Let's see how all you Kawakami haters react to this one.

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes


All Star
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:15 pm
I am a fan of stats, more 70/30, leaning more towards watching the game. Never heard of this ws/48 stat, but it seems super complicated.

Look at the warriors roster of the past, look at this roster, I don't even have to go into details, majority of these dudes are out of the league or are bench warmers no coach or player can win with this type of roster, again its an organizational flaw of poor drafting poor player depth. Can anyone really argue that this type is roster can provide a winning team ? Its just not possible.

2008/2009- Remember this is two years after WE BELIEVE, when things started falling apart and Monta coming off Moped accident. Record 29-53

7 Kelenna Azubuike SF 6-5 220
18 Marco Belinelli SG 6-5 192
15 Andris Biedrins C 6-11 240
6 Jamal Crawford PG 6-6 185
33 Jermareo Davidson SF 6-10 230
8 Monta Ellis SG 6-3 175
3 Al Harrington PF 6-9 230
1 Stephen Jackson SF 6-8 218
31 Rob Kurz SF 6-9 232
50 Corey Maggette PF 6-6 218
22 Anthony Morrow SG 6-5 210
20 DeMarcus Nelson PG 6-4 200
4 Anthony Randolph PF 6-10 205
21 Ronny Turiaf C 6-10 249
23 C.J. Watson PG 6-2 180
5 Marcus Williams PG 6-3 205
32 Brandan Wright

Season 2009/2010. Record 26-56

Kelenna Azubuike SF 6-5 220
18 Raja Bell SG 6-5 204
15 Andris Biedrins C 6-11 240
30 Stephen Curry PG 6-3 185
8 Monta Ellis SG 6-3 175
19 Devean George SF 6-8 220
31 Chris Hunter C 6-11 240
1 Stephen Jackson PF 6-8 218
11 Coby Karl SF 6-5 215
2 Acie Law PG 6-3 195
50 Corey Maggette PF 6-6 218
20 Cartier Martin SF 6-7 220
33 Mikki Moore C 6-11 225
22 Anthony Morrow SF 6-5 210
77 Vladimir Radmanovic PF 6-10 227
4 Anthony Randolph C 6-10 205
44 Anthony Tolliver PF 6-8 240
21 Ronny Turiaf C 6-10 249
23 C.J. Watson PG 6-2 180
55 Reggie Williams PF 6-6 210

2010-2011 Season (36-46)

4 Jeff Adrien PF 6-7 243
19 Louis Amundson PF 6-9 225
34 Charlie Bell SG 6-3 200
15 Andris Biedrins C 6-11 240
25 Rodney Carney SF 6-7 205
30 Stephen Curry PG 6-3 185
8 Monta Ellis SG 6-3 175
50 Dan Gadzuric C 6-11 240
2 Acie Law PG 6-3 195
10 David Lee PF 6-9 249
7 Jeremy Lin PG 6-3 200
77 Vladimir Radmanovic PF 6-10 227
23 Al Thornton PF 6-8 220
20 Ekpe Udoh C 6-10 240
55 Reggie Williams SG 6-6 210
32 Brandan Wright PF 6-9 205
1 Dorell Wright SF 6-7 200


2011-2012. Record 23-43

40 Earl Barron C 7-0 245
34 Keith Benson C 6-11 230
15 Andris Biedrins C 6-11 240
54 Kwame Brown C 6-11 270
30 Stephen Curry PG 6-3 185
8 Monta Ellis SG 6-3 175
32 Mickell Gladness PF 6-11 220
44 Richard Jefferson SF 6-7 222
22 Charles Jenkins PG 6-3 220
10 David Lee PF 6-9 249
5 Dominic McGuire PF 6-9 220
31 Mikki Moore C 6-11 225
2 Nate Robinson PG 5-9 180
4 Brandon Rush SF 6-6 210
12 Ishmael Smith PG 6-0 175
11 Klay Thompson SG 6-7 205
3 Jeremy Tyler C 6-10 260
20 Ekpe Udoh C 6-10 240
33 Chris Wright SF 6-8 226
1 Dorell Wright SF 6-7 200

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:22 pm
He is still posting negative offensive marks on a Bucks team that has some decent role players. Good players don't get worse because they are on a worse team. See James Harden leaving the Thunder for the Rockets.

All Star
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:36 pm
Blackfoot wrote:He is still posting negative offensive marks on a Bucks team that has some decent role players. Good players don't get worse because they are on a worse team. See James Harden leaving the Thunder for the Rockets.


No one is out there making Monta to be a super star like Harden who got his 16 million per yr salary, expectations should be differentBoth teams have nothing but role players, with talked about PGs, with similar records, so I don't know what type of connection your tryna make. lol, thats funny, Ill just leave it at that its not worth my argument, your just saying shitt to say shitt, you making zero sense now.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:23 pm
You are trying to argue Monta has been bad because he has had bad teammates? Correct me if I am wrong because that's the assumption I am working with.


So, you believe if Monta was put on a team like the Memphis Grizzlies or the Miami Heat he would in fact not be a detriment to the team?

All Star
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:43 pm
Blackfoot wrote:You are trying to argue Monta has been bad because he has had bad teammates? Correct me if I am wrong because that's the assumption I am working with.


So, you believe if Monta was put on a team like the Memphis Grizzlies or the Miami Heat he would in fact not be a detriment to the team?


I feel like am in law school right now trying to prove points lol. I think the team concept is really important, a player has to be in place to be successful. Meaninf the right coach and Nellie was not the right coach for this team, the right players, including depth at the right positions.

At the end of the day we can both agree that the Monta trade was a great for the warriors . Everything else we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Monta would not be a detriment to teams that already have structure, and the Heat, Griz, Spurs, who already have winning traditions.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:15 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:You are trying to argue Monta has been bad because he has had bad teammates? Correct me if I am wrong because that's the assumption I am working with.


So, you believe if Monta was put on a team like the Memphis Grizzlies or the Miami Heat he would in fact not be a detriment to the team?


I feel like am in law school right now trying to prove points lol. I think the team concept is really important, a player has to be in place to be successful. Meaninf the right coach and Nellie was not the right coach for this team, the right players, including depth at the right positions.

At the end of the day we can both agree that the Monta trade was a great for the warriors . Everything else we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Monta would not be a detriment to teams that already have structure, and the Heat, Griz, Spurs, who already have winning traditions.


I am not going to agree to disagree because what your saying is not a matter of opinion. It's wrong.

The team concept is important, which means it doesn't excuse Monta for being a detriment to teams. In those years where you cite our team being shitty, well you are right, they are shitty. But, the team was better without Monta on the floor. The same thing is happening with the Bucks this year, they are better without him on the floor. If it was the teams making him play inefficiently, why does the teams do better without him playing? Source: http://www.82games.com/0910/0910GSW.HTM

Notable stats from the link:
On court, we were -336 points worse. With out him playing, +103.
That's a difference of 500 points.

Team eFG percentage was 50 percent with him on the floor, 52 percent without him. So, the horrible team around him, was better without him.

This would be the case with Spurs, the Heat, the Grizzlies. Those well structured teams are well structured because they don't like players like Monta Ellis.


This years Bucks: http://www.82games.com/1213/1213MIL1.HTM

-28 with him on the floor, +5 without him on the floor.

eFG percentage with him is 46.4 and without him is 46.6 percentage.

Every unit he has played on is legitimately better without him.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13531
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:47 pm
Easy, homies. There's no need for spilled milk over a guy who isn't even on the team's radar anymore. Monta Ellis isn't worth a cyberspastic grudge match. You both hold perspectives that garner merit.

I found the Andrew Bogut trade interesting, from the Bucks' perspective, because it seemed a bit contradictory in terms of what Milwaukee was looking for. On one hand, you have Monta Ellis - the supposed big chip in their side of the deal. A traditional stats guy who puts up undeniable line scores in terms of what basketball fundamentalists look for. He scores over 20 points a game, he is religiously atop the league's best in steals and minutes, he chips in 5 or 6 assists a game, he gets you 4 or 5 rebounds. If one were thumbing through a basketball almanac in 1994, this is exactly the sort of numbers that would translate into the superstar label. I think this is where warriorsstepup is coming from. And even those of us who remember Monta's selfish, chemistry killing finish here can admit we've all witnessed games where his confidence has flat out carried a team to victory. Is he in DWade's league, like he claimed recently? Of course not. But Ellis is not worthless and I believe to say otherwise is an attempt to sell something.

But what I found most provocative about the deal was the "throw-in" Milwaukee requested: Epke Udoh; up until the trade, an advanced stats player whom embodied everything Blackfoot is talking about in this thread. Udoh wouldn't get you a sexy box score; in fact, most nights, he was pretty much an 8 and 5 guy. But what Udoh did was rotate flawlessly, help in the right situations, he played the game with a knack and cleverness that didn't translate to typical numbers - specifically, the type that nets you a fat contract on your first extension. Udoh's value was best conveyed through plus-minus situations, adjusted factor four, rebounding rate, defensive efficiency... Basically, all the categories in which Monta Ellis was near the sh*t-caked bottom of the league. In terms of beefing up one's stats to make a hollow case for value, Ellis was king. But in advanced situations where modern statisticians can evaluate who truly helped their team win, Udoh was the best overall choice Golden State had to offer at the time of the deal. Monta Ellis had proven that he wasn't above anchoring a Golden State tank job. Ridding the team of Udoh is what truly ensured less victories.

So, in a strange way, I think you're both right. Blackfoot is spot-on when he describes Ellis' game as hollow and meaningless in terms of assisting victory, but warriorsstepup has a point in terms of Ellis having league value. Traditional stats may not be your preferred method of evaluation, BF, but they're far from extinct. And clearly, in this scenario, John Hammond proved he's still a believer in the old ways, dealing a proven winner - in terms of new stats - for a fantasy basketball stud in Ellis.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:02 am
32 wrote:Easy, homies. There's no need for spilled milk over a guy who isn't even on the team's radar anymore. Monta Ellis isn't worth a cyberspastic grudge match. You both hold perspectives that garner merit.

I found the Andrew Bogut trade interesting, from the Bucks' perspective, because it seemed a bit contradictory in terms of what Milwaukee was looking for. On one hand, you have Monta Ellis - the supposed big chip in their side of the deal. A traditional stats guy who puts up undeniable line scores in terms of what basketball fundamentalists look for. He scores over 20 points a game, he is religiously atop the league's best in steals and minutes, he chips in 5 or 6 assists a game, he gets you 4 or 5 rebounds. If one were thumbing through a basketball almanac in 1994, this is exactly the sort of numbers that would translate into the superstar label. I think this is where warriorsstepup is coming from. And even those of us who remember Monta's selfish, chemistry killing finish here can admit we've all witnessed games where his confidence has flat out carried a team to victory. Is he in DWade's league, like he claimed recently? Of course not. But Ellis is not worthless and I believe to say otherwise is an attempt to sell something.

But what I found most provocative about the deal was the "throw-in" Milwaukee requested: Epke Udoh; up until the trade, an advanced stats player whom embodied everything Blackfoot is talking about in this thread. Udoh wouldn't get you a sexy box score; in fact, most nights, he was pretty much an 8 and 5 guy. But what Udoh did was rotate flawlessly, help in the right situations, he played the game with a knack and cleverness that didn't translate to typical numbers - specifically, the type that nets you a fat contract on your first extension. Udoh's value was best conveyed through plus-minus situations, adjusted factor four, rebounding rate, defensive efficiency... Basically, all the categories in which Monta Ellis was near the sh*t-caked bottom of the league. In terms of beefing up one's stats to make a hollow case for value, Ellis was king. But in advanced situations where modern statisticians can evaluate who truly helped their team win, Udoh was the best overall choice Golden State had to offer at the time of the deal. Monta Ellis had proven that he wasn't above anchoring a Golden State tank job. Ridding the team of Udoh is what truly ensured less victories.

So, in a strange way, I think you're both right. Blackfoot is spot-on when he describes Ellis' game as hollow and meaningless in terms of assisting victory, but warriorsstepup has a point in terms of Ellis having league value. Traditional stats may not be your preferred method of evaluation, BF, but they're far from extinct. And clearly, in this scenario, John Hammond proved he's still a believer in the old ways, dealing a proven winner - in terms of new stats - for a fantasy basketball stud in Ellis.


He kills your FG percentage in fantasy basketball. 8)

All Star
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:54 am
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:Monta Ellis never posted a positive ws/48 in his entire tenure of playing. That includes the we believe year. It's not his fault he got the contract, that is ownership. But bad ownership doesn't make him a good player.



Not true.
League average is .100
He had .140 in 07-08....

I don't know how that stat is calculated, but it really doesn't seem to tell a whole lot. Win share per 48 minutes? What happnes when you are on a bad team? There aren't very many wins in that case....

Also, notice that D. Green's WS/48 is currently .046.
If we were to follow that logic, D. Green sucks and we shouldn't let him have playing time as he is on a winning team and has way below average WS/48.
But we know from watching games and seeing what he brings, that he has had an important role on this team and people value him.
Just pointing out that this WS/48 doesn't seem like a very good way to evaluate someone's worth.

Also Ellis just earned Eastern Confrence player of the week for the Bucks, so people around the league must value what he brings.
They are not just going to give him that because he puts up empty stats...


I am pretty much just going to agree with GSW on this,and leave it at that.

There are way too many factors, too many variables to try to place advance stats on basketball, its a team sport. I guess its more useful in baseball, where as much as it is a team sport, its generally two individuals who face each other, pitcher and batter, so its easier to dissect in that manner. Basketball ball just has too much going on to try and play advanced stats.

Bucks have a winning record and in my opinion are over achieving since their roster is not much to desire. Monta is a big part of it, some might not like his game, but he is put in a position where he is depended on because of a faulty roster that is not a players fault. But is Monta winning right now ? Yes. Is he an important part of the Bucks success, yes.

All Star
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 17
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:06 am
32 wrote:Easy, homies. There's no need for spilled milk over a guy who isn't even on the team's radar anymore. Monta Ellis isn't worth a cyberspastic grudge match. You both hold perspectives that garner merit.

I found the Andrew Bogut trade interesting, from the Bucks' perspective, because it seemed a bit contradictory in terms of what Milwaukee was looking for. On one hand, you have Monta Ellis - the supposed big chip in their side of the deal. A traditional stats guy who puts up undeniable line scores in terms of what basketball fundamentalists look for. He scores over 20 points a game, he is religiously atop the league's best in steals and minutes, he chips in 5 or 6 assists a game, he gets you 4 or 5 rebounds. If one were thumbing through a basketball almanac in 1994, this is exactly the sort of numbers that would translate into the superstar label. I think this is where warriorsstepup is coming from. And even those of us who remember Monta's selfish, chemistry killing finish here can admit we've all witnessed games where his confidence has flat out carried a team to victory. Is he in DWade's league, like he claimed recently? Of course not. But Ellis is not worthless and I believe to say otherwise is an attempt to sell something.

But what I found most provocative about the deal was the "throw-in" Milwaukee requested: Epke Udoh; up until the trade, an advanced stats player whom embodied everything Blackfoot is talking about in this thread. Udoh wouldn't get you a sexy box score; in fact, most nights, he was pretty much an 8 and 5 guy. But what Udoh did was rotate flawlessly, help in the right situations, he played the game with a knack and cleverness that didn't translate to typical numbers - specifically, the type that nets you a fat contract on your first extension. Udoh's value was best conveyed through plus-minus situations, adjusted factor four, rebounding rate, defensive efficiency... Basically, all the categories in which Monta Ellis was near the sh*t-caked bottom of the league. In terms of beefing up one's stats to make a hollow case for value, Ellis was king. But in advanced situations where modern statisticians can evaluate who truly helped their team win, Udoh was the best overall choice Golden State had to offer at the time of the deal. Monta Ellis had proven that he wasn't above anchoring a Golden State tank job. Ridding the team of Udoh is what truly ensured less victories.

So, in a strange way, I think you're both right. Blackfoot is spot-on when he describes Ellis' game as hollow and meaningless in terms of assisting victory, but warriorsstepup has a point in terms of Ellis having league value. Traditional stats may not be your preferred method of evaluation, BF, but they're far from extinct. And clearly, in this scenario, John Hammond proved he's still a believer in the old ways, dealing a proven winner - in terms of new stats - for a fantasy basketball stud in Ellis.


Your points are well taken, its just one of those situations where lines are drawn in an argument for and against that's all it is. The game of basketball is much bigger than any one player. In saying Ellis' game is hollow and meaningless in assisting victory does not follow suit in what is taking place with the bucks who infact have a winning record, assisted by Monta who won the player of the week award, am not sure who makes votes on winners of that award but I am certain those guys know what they are talking about, and don't just give the award to some scrub.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 26
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:28 pm
In regards to the Advanced stats, even Durant had negative plus minus when he was on a bad team.
Check out his rookie year as a super sonic:
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708SEA.HTM

Team was better with him off the floor.
Also the following year:

http://www.82games.com/0809/0809OKC.HTM

team was +0 with him off the floor and -8.3 with him on.
So, if you just take the stats for face value, you could say that Durant made them a worse team.
But in reality he was on a worse team. So, you got to remember that the following applies:
a) When you are on a bad team, you get less help from team mates
b) When you are a starter on a losing team, you are playing against the opposing teams best players.
It is highly likely that a good teams starting 5 is going to beat your bad teams starting 5. SO, that will affect your +/-.
Your bench may not play against the teams best, thus their +/- may be better with you off the floor because they are playing the teams B squad.

Stats are a good tool, but not the be all end all. You can easily obtain a false conclussion from stats if you are not looking at the whole picture.
It is one of the things I hate about a lot of reporters/beat writters. They pull stats that will support their argument without looking at the whole picture.

In the end I agree with Warriorsstepup, we will agree to disagree. I just think it is unfair to put the blame of losing on Ellis, or to somehow imply that he was bringing the team down or making us worse. I liked his abilities on the court, but didn't like what he brought off the court. He is gone, so I shall move on and enjoy the success that our team is having this year.
"Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
Image

Image : 2010 - 2011

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:57 pm
Durant was "bad" for his team in his first year and second year. You are comparing a rookie/sophomore to a seven year veteran at this point. Harrison Barnes is posting negative value, but he undeniably has potential. Monta Ellis has been in the league for seven years now.

I feel like you wouldn't make argument A and B during a game, you know, when actual bench players are against a teams starting five. Once there is enough minutes the argument becomes moot. We have a sample size. Seven years worth of a sample size.

We don't need to use +/- to show why Monta Ellis is a bad player.

We all saw Monta could not play defense. This is not a well-kept secret. Monta Ellis is the fifth worst defensive guard in the league. Is that positive value to a basketball court? No, not really. His true shooting percentage is now 486. If you don't like true shooting percentage his field goal percentage is 405. Three point percentage is 206 and he takes three 3pointers a game. Does he help a team on the glass? No, not really. He can't rebound and he doesn't help with rebounding.

What exactly does Monta bring to the table and how do you guys feel he brings winning basketball to a team? Because I am hard pressed to find what he does well in an actual game. This is an actual question. I want to know why you think Monta is a good player.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 26
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:04 pm
Blackfoot wrote:Durant was "bad" for his team in his first year and second year. You are comparing a rookie/sophomore to a seven year veteran at this point. Harrison Barnes is posting negative value, but he undeniably has potential. Monta Ellis has been in the league for seven years now.

I feel like you wouldn't make argument A and B during a game, you know, when actual bench players are against a teams starting five. Once there is enough minutes the argument becomes moot. We have a sample size. Seven years worth of a sample size.

We don't need to use +/- to show why Monta Ellis is a bad player.

We all saw Monta could not play defense. This is not a well-kept secret. Monta Ellis is the fifth worst defensive guard in the league. Is that positive value to a basketball court? No, not really. His true shooting percentage is now 486. If you don't like true shooting percentage his field goal percentage is 405. Three point percentage is 206 and he takes three 3pointers a game. Does he help a team on the glass? No, not really. He can't rebound and he doesn't help with rebounding.

What exactly does Monta bring to the table and how do you guys feel he brings winning basketball to a team? Because I am hard pressed to find what he does well in an actual game. This is an actual question. I want to know why you think Monta is a good player.



There is the obvious. He can score. He can create his own shot.

Then there are the other things which you seem to ignore or discredit. He is a good shot creator for himself and for his team mates. He is averaging 5.6 assists per game out of the SG position.
If you look at this years top assists among Guards he ranks 24th:
http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/As ... 1&splitDD=


If you take out the PG in that group, and only leave SG, he would be #1. All the people ahead of him on that list are PGs.

He is a good on ball defender in the wings (not in the post). His bad defensive habbits usually are when he is a help defender he looses his man or doesn't rotate when he should.
His rebounding for a guard is middle of the pack, not as bad as you suggested. His shooting percentage is down this year, but he was known for being a excellent mid range shooter.
Look, like warriorsstepup pointed out, he isn't a Max contract SG, but he is a darn good one skills wise. You make it seem like a team would be better off without him then with him, which is not true. Even last year in the national spot light he was considered a very good gaurd:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8298 ... ds/page/34


I feel like we are going in circles. We'll just disagree on disagreeing since agreeing on disagreeing didn't seem to work.... #-o
"Hard Work Beats Talent, When Talent Doesn't Work Hard"
Image

Image : 2010 - 2011
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13531
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 52
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:26 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:
32 wrote:Easy, homies. There's no need for spilled milk over a guy who isn't even on the team's radar anymore. Monta Ellis isn't worth a cyberspastic grudge match. You both hold perspectives that garner merit.

I found the Andrew Bogut trade interesting, from the Bucks' perspective, because it seemed a bit contradictory in terms of what Milwaukee was looking for. On one hand, you have Monta Ellis - the supposed big chip in their side of the deal. A traditional stats guy who puts up undeniable line scores in terms of what basketball fundamentalists look for. He scores over 20 points a game, he is religiously atop the league's best in steals and minutes, he chips in 5 or 6 assists a game, he gets you 4 or 5 rebounds. If one were thumbing through a basketball almanac in 1994, this is exactly the sort of numbers that would translate into the superstar label. I think this is where warriorsstepup is coming from. And even those of us who remember Monta's selfish, chemistry killing finish here can admit we've all witnessed games where his confidence has flat out carried a team to victory. Is he in DWade's league, like he claimed recently? Of course not. But Ellis is not worthless and I believe to say otherwise is an attempt to sell something.

But what I found most provocative about the deal was the "throw-in" Milwaukee requested: Epke Udoh; up until the trade, an advanced stats player whom embodied everything Blackfoot is talking about in this thread. Udoh wouldn't get you a sexy box score; in fact, most nights, he was pretty much an 8 and 5 guy. But what Udoh did was rotate flawlessly, help in the right situations, he played the game with a knack and cleverness that didn't translate to typical numbers - specifically, the type that nets you a fat contract on your first extension. Udoh's value was best conveyed through plus-minus situations, adjusted factor four, rebounding rate, defensive efficiency... Basically, all the categories in which Monta Ellis was near the sh*t-caked bottom of the league. In terms of beefing up one's stats to make a hollow case for value, Ellis was king. But in advanced situations where modern statisticians can evaluate who truly helped their team win, Udoh was the best overall choice Golden State had to offer at the time of the deal. Monta Ellis had proven that he wasn't above anchoring a Golden State tank job. Ridding the team of Udoh is what truly ensured less victories.

So, in a strange way, I think you're both right. Blackfoot is spot-on when he describes Ellis' game as hollow and meaningless in terms of assisting victory, but warriorsstepup has a point in terms of Ellis having league value. Traditional stats may not be your preferred method of evaluation, BF, but they're far from extinct. And clearly, in this scenario, John Hammond proved he's still a believer in the old ways, dealing a proven winner - in terms of new stats - for a fantasy basketball stud in Ellis.


Your points are well taken, its just one of those situations where lines are drawn in an argument for and against that's all it is. The game of basketball is much bigger than any one player. In saying Ellis' game is hollow and meaningless in assisting victory does not follow suit in what is taking place with the bucks who infact have a winning record, assisted by Monta who won the player of the week award, am not sure who makes votes on winners of that award but I am certain those guys know what they are talking about, and don't just give the award to some scrub.

Certainly. But despite Milwaukee's fortune of being healthy, having an over-achieving bench, and being situated in the lesser conference... Is there any doubt that they're an automatic first-round exit in the post season? And, more to the point, is Ellis carrying that same roster to the playoffs in the West? I admit, he's getting his numbers - as per usual - and the Bucks have been a great success early on, but will it last? And isn't it merely the product of circumstance? With all due respect to Ellis, teams built around Jrue Holiday and Roy Hibbert are vying for playoff spots in the East. While those players have value and skill, I don't think any of them (Ellis included) could achieve the success they've had in the West. Aren't these accolades Ellis is achieving to be expected, given his situation?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:28 pm
Lol seems this Monta-debate has been beaten to death. So thankful it's not the Warriors problem anymore.
My problem with Monta will always be that I think his flaws outweigh the positives he brings to a REAL team that's trying to win. I think he's a talanted scorer (a la Jamal Crawford), but when I think of good BASKETBALL player, I don't think of Monta Ellis. That's the distinction too many fans around the league miss. We're fascinated with scoring, but just being a good scorer doesn't automatically make you a good player. Look at players like Jason Kidd and Andre Miller. Old dudes who still have value because they understand the game.

When you gotta undersized tweener combined with no-D, blackhole, chemistry-killing, poor basketball IQ, me-player, etc etc... it's the recipe for mediocrity or less. Super high usage rate and an endless green light by a sub-par Warriors team in 7 yrs has bloated his value, PPG, and perception around the league.

Don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have any value, it's that his value is only as a scorer and not much else. If I'm a GM, I'm not paying $11/mil yr for a player who's best role would be as a 6th man scoring spark off the bench.
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron