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....

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....

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.

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....

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.