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.