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: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:31 pm
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:
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


Assists per game is a horrible way to judge how someone can create shots for his teammates. Especially when he has the 8th highest usage rate in the NBA. He has the ball the 8th most in the league. More than Harden, more than Durant, and more than Dwade. That's a ball hog and the five assists a game is very unimpressive.

And if Bleacherreport agrees with you that's a pretty damned good sign that you are probably wrong. Bleacher report is garbage. The Bucks would be better off without him. And they'd be better off without Jennings too.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13539
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 53
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:40 pm
Just to clarify my own feelings on Ellis: I believe he's an A level scorer. A 6th man on a championship team, a 2nd banana on a fringe playoff squad, and the best guy on a bad team. I totally agree with GSW's assessment of his scoring prowess and I believe a lot of the time some people on this forum tend to brush off the simple "he can create his own shot" as something all NBA players can do (a false dichotomy indeed). Ellis thrives on the last shot, he's capable of hitting it, and he is more than capable of finding the open man when teams blitz him.

That being said... I don't believe he's an all-star (anymore), I don't think he's worthy of his contract, and I'm on record as saying he doesn't help a team win because his good qualities tend to be canceled out by his black-holishness...
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1129
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:53 pm
Poster Credit: 26
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:48 pm
Blackfoot wrote:
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:
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


Assists per game is a horrible way to judge how someone can create shots for his teammates. Especially when he has the 8th highest usage rate in the NBA. He has the ball the 8th most in the league. More than Harden, more than Durant, and more than Dwade. That's a ball hog and the five assists a game is very unimpressive.

And if Bleacherreport agrees with you that's a pretty damned good sign that you are probably wrong. Bleacher report is garbage. The Bucks would be better off without him. And they'd be better off without Jennings too.



http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top- ... o=31366511

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2 ... en-joe-joh

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... s/12/3/eff
"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 6:27 pm
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
GSW Hoops Fan wrote:
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


Assists per game is a horrible way to judge how someone can create shots for his teammates. Especially when he has the 8th highest usage rate in the NBA. He has the ball the 8th most in the league. More than Harden, more than Durant, and more than Dwade. That's a ball hog and the five assists a game is very unimpressive.

And if Bleacherreport agrees with you that's a pretty damned good sign that you are probably wrong. Bleacher report is garbage. The Bucks would be better off without him. And they'd be better off without Jennings too.



http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top- ... o=31366511

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2 ... en-joe-joh

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fa ... s/12/3/eff


These links don't mean anything and Ellis is not a top four shooting guard. There is no statistical meaning to these stats. Posting a link where he shows up third and with no context has no meaning. It's rating in terms of efficiency, as in they are rewarding him for being a volume shooter. That system rewards guys like Nick Young because they score points and have low turnover rates, because they are ball hogs.

That's why you use synergy. Because it is a better indicator of how useful a player is and once you factor in defense it is not just a cancelling affect, it's a negative affect by far. And since he hogs the ball so much he is negative on offense too.

All Star
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:31 pm
32 wrote:
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?


If a team doesn't have a the right supporting cast then their will be no success. If a team doesn't have the proper organization then there will be no success. Are the Bucks over-achieving ? Yes. Their roster don't excite but they are winning and truth is its due to Monta, and few other players. Monta is not a Max player, his contract is reasonable for him.

As far as Monta having an abysmal seasons with the warriors, I would say look at the warriors rosters after the we believe era, and pick three players, just three, and can't name any players that are currently on the team, and also take into consideration that Nellie was our coach, and then the conclusion you will come to would not be suprising at all.

The bucks making the playoffs in the east which of course is much weaker than the west would be a team over-achieving, again these are the variables I was talking about as it pertains to stats, and who is playing etc etc. Things would look different if Rose was healthy, Bynum, and Granger as well. Again those are variables that stats don't show.

Basketball can't be pinned down with certainties as every team is vastly different. The Lakers, the Nets, they are playing horrible with a much better cast, but you look deeper and each have different issues for their lack of success. But you can't pin there horrible play on just one particular player.

All Star
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:33 pm
Monta is no Beans. lol. Lets try and redo the Bogut trade but we should have placed Beans instead of Monta, lets see what the Bucks would say ?

Beans for Bogut ? lol. When I say value this is what I mean, the Bucks would just laugh.

Again we have our positions, our team made a great trade, and that's that.

Agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or what ever its called, basketball is much bigger than just one player. Go dubs.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:35 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:
32 wrote:
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?


If a team doesn't have a the right supporting cast then their will be no success. If a team doesn't have the proper organization then there will be no success. Are the Bucks over-achieving ? Yes. Their roster don't excite but they are winning and truth is its due to Monta, and few other players. Monta is not a Max player, his contract is reasonable for him.

As far as Monta having an abysmal seasons with the warriors, I would say look at the warriors rosters after the we believe era, and pick three players, just three, and can't name any players that are currently on the team, and also take into consideration that Nellie was our coach, and then the conclusion you will come to would not be suprising at all.

The bucks making the playoffs in the east which of course is much weaker than the west would be a team over-achieving, again these are the variables I was talking about as it pertains to stats, and who is playing etc etc. Things would look different if Rose was healthy, Bynum, and Granger as well. Again those are variables that stats don't show.

Basketball can't be pinned down with certainties as every team is vastly different. The Lakers, the Nets, they are playing horrible with a much better cast, but you look deeper and each have different issues for their lack of success. But you can't pin there horrible play on just one particular player.



These arguments remind of the arguments made to excuse Bargnini. IN turn, now that he is out, the Raptors are a lot better because of it.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:36 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:Monta is no Beans. lol. Lets try and redo the Bogut trade but we should have placed Beans instead of Monta, lets see what the Bucks would say ?

Beans for Bogut ? lol. When I say value this is what I mean, the Bucks would just laugh.

Again we have our positions, our team made a great trade, and that's that.

Agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or what ever its called, basketball is much bigger than just one player. Go dubs.



I'd rather have Beans than Monta. Especially given the roster. We already have Klay who is by far better in every tangible category.

All Star
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:39 pm
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Monta is no Beans. lol. Lets try and redo the Bogut trade but we should have placed Beans instead of Monta, lets see what the Bucks would say ?

Beans for Bogut ? lol. When I say value this is what I mean, the Bucks would just laugh.

Again we have our positions, our team made a great trade, and that's that.

Agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or what ever its called, basketball is much bigger than just one player. Go dubs.



I'd rather have Beans than Monta. Especially given the roster. We already have Klay who is by far better in every tangible category.


That says all I need to know end of Convo. Beans lol.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:42 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Monta is no Beans. lol. Lets try and redo the Bogut trade but we should have placed Beans instead of Monta, lets see what the Bucks would say ?

Beans for Bogut ? lol. When I say value this is what I mean, the Bucks would just laugh.

Again we have our positions, our team made a great trade, and that's that.

Agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or what ever its called, basketball is much bigger than just one player. Go dubs.



I'd rather have Beans than Monta. Especially given the roster. We already have Klay who is by far better in every tangible category.


That says all I need to know end of Convo. Beans lol.



When you look at it in a vacuum, sure Monta is the better option simply because he will play and he isn't afraid to play. Biedrens is a detriment in long extended minutes because of free throws and his unwillingness on offense. However, given OUR roster Beans is clearly the better option. 15 minutes of Biedrens is not a detriment. 36 minutes of Ellis is a detriment.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:45 pm
I think this is significant: Ellis and Andrea Bargnani are the statistical equivalent of each other. Similar in synergy stats, +/-, and true shooting. And since he has been out, the Raptors have been the best offensive team for the last two weeks. It is likely they won't stay the best offensive team, but it's clear they are better without him.


You can take everything you said about Ellis and all his positives and use the word Bargnani and it would mean the same thing in every sense.

All Star
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:58 pm
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Monta is no Beans. lol. Lets try and redo the Bogut trade but we should have placed Beans instead of Monta, lets see what the Bucks would say ?

Beans for Bogut ? lol. When I say value this is what I mean, the Bucks would just laugh.

Again we have our positions, our team made a great trade, and that's that.

Agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or what ever its called, basketball is much bigger than just one player. Go dubs.



I'd rather have Beans than Monta. Especially given the roster. We already have Klay who is by far better in every tangible category.


That says all I need to know end of Convo. Beans lol.



When you look at it in a vacuum, sure Monta is the better option simply because he will play and he isn't afraid to play. Biedrens is a detriment in long extended minutes because of free throws and his unwillingness on offense. However, given OUR roster Beans is clearly the better option. 15 minutes of Biedrens is not a detriment. 36 minutes of Ellis is a detriment.


That says everything you, would make a great GM then.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:05 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:
Blackfoot wrote:
warriorsstepup wrote:Monta is no Beans. lol. Lets try and redo the Bogut trade but we should have placed Beans instead of Monta, lets see what the Bucks would say ?

Beans for Bogut ? lol. When I say value this is what I mean, the Bucks would just laugh.

Again we have our positions, our team made a great trade, and that's that.

Agree to disagree, or disagree to agree, or what ever its called, basketball is much bigger than just one player. Go dubs.



I'd rather have Beans than Monta. Especially given the roster. We already have Klay who is by far better in every tangible category.


That says all I need to know end of Convo. Beans lol.



When you look at it in a vacuum, sure Monta is the better option simply because he will play and he isn't afraid to play. Biedrens is a detriment in long extended minutes because of free throws and his unwillingness on offense. However, given OUR roster Beans is clearly the better option. 15 minutes of Biedrens is not a detriment. 36 minutes of Ellis is a detriment.


That says everything you, would make a great GM then.



No need to be condescending because you think Monta has value to winning basketball games. He doesn't. There is nothing to suggest he does and there will never be anything to suggest he does.

Beans and Ellis have the same exact contracts so that is not the issue. We need a center because Bogut is hurt and Biedrens is a suitable back up center to Festus before Landry comes in. This roster has no use for Monta Ellis. Well, I guess it does if you like losing.

And GM's would rather have Klay than Ellis, just in case you do think Ellis is a top seven to top four shooting guard.

http://www.nba.com/news/2012-13-gm-survey/index.html

CTRL+F Klay Thompson

GM's are super ****ing high on Klay. And all at this point would rather have Klay than Ellis.


All the best teams in the league use advanced stats to evaluate players. You are not going to find a top tier organization that doesn't. Saying I wouldn't be a good GM because I don't want Ellis is flaunting your lack of understanding of a front office. I wouldn't be a good general manager for other reasons, but that is not it. Most teams flaunt they have an analytical department. It's why the Grizzlies hired John Hollinger. Even though he is probably behind on advanced stats. Front offices use a lot more comprehensive data than available to us.
Last edited by Blackfoot on Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All Star
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:03 am
Location: san jose
Poster Credit: 19
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:12 pm
Again good thing you are not a GM. Beans has no value, he wouldn't have brought Bogut. If you can't accept that then this is an irrational convo.

All Star
Posts: 1352
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am
Poster Credit: 22
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:20 pm
warriorsstepup wrote:Again good thing you are not a GM. Beans has no value, he wouldn't have brought Bogut. If you can't accept that then this is an irrational convo.


Yeah, no trade value you are right. Winning value, not really. A roster spot on our team, not feeling it. However, in the trade Ellis had to go and our GM agreed. IN fact, he tried to get rid of Biedrens and Ellis, but they would only take Ellis and Udoh. I didn't say Beans had value and that's a blatant straw man. But Beans means as much to winning as Ellis means to winning.

The Bucks were cozily in the eight spot when they made the trade with the tougher part of their schedule gone. They got rid of Stephen Jackson and Bogut for Monta Ellis and Ekpe Udoh. You know that did? Their winning percentage after the trade lowered and they didn't make the playoffs despite having an easier remaining schedule than the Knicks. The loss of Jackson and gaining Ellis and Udoh made them lose more games. And the Spurs promptly saw their winning percentage increase with Stephen Jackson. The Bucks lost more games despite getting healthier. This is a tangible affect that you are refusing to see.

We physically saw Ellis affect the Bucks winning percentage. Advanced stats aren't hypothetical, they are based on what actually happens. You are not going to find a stat or a teams winning percentage go up with Ellis. His negative value and Stephen Jackson's positive value was enough to make them miss the playoffs. Projection wise, they probably would have made the playoffs if they didn't make that trade or if they only took Udoh.
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

cron