you win games.
The same is true with Steph and Monta. You can say that Monta has more unfavorable matchups. Say that the team relies on him more. Say whatever the heck you want. At the end of the day, the basketball game is decided only by who has the most points. sidebars be darned, Stephen helps us achieve that better than Monta does, and that’s a fact.
"Alex is balling. He’s balling out." - Frank Gore
That wasn't my point.
But continue to keep twisting what I’m saying.
I’m tired of arguing now. We’ve nowhere left to go anyway.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Anyone who rec'd this doesn't understand logical thought processing.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
Not really thought processing
Just staring at numbers
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
you spelled "PPG" wrong
Just staring at numbers
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
No I meant advanced stats
Implying that was all that Gov looked at
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
by dubzfan on Feb 13, 2012 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I got that
my point was that the only number that contradicts the stance shared by the Gov, and many others around here is PPG.
we all watch a ton of bball.
if there are differences of opinion, all we have to clarify this are the numbers (besides more opinion….“my eyeballs tell me x” is not really useful as far as debating the merits of one conclusion versus another)
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
True but ONE player will win you some games here and there and also lose a lot when you rely on a one-man show all the time. It’s a team sport, I rather trade Monta KNOWING he is our best player, for pieces that help the Warriors defensively.
Obviously Biedrins has to go, but how and for who i dont know.
7
by AlbinoWhale on Feb 12, 2012 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
Monta is the player most capable of dominating a game.
That doesn’t make him our best player.
He’s also the player most capable of shooting us out of one.
He’s also the player most capable of shooting us out of one.
That;s not fair. I’m confident if biedrins took 25 shots he’d shoot us out too.
“Player most ‘likely’ of shooting us out..”
Well, when you're the only consistently aggressive offensive player a lot of nights
you tend to shoot your team out of far more games than anyone else, best player or not.
Monta isn’t as good as Kobe or Rose, but they’ve shot their teams out of plenty of games while remaining the best player. Sometimes there’s just no one else aggressive enough to balance out the shot attempts.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Kobe and Rose are incomparable
Kobe regularly deflects shots from much better options in the post. Rose doesn’t have pau and bynum.
I'll agree to disagree.
Post players need to get fed the ball with guys already guarding them. Since the defense is really only guarding 3 guys, it becomes a lot more difficult to get them the ball in good spots. They’re constantly crowded down low.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Don't fully disagree
However the unnecessary increase in volume this year for kobe is particularly disconcerting.
He’s shooting more than ever. 2nd most attempts per minute in his career, behind 05-06, when he had much less help.
They’ve got a few decent 3 point shooters now, which points more to rotating the ball out of the post, and off kobe for open 3s for blake, kapono, murphy, goudelock.
You been watching the Lakers much?
Those rotation guys you’re talking about can’t make 3s to save their life. It’s why they’re considering signing Gilbert Arenas.
Outside of Kobe, Pau and Bynum:
Blake: 20-64, 31%
Murphy: 16-38, 42%
Goudelock: 14-35, 40%
Fisher: 11-43, 25%
World Peace: 11-58, 19%
Barnes: 10-41, 24%
Kapono: 8-24, 33%
Morris: 3-5, 60%
Ebanks: 0-2, 0%
Walton: 0-4, 0%
For a total of 83-291, 28%
Which is actually by lower than Kobe’s awful 30%
Those guys aren’t doing what they’re supposed to. It’s a huge reason Kobe is shooting so much.
Besides, I was talking about beyond this year. Overall. A best player is way more likely to shoot you out of a game than anyone on your team, especially if your best player is a volume scorer.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
i'm aware
But cmon, murphy, blake, kapono and fishers career numbers speak for themselves. Got to give them shots
Not metta/barnes etc.they could never hit 3s consistently.
They are giving them shots.
They’re not making them.
They’re primarily wide open shots as well (discounting Fisher, who will shoot any shot he feels is in rhythm). The percentage at which they’re all making 3s is embarrassing, as Steffun pointed out below. If I’m Kobe, I’m taking the shot before them, because even the stats say its a better option.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
And to build upon that further
Murphy at 42% has been arguably worse than Derek Fisher on defense.
Kapono at 33% is embarrassing. He gets payed to shoot, and he sucks at everything else.
Goudelock is the one bright spot, but he almost never plays with the big 3, anyways.
"It ain't Chinese algebra. If you get stops and you execute on offense, normally that team wins." - Tony Allen
"One thing LeBron James has won that Kobe Bryant never has, and never will: A bronze medal."- Josh Tucker
i mean ultimately, i think lakers offensive problems are pisspoor ball movement
The teams passing is atrocious. That effects bigs more than anyone. However, does kobe sitting on the ball and chucking really help?
When was the last time Monta shot us out a game? It’s been plenty of times lately Curry has turned us over outta games tho with lazy passes and giveaway’s.
Charlotte?
But the whole team was pretty bad in that one.
Looking back, I’m not sure he’s done it once this season.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Sacramento he was poor, so was steph
OKC again, both.
I do agree with you though, Steph’s consistency is more key. When Steph plays well, everyone tends to. You don’t see him go off and we lose often.
The thing is, most of the time Curry's "inconsistency" is still not actively hurting us.
He’ll only take 9 shots or something, which can be frustrating, but it’s not like he’s jacking up a ton of missed shots or, despite claims to the contrary, turning it over like a madman.
Curry’s turnover percentage and variation are totally within the norms of the position.
Yes
I am less concerned with shooting. I would like him to shoot more, because his shooting ability is proven and a poor stretch is likely to be snapped out of with a shot.
However I’m more concerned when he doesn’t have it going, he turns passive. I’d like him to command the ball a bit more, even if he isn’t shooting.
The turnovers have been bad, but he’s still our best decision making, and one who keeps the team flowing.
However I’m more concerned when he doesn’t have it going, he turns passive. I’d like him to command the ball a bit more, even if he isn’t shooting.
That’s reasonable. However, if that “commanding of the ball” resulted in more bad shots, I’m not sure it’s a worthwhile tradeoff.
This is particularly the case on a team which has Monta, and thus is generally just fine if Curry plays passively for stretches. So long as Monta is playing “good Monta” ball as he was last night, and working in the team context, I don’t think Curry’s doing anything wrong by defering.
The problem is the relative inconsistency with which good Monta shows up – so sometimes we get bad Monta + passive Curry, and that’s a problem.
The turnovers have been bad, but he’s still our best decision making, and one who keeps the team flowing.
His turnovers are down to the same number/36 they were last year, and his TOV% has been falling steadily. I really think that the whole “turnover machine” thing is an absurd meme which people can’t let go of. Curry had a bad start to the season with respect to TOs, but that’s not surprising given that he missed a chunk of camp and was limited by an injury.
I think it’s also worse because some of Curry’s turnovers look so stupid – those weird one-handed passes, for example. But he actually doesn’t turn it over that much. We just notice because when we see a Monta up-in-the-air-with-nowhere-to-go TO, we subconsciously say “well, he’s trying to make something happen” but a Curry-lazy-pass TO gets us to pull our hair and say “WTF were you thinking?”
But they’re still just both TOs.
This is particularly the case on a team which has Monta, and thus is generally just fine if Curry plays passively for stretches. So long as Monta is playing "good Monta" ball as he was last night, and working in the team context, I don’t think Curry’s doing anything wrong by defering.
Yes, but when Steph gets passive, I believe it tends to lead Monta to shoot too much. Think about it, they are generally our only two players capable of creating a shot. Lee, unless he gets it open in the high post, can’t create his own. Rush, Dorell and co. can’t either.
and thats my major issue with monta. When he feels he needs to do too much. I get why he does it, but the effect is rarely good.
I think it’s also worse because some of Curry’s turnovers look so stupid – those weird one-handed passes, for example. But he actually doesn’t turn it over that much. We just notice because when we see a Monta up-in-the-air-with-nowhere-to-go TO, we subconsciously say "well, he’s trying to make something happen" but a Curry-lazy-pass TO gets us to pull our hair and say "WTF were you thinking?"
That’s what’s more frustrating though. He might not be chris paul level ballhandler but in general, he is among the best dribblers/handlers in NBA. If he just cut those stupid passes out, his assist to turnover rate would probably be around 3 to 1.
I disagree here
Lee, unless he gets it open in the high post, can’t create his own
Not sure what the numbers say, but it seems to me like he is pretty crafty at getting some decent looks, even while covered. Maybe not drive by your man (like Monta), but certainly crafty little hooks, up and unders, spins, etc.
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
I dunno, he seems to work a LOT out of the the high post
He either passes, drives or shoots the ball. He hasn’t been that great at post-ups.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 13, 2012 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, but he's generally covered
open high post = david lee jump shot
(we see plenty of this)
he just doesn’t force it into unfavorable situations, I can respect that
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
lee does force it at times like last night when facing up on the wing.
Parsons never cleared his area when Lee drove right into two or three defenders forcing a T and a fast break opportunity for Houston.
I like Lee in the high post. He can’t really do much in the low post because he’s too small to back down most PF’s and generally plays more of a finesse game down there.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
An inconsistency to be aggressive does very much hurt us.
A lot of times, it’s part of what leads to Monta shooting too much, and even when it doesn’t, it still puts more pressure on him and other players to pick up the slack.
Curry does turn it over more than he should, but it’s not so much more outrageously than Monta does. I could live with those turnovers as long as he stayed consistently aggressive.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
agreed
a dumb play here and there is allowed (even at the NBA level)
I just think we notice Steph’s stupid TOs more because they are such headscratchers
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
Monta shooting us out of games?
@ Charlotte. Monta goes 6-26 and the Warriors lose by 12. Lee is lighting it up, and yet only gets 18 shots.
Vs Sacramento, Jan 31. Monta goes 5-17 and we lose by 3. Despite Lee shooting over .600, he only gets 11 shots.
Those are only the two most obvious cases.
Of course, you say Curry turned us over out of games: Curry has had four games with 5 or more turnovers. We lost two of those games by over 15 points, making it really hard to blame Curry’s TOs.
Monta had to take more shots because Steph didn’t play. In regards to the Sac game, its the point guards duty to get the ball to DLee not the 2 guards.
Nonsense.
When Monta is dominating the ball like that, it’s his responsibility to share it, not anyone elses. He took 26 shots @ Charlotte. You can’t put that on the PG because he was in bad-Monta mode all night.
What do you base that on?
We have lots and lots of examples of Monta playing in bad-Monta mode (dumb shots, lack of court awareness, driving into a set defense) when Steph was in the game.
How, then, can you conclude that he wouldn’t have done it in that game if Curry was playing?
We won that Sacramento game.
Both he and Curry were terrible, but the bench pulled it out…
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Surprised you didn't invoke nightclubs.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
I dont care what haters say.
Well once you say you won’t listen…
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
Didn't you already reply to this with the same basic message?
Repeating your response to the same comment is definitely borderline spamming the thread, isn’t it?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I didn't respond to this specific statement.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
I knew you didn’t care much for logic.
Might want to click the up button on that one.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Talking about Monta being the best player...
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
Actually you didn't mention Monta at all.
You inferred that J-Ridah doesn’t use logic. Pretty much the same thing that you just said.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Are you inferring that he does? Because that is absurd.
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 12, 2012 11:53 PM PST up reply actions
Somestimes he does. Sometimes he doesn't.
Like most of us, he’s not always right.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
He rarely posts anything of real value or merit. Hes misguided, obsessed with hip hop clubs for young black male athletes and is horrible at evaluating NBA talent.
Monta is not our best player now, and will never be as we move into the future. Steph Curry is better now, and has far more potential than Monta ever did.
Statistically, Stephen Curry is better, he also has far more trade value than Monta.
For example, Stephen Curry was the key cog in the CP3 trade, while Monta was the key cog in an O.J. Mayo/Hasheem Thabeet trade.
Anytime you try to argue with that moron he brings up irrelevant points such as:
1. He has a bridge tattoo
2. His jerseys don’t sell as well as Steph’s
3. Monta is loyal, perfectly exemplified by his moped incident and berating Steph before even playing a single minute with him.
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 13, 2012 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
I really don't feel the need to respond to this.
But here’s my one-time explanation of why I probably won’t respond to your next post in this conversation or any future ones in which you direct responses to me.
Beyond anyone else on this site, you are clearly the biggest Monta hater. Beyond anyone else on this site, you are clearly the biggest J-Ridah hater. The second part I understand even less, but that’s irrelevant. Bottom line is, you are clearly not anymore logical than J-RIDAH, and far more often a troll than anything else.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
by Brownie13 on Feb 13, 2012 12:10 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
1. I don’t hate Monta
2. I don’t hate J-RIDAH
But good luck, one less moron to deal with.
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 13, 2012 12:45 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
And lol at “troll”.
Maybe I should spread around some more nightclub conspiracies?
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 13, 2012 12:47 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Do you always have to try and belittle someone by calling them names? I thought that was not allowed on this site.
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
by qin on Feb 13, 2012 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Hahaha, you told me to link it in order to validate my arguments, don’t you remember?
by Anonymous1337 on Feb 13, 2012 1:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Biedrins = done in the NBA
He can go play in Latvia
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
maybe some team over there is willing to match the contact he has here?
are we allowed to release him from his contract if he wants to? lol
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Honestly, does the FO understand how much we dislike Biedrins?
Why would you ever amnesty Charlie Bell?
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 12, 2012 10:10 PM PST up reply actions
Because if you amnesty Biedrins without having another C, you look like a idiot. Beans was gonna get amnestied if Chandler signed here.
Could have amnestied Beans and sign Dalembert to the deal Houston got him for if we couldn’t get Tyson. And still got Kwame for 1 yr to backup Dalembert.
He has a team option for next season.
They could still end up only having him one year. The difference is, if they don’t want him, it costs them $2M, so it’s more like a one-year $9M contract than two years for $14M
I don’t see why we couldn’t have offered him a front loaded $9M contract, with a team option for $6M next season. Not like we didn’t have the cap space.
All things aside, yes it only makes sense to amnesty Biedrins if you’re giving up or you get another center to start in his place.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Because the front office has its sights set on the 3 restricted free agent big men in Mcgee,Hibbert and Lopez. They believe they’ll nab 1 of them by getting a sign and trade done. I think they can peel Mcgee off but Hibbert and Lopez wont get away from their teams. Also they liked Kwame more than Dalembert who they felt didn’t bring it every night unless he’s in a contract year. They clearly got that move wrong tho. I wanted Dalembert.
They clearly got that move wrong tho.
I’m not sure about that. We’ll nevery really know with Kwame going out for the season so early. In hindsight, yeah it’s the wrong move because Kwame got hurt, but he had played really good post defense until that point, and was actually developing some sort of chemistry with Monta off of the pick-and-roll. I also wanted Dalembert over Kwame before the season started, but I was surprised at how well Kwame contributed.
Also, are you sure we have enough cap room going into next season to sign a RFA like McGee. I’m not sure how much I want him, but more importantly, I’m not really sure how much he’ll cost.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Mcgee could be had via sign and trade the same way we acquired D-Lee. I dont think the Wizards are willing to commit to him and would take the best offer for him being that they can easily draft Sullinger or Drummond. We can give them a explosive guard in Monta and a second rounder. That should compensate them.
You think they'd do it before the deadline?
They are going nowhere….
Also if we’re willing to take Blatche, I think they jump now. Monta for McGee, Blatche and Young? They get smaller, but a Wall, Monta, Crawford backcourt rotation might appeal. Monta’s a leader these days and could help the duo.
I would only be in favor of this IF we found a way to dump Andris. We can’t afford 15 mil in deadweight contracts (Blatche + Biedrins).
Also, any chance they part with Rashard? He’s only owed next year. I’d take him + Javale for Monta, Andris, Dorell without thinking twice. Might make us worse initially, but Rashard’s contract will be a gigantic expiring gift. Something, if we partnered with a couple players (maybe Tyler shows something, jenkins, klay or udoh) we could steal 1-2 good players next year.
Excuse me?
Hah. But in honesty, they are going nowhere. Just trying to build for future, no center could only help their chances to draft high for one of the bigs (davis, drummond, sullinger etc.) granted most are pf’s
You’re probably right. IF they are in a position to draft someone like Drummond and like him, they’ll deal McGee in offseason, but probably not gamble in march on potential they might get him
I'm gonna start drowning kittens if we sign McGee to a huge deal no one else would offer.
So typical, I should be expecting it now.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
Also a bad defender right now
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
whoa!
I’ll leave out the whole “double double machine” thing…but do you honestly believe this?
the best shot blocker in the game.
What about Ibaka?
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
Omg iblocka has had multiple 10 block games this year. The man is an animal.
I just can’t give McGee a great deal of credit because his defense is not good outside of his blocks. His weak side is inconsistent and it’s a known fact he’s got a bbiq of a pet rock. Actually the rock plays stouter defense more consistently so I shouldnt be talking so bad about rocks.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
Right now Wall seems to be playing more for his own highlights....
Get the ball ….zoom down the court to make a play(same as in college) …which is why Lin is "currently " looking better than Wall(note the “currently”)…add Monta to that and the Wiz would really be making a bad move there…even they may not be that stupid…
by Only In Fairfax on Feb 13, 2012 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
epitome of a bad team
No coaching, no leadership, no one likes each other, everyone is playing for themselves..
They need a coach first. Then they need to clear some of the chuckers.
I still stand by my belief, a young Westbrook would be the same in washington, maybe even Rose.
Bad team disease is contagious. Especially for young guys
I think McGee is most likely.
DC’s an utter mess. They could think someone like Monta or LEe would change culture. I also think he has highest upside of the 3, just needs coaching the most. I think McGee isn’t a bad kid or a selfish player, but he’s surrounded by them. Anyone who’s played on a team of selfish players knows how that makes EVERYONE worse by default.
I think Hibbert is safest bet, but we have least to offer. Why would they trade Hibbert and Hill for Monta, for ex?
Brook Lopez, I want no part of. Defensively he makes David Lee look good. He’s charmin soft.
I’m mostly annoyed because I wanted to dump Biedrins 1.5 years ago, and they’ve been p*ssyfooting around it. I’m also disgusted how he still gets support here. He does nothing, and his attitude is disgusting. I’d rather have someone chuck us out of game trying than lose by not trying.
We could have had either of these centers 1-2 years ago for Andris, when writing was on the wall. When he said he doesn’t want to play hurt and shows his true colors, ie, he’s a selfish/scared player
-
As for Kwame v. Dalembert. Just bad luck. I think Dalembert looke much better last night cause of Andris. when you don’t have to guard your man, and can cheat to lane it’s easier to effect shots!. Otherwise Kwame was also having a career year. Rebounding, scoring a little. (11 and 11 per 36, good numbers which were going up). Dalembert’s having a good year too, however the 1 v. 2 year thing made it an easy choice to me.
Also, KWame’s lockerroom presence is underrated. He invited all the young guys over the first week he got to team. Udoh and Tyler specifically talk about the help Kwame gave them, in terms of not making his mistakes and also, just general post D.
I hope we can bring him back. Or atleast it makes sense financially. A dream scenerio would be trading someone for McGee, and if we don’t make playoffs, FINALLY having lottery luck and jumping to top 3. After Davis, I’m putting money on Kidd-Gilchrist being best prospect. He has all the tools and intangibles. Just needs right coach to pull it out of him like Westbrook. How much of a difference situation can make (Westbrook v. Wall. Wall definitely has more raw talent)
Not a popular thing to say but I would hate to loose David Lee.....
….have we forgotten the PF position was our biggest black hole for years…heck we killed 2 draft picks trying to solve that problem and quite frankly Lee was the best option that we had a realistic chance to bring in…Udoh was an attempt to further shore up that position(defensively) and does not come close to bringing the scoring, passing and rebounding the Lee does….everyone talks about dumping Lee as if there is an easy fix to bringing in an allstar PF with offense and defense combined plus great contract which is a ….fantasy..the only rational is really for tanking …..which aint gonna happen either….we need a center or a complete rebuild and this owner is not going to throw in the towel in the near future for a rebuild unless someone offers us 1rst round top 5 draft picks this year which aint gonna happen either…lets be realistic!
Well OK we do need more than just a center ha!
by Only In Fairfax on Feb 13, 2012 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
You cant name 5 Power Forwards having a better season than David Lee is right now. He’s having a damn good season.
quick question
if monta is as good as you think he is, and lee is as good as you think he is, and the bench is as good as you think they are, then why are we such a bad team?
"Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu." - J--Ridah
Me: So who (from the 2011 draft class) compares with (Anthony) Davis?
J-Ridah: Biyombo
by bigkino217 on Feb 13, 2012 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I’ve said before, its almost impossible to win in this league without a Center. If you dont have a Center you better have at least 2 allstars.
yet you clearly think that both are all-star talents
and we’re still bad
"Anthony Davis is no different than Al Farouq Aminu." - J--Ridah
Me: So who (from the 2011 draft class) compares with (Anthony) Davis?
J-Ridah: Biyombo
Blake, Pau, Love, Smith, Aldridge, Bosh, Millsap
Then Lee, but then think about the guys slumping who will bounce back like Stat and Dirk
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
Take Millsap off that list. I think Lee is having a better season. Its debatable if Bosh is having a better season. Lee is having a better season than Bosh and no im not discounting defense at all.
See I think Millsap's D puts him above Lee (but I'm not a rapper.... bad joke)
But Bosh is definitely better then Lee
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
Houston gave him 2yr 14mil or something. I’m completely fine with that if we amnestied Biedrins. Unless your saying Dalembert would not sign that here but did it with Rockets.
They can also buy him out for $2M next season by nixing their team option
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
And what is Biedrins doing at the C position? Nothing?
We didn’t need to amnesty an expiring contract, you know. We could have waited a year, THEN amnestied Biedrins.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 12, 2012 10:29 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly, Chris Hunter on a league minimum produces same amount
They could have found some junk 1-2 mil center who’d play like this
So annoying we have this 9 mil albatross
When we could have dumped him. Good god he’s worthless.
You realize in last 10 games he’s attempted 11 shots?! 5 in one game!
186 minutes!
WORTHLESS passenger who makes everyone worse
You realize in last 10 games he’s attempted 11 shots?! 5 in one game!
You realize that you can help your team win in ways other than scoring, right?
Too bad Biedrins doesn't do that
I guess he rebounds and is okay (not above average) on defense for a center… but if you suck in everything else that’s not really considered “helping the team”
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 12, 2012 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
He's been very hit and miss.
But actually, yes, there have been a lot of games this year where Biedrins has been helping us with good aggressive post defense, solid rebounding, blocking shots, etc.
There have also been games where he sucked donkey balls, where he was passive and looked lost.
biedrins is a disgrace
he always always always gets 2 fouls in the first quarter and then sees action like one more time after that. even if he has no offensive game, he could still score points, ala kendrick perkins.
And for majority of those games he has not
Don’t act like he’s ben wallace or dennis rodman. He’s not rebounding, his D is average.
And thats without talking about how his lack of aggressiveness gets everyone else worse looks. Did you not see how Dalembert was basically able to be a free defender?
He’s a detriment. As his nice 10 +/ in 10 minutes says it all. Crap player. The nba equivalent of bernie madoff.
Stop defending the undefendable.
Stop attacking straw men.
I never said that Biedrins is like Rodman or Wallace.
But he has had plenty of good games this year. He was a big reason we took control against Denver, for example.
And he play was a big part of wins against, Clevaland, Utah, and New York. If he was that guy every game we’d be very happy with him.
He’s not that guy every game. Not even close. But the fact that he’s been downright terrible on some nights doesn’t change the fact that he’s been good on others.
Blaming him for the -10 last night is absurd. EVERYBODY was horrible in the first quarter, and then they figured it out int he second. If you watched the game you know that his -10 last night doesn’t “say it all” or even close. He wasn’t good. He also wasn’t responsible for the -10 when he was on the floor.
I never said that Biedrins is like Rodman or Wallace.
But he has had plenty of good games this year. He was a big reason we took control against Denver, for example.
No, you insinuated he’s been impact-ful during that 10 game stretch. He has not. 1-2 games max he;s had a positive impact. The way he refuses to roll or get involved on offense, makes us play 4 on 5 which hurts EVERYONE.
And he play was a big part of wins against, Clevaland, Utah, and New York. If he was that guy every game we’d be very happy with him.
And that’s a total of 4 games out of 24.
Blaming him for the -10 last night is absurd. EVERYBODY was horrible in the first quarter, and then they figured it out int he second. If you watched the game you know that his -10 last night doesn’t "say it all" or even close. He wasn’t good. He also wasn’t responsible for the -10 when he was on the floor.
I did watch the game and I strongly disagree.
Dalembert controlled the beginning stretch because he could sit in the lane. He didn’t have to pay attention to Andris at all.
That kept us out of having any effect in the lane and into forcing jumpers.
If andris did ANYTHING, cut to the basket, generally have a pulse out their, Dalembert could not cheat as much.
He was very responsible for the slow start.
And that’s a total of 4 games out of 24.
I was restricitng myself to talking about wins.
And he’s also missed three games due to injury, I believe.
I could also have grabbed a bunch of other games (including other wins) where Biedrins has been good. It’s not “just” four games. I think he’s probably had about 10 games where he’s been a clear net positive – eg the Spurs game, the Orlando game, the Christmas game against the Clips.
There have been a lot of games where in the post-game thread a lot of us were saying “Wow, he was good when he was in … why’d he only get 12 minutes?”
He’s also been downright terrible in plenty of games, and he certainly wasn’t good last night.
tolliver rebounding
Without the slick shooting and all around awesome game.
Added
nba.com: Amazing Curry Circus Shot. nba.com highlights, recap. Adam Lauridsen, MT2 recap. Updated the note about when Dominic tweaked his knee. Mark Jackson at the podium. Monta, Lee in the locker room. CSN highlights, recap.
best warriors performance of the year
On both ends.
The Bulls or Heat game were better
Not sure which though
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
Heat game.
They were more into the flow of the season. They played pretty well. It went overtime. They were coming off a couple days of rest. It was a really good game for us.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
I don't think either team played all that well against us
Rockets came to play but we shut em down in all departments
Lakers getting desperate
They’re trying to sign Agent Zero
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
They have no shooting.
If nothing else, he can spot up. He hasn’t lost that ability yet.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
28% on 3's last year?
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
Spot. Up.
Was he doing a lot of spotting up last season? No. I remember watching them and always thinking:
“he’s handling the ball way too much”
“why is Gilbert getting so many isolation plays so he can jack up a 3?”
“Gilbert would be way better off ball”
He can still shoot. He just can’t do much else or do it for himself.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
They've looked at Rafer Alston too
It’s really sad :/ Lakers have the worst 4-12 in the league (even Charlotte’s 4-12 is arguably better)
"It ain't Chinese algebra. If you get stops and you execute on offense, normally that team wins." - Tony Allen
"One thing LeBron James has won that Kobe Bryant never has, and never will: A bronze medal."- Josh Tucker
That's not true.
Is Miami’s any better?
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
They're shooters are shooting.
Like they’re supposed to.
Also:
Chalmers, Battier, and Haslem are all playing really well.
No comparison there at all.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Haslem is pretty good on D and rebounding
and Chalmers is having a pretty good year.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 12, 2012 11:31 PM PST up reply actions
Is there that much of a difference though?
It mainly comes down to your top 3 players.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
LOL
You get on J for “deflecting” all the time.
The topic was 4-12, and now you’ve changed it to 1-3. SMH
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Point is your #1 isn't as good as you think.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
My #1?
Taking more swipes at Monta, I see.
But in all seriousness, why even argue there wasn’t a difference between 4-12?
Point is your #1 isn’t as good as you think.
If this, as you say, was your point, why not just say that in the first place? Instead you argued something else. Now, I’m not sure what you really believe.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Mamba..
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 13, 2012 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I get that you were talking about Kobe.
He’s not “MY” #1. I like him. I enjoy watching the Lakers. I like it when they do well. That’s about as far as my Laker/Kobe fandom extends. Everything else is just observation.
The only my/we/us concept I have with an NBA team is the Warriors.
Now please feel free to respond to the part of the above post that was actually directed at what you said.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Just drop this
Why does anytime you two debate Brownie has to be a Laker fan? Second of all what does it matter if he was? He wouldn’t be the annoying type obviously
RIP Al Davis
PS3 - agentpoop (dont ask why the name... tell me if your from a blog)
twitter - @nateoak5
"No difference maker in this draft taf. Sorry to be the 1 to break it to you." J-Ridah 1/23/12
Interestingly enough
The Warriors are still 4 games back because the Jazz also won. This is a competitive division.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
Whoops you're right it's three games
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 12, 2012 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
Probably right, but it’s more fun rooting for them to make the playoffs than it is to root for them to tank.
by Pippen on Feb 12, 2012 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
So have fun with the same team next year.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 12, 2012 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
I'll always have fun rooting for the Warriors.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
by Brownie13 on Feb 12, 2012 11:31 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I realize there are at least 7 teams worse than the Warriors. I am not in denial, and I’ve come to the realization they are most likely going to lose their pick. I don’t like it, but that is the reality of the situation. My only hope is they win in the lottery and get one of the top 3 spots. So, I’m not gonna be miserable all season long rooting for them to lose, and being disappointed when they win. Instead I’m gonna try and enjoy the season and the occasional win. Who knows, maybe the Warriors will start listening to West and will actually make some bold moves, and we won’t have the same team next year.
by Pippen on Feb 12, 2012 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I've accepted the no pick thing as well. It's so disappointing though cause we lost our pick basically for nothing.
Then we loosened the restrictions on an already bad deal for a trade we never ended up making.
Goodness that’s a lot of dumbf***ery. My only hope now is that Larry Riley is tarred and feathered and left with his dickens on the top of Coit Tower. I want that idiot off the team. Yesterday.
"I thought it was going in," Warriors center Chris Hunter said. "It looked like the invisible man tipped it away at the last second."
"He's chicken curry right now. He'll become beef curry a little later on."
-Keith Smart
by kenntoe on Feb 13, 2012 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
+1
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 14, 2012 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Added
Rusty recap. Highlights by gumbywithpokey.
Nice Win.
I thought this was a team win. Hopefully we can make the right trade soon. Just want everyone 2 know, that any 1 on the Warriors is TRADEABLE for the right player. The time is now, maybe after Wednesdays game on ESPN, would be nice.
by DaveinSJ on Feb 12, 2012 11:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Think of what the record would be if we didn’t give away the games we gave away late in the 4th quarter. We’d be a 8th seed right now.
Sacramento
Memphis
OKC
Indiana
Utah
Could easily be 15-9 with slightly better execution and a little luck (officiating).
Serving it up night in and night out -Steph "The Chef" Curry
by dont_stop_believin' on Feb 13, 2012 12:40 AM PST up reply actions
especially that San Antonio, Memphis, and Sacramento games.
ugh…we had huge leads
curry & iggy TEAM USA buddies.
by bimmercirem3 on Feb 13, 2012 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
You could say that about any team
A couple things break their way and they win instead of lose.
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 13, 2012 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
If we had any production out of the 5
We’d have a 3-4 game swing. I’m confident.
I’m going to post a fanpost later, but Andris’ play the last 10 games is actually thr worst of his career. I didn’t think it was POSSIBLE to get worse.
He must've had a scary dream
About when Nellie called him out in public.
by ohcleverhansyou on Feb 13, 2012 8:00 AM PST up reply actions
GREAT!
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 13, 2012 7:25 AM PST up reply actions
A list of other Biedrins non-factors on offense I've recently noticed
So if you’re weird enough to read my comments, you’ll know that I’ve written several times before about Biedrins not rolling on pick and rolls. But I’ve noticed several other things from this game and recent games about Biedrins on offense. And each item I noticed made my eyes roll more and more:
- He doesn’t try to get open. He’s often times hiding behind defensive players. In this game, he never even tried to get into a post up stance against his defender Dalembert, even when Monta/Curry/Lee/whoever was holding the ball and seeing if Biedrins would go into a post up.
- He doesn’t look for the ball or watch the ball. Instead he “focuses” on looking for screens to set or looking for offensive rebounds, and he’s looking AWAY from the ball.
- This is the second game I’ve seen Biedrins put his hands up into a “ready to catch the ball” stance AFTER the whistle had blown the play dead. I think this was in the 3rd qtr when Monta was driving down the baseline and Biedrins was under the hoop behind a defender. To me this is both an indicator that Biedrins doesn’t want the ball, and an indicator that he’s trying to hide it by “going through the motions” when it’s safe to do so. Sort of like a “See? I did have my hands up ready to catch and score”, even though the play was dead and it didn’t matter.
- He doesn’t crash the offensive glass. He doesn’t try to sneak in for a clean up dunk or even a clean up tip. He’s often behind a defender trying to grab or tip an offensive rebound his way. Remember Lee’s clean up dunk in the 4th? I can’t remember Biedrins doing anything close to that this season.
I think at this point, everyone knows that Biedrins is contributing nothing. But man, when I rewatched his 2 short stints from tonight’s game and became aware of this list, it made me think, is it possible to contribute LESS than nothing??? Where’s that amnesty when we need it?
by IQofaWarrior on Feb 13, 2012 1:46 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
the best thing Beans could do is
Give his 9mil to charity.
Rec'd IQ
This is pretty much what I’ve been saying but in a more detailed, eloquent manner (as only you can do).
It’s hard to not want to strangle him. I can’t for the life of me get how what he does is defendable. If Andris gave us decent production (I’m not asking for the guy who was getting 12-15 ppg on high efficiency, I’m asking for a guy who if he plays 30 minutes can give us 7-10 points, 10-11 rebounds) I am positive we’ve be .500 or above.
The most frustrating part of last night was beginning when Dalembert was dominating. Dalembert was able to effect EVERY shot, because he knew he didn’t have to guard Andris.
Playing 4 on 5 is impossible for most teams to overcome. Surprise surprise he’s 10 +/ in 10 minutes. Rest of starters were in +, despite playing that stretch with him….
I am tired of seeing posts on Monta and Lee being problems, when they have to work so much harder (doubles) because Andris cannot carry his own weight and keep a man honest on offense. They might be overpaid. I might want them both traded. But they are playing with potentially worst center in NBA. We can’t even count on throwing an uncontested alley oop to him.
He doesn’t crash the offensive glass.
Statistically this is undeniable.
He’s rebounding 40% less on offensive glass this year compared to his career average. Heck, 35% compared to last year, and even lower than the 09-10 horror show! (2.4 offensive rebs per 36 v. career average 4.0)
It’s not Nellie, it’s not Smart, it’s not Jackson. It’s ANDRIS. And to a degree, it’s Riley for not recognizing this and just dumping him. The ‘no center’ argument doesn’t hold ground with me. He’s played at the same level as a miki moore/chris hunter last two years. Atleast they cost 1/9th the price.
It is impossible to believe at this point that we would be any worse with a D-Leaguer at the 5.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
It is disappointing since you see how focused Monta is during games, and how badly he wants to win.
by StephCurry4President on Feb 13, 2012 9:37 AM PST up reply actions
Not just Monta
But majority of our players. Lee, Steph, Dorell, Rush, etc.
I really think we should start Udoh
Local media now ripping him
I’m guessing the front office gave them the OK to start ripping him at will, anytime they please, without getting their access restricted. Cause in all these years, I have never seen all the media go after a Warrior, unless the team wanted it that way.
Harbaugh -- "We're not into answering questions"
by Critical Roach on Feb 13, 2012 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
Yep it's sad
If you're watching a blowout, you can pass the time by counting the double teapots.
Samurai Champloo > Macross
I gif stuff
Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
by doubleteapot on Feb 13, 2012 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
I think he has just run out of chances
we’ve pretty much ran out of excuses for the big Latvian.
he is only asked to play in a very limited role, which is ok (but not ideal)…as long as he does his job, and isn’t too terrible in other areas.
the problem is that he hasn’t really been able to fill his role for a while now, and he seems to be getting worse somehow in the areas that he is known to suck in
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Feb 13, 2012 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Biedrins is done.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Feb 13, 2012 6:19 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
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
