Golden State Of Mind

recd

ohcleverhansyou - February 12, 2012 reply

Monta

Some great, great plays.

Udoh or Klay

I thought Udoh or Klay should’ve get more votes, I mean Monta is expected, Udoh and Klay plays were a huge plus

Lawrence9ers - February 12, 2012 reply

That’s what I thought last game.

qin - February 12, 2012 reply

4 to go

No.

It's a starting point.

Or are you just advocating against winning games in general?

We aren’t going to win a championship so we should try and get our draft pick.

Eric Rasmussen - February 12, 2012 reply

Right!

It’s 1/3rd of the way through the season – so it’s time to taaannnnnk! Gotta get that draft pick! (Sheesh!)

I want to keep our draft pick.

It's not going to happen.

You’re only realistic things to root for is tank bad enough for bottom 10 (not bottom 7), or getting to the playoffs.

No contest there.

We have a shitty team.

It will happen if they don’t play Monta, Lee, and Steph 35+ minutes each game.

So let's play them all off the bench...?

Yeah, that makes sense.

No.

Limit their minutes and give the young guys more PT. You’ll be bound to lose more games + help their development.

You really think holding them to 4 minutes less a game moves us down 2-3 spots?

Especially considering you think Monta and Lee are both net negative, that doesn’t make any sense.

After Lacob and Jackson both promised the playoffs? It’s not gonna happen.

Pippen - February 13, 2012 reply

It could happen. If were talking about a win this time tommorow the momentum will be brewing.

He meant:

Limiting the starters minutes isn’t going to happen. Not that the playoffs aren’t happening. He may not believe that’s happening either, but it’s definitely not what he was trying to say.

I meant they are going to do everything they can to win games and make the playoffs after making such bold predictions.

Pippen - February 13, 2012 reply

Spurs sat Robinson even when he got healthy to solidify their tanking mission in order to get Duncan, and look how that worked out.

Anonymous1337 - February 13, 2012 reply

They were already at that point when he returned.

AND he suffered a major injury. Something that might actually benefit from a ton more rest.

If we were 9-40, and trying to win games would hurt our chances at holding onto the lottery pick, then YES, definitely, you don’t all of the sudden try to win all of your games and finish 8th worst instead of 4th (or whatever).

But we still have an opportunity to make the playoffs. Since we aren’t bad enough (or injured enough) to be a bottom 7 team, it makes more sense to try to get there. That will also increase the relevance of our franchise. It will make us a more desirable FA destination. It will show that we are no longer the inept franchise that missed the playoffs every year for 15 seasons.

AmaruEternal1989 - February 13, 2012 reply

our managment is not smart as spurs managment, besides we've had great picks in the past and blow most of them, i say win now!

Personally, if we're going to 'tank' we should commit to rebuild

That means move biedrins for ANYTHING.

Then move Monta or Lee for whatever can garner highest long term value, prospects or picks. Don’t consider price as much here.

Then you commit to playing the young guys more (klay, tyler, udoh etc.) and then you limit minutes.

I say win as many games possible and give Utah a shtty pick.

Sounds like a plan.

all things aside...

A real NICE win… 4 to go. Than we can all talk some business.

okeephoss - February 12, 2012 reply

ya, already we are only 3 or 4 games out of 8th place... if we catch fire for a while, we got a chance at some playoffs...

i honestly dont think we are capable at busting.. and i bet vegas under estimated the warriors, largely due to klay and rush…

PIRATEWARRIOR - February 12, 2012 reply

Added

John Henry Smith interviews Klay. warriors.com audio and quotes.

Good job Monta! Prove the haters wrong. Klay is the future. I think ppl need to lower expecations for Monta and understand that he would still be useful as a 6th man in the future.

MonstaEllis - February 12, 2012 reply

Monta is the teams best player. I dont care what haters say.

I agree he is the best player

But I still don’t think long term he is the right fit for this team IF we get the right trade for him OR we bring in a dominant big man to overcome his defensive deficiencies.

LostHawkGSW - February 12, 2012 reply

I agree, Klay makes him expendable. Only if it was a fair deal tho. No fair offers for Monta has been made at this point. Teams want to steal him like we did Rush. Not gonna happen. Dwight wants him in Orlando but they have nothing to offer back.

Klay makes him expendable.

This was the plan all along. Jerry West knows what he’s doing.

But I agree with you, we’ve yet to see a deal for Monta that makes sense.

Also, I'm really not sure what kind of team we turn into with that kind of change-up.

Ideally, we trade Monta for a Center…but who?

From there, who becomes our main penetrator? It’s not like we have another option who can get in the lane anywhere near as much as Monta. None of our other guys is really all that aggressive off the dribble.

It would have to be for a Center or a small forward better than Dorell.

I'm trying to think of a list of guys that I'd actually do it for.

There really aren’t that many.

I mean, who’s actually available?

Centers:

Okafor
Kaman
Varejao
McGee
Noah?

Small Forwards:

Gay?
Granger?

I’m guessing Iggy and Deng are pretty much off the market completely at this point, as well as Hibbert. I mean, they’re all huge keys to their teams’ success. I wouldn’t trade them for someone who might not fit, even if I thought he was a little better player.

So the SF market is kind of weak, and the C market isn’t that great either.

I feel like we could probably find a way to get one of the centers for less than Monta (other than Noah). Especially a Varejao or Okafor, who are just contributing to losing teams while eating up salary space. I’m not really interested in Kaman, and if we really wanted Javale, I’d just wait until the off-season. I don’t see how Washington matches any significant offer for him considering how unhappy they’ve been with him. If nothing else we can do a sign-and-trade for him with non-essentially players and a 2nd round pick or two.

I just don’t see a good deal out there for Monta.

Micheal Beasley is a name you should remember. Soon his name may be connected to the Warriors.

A high usage chucker?

We already have one on our team

He’s a self shot creator.

Crap SuperCool is a supreme chucker. Do not want to pay the man.

re: He’s a self shot creator.

I’m much more interested in getting guys who are self-shot MAKERS!!

it’s really not all that hard to get a bad shot off

How does he help us though?

He’s just as inefficient as Monta, not a good passer, and not a particularly good rebounder for his size/position. I’m not even really sure he has a position. He’s a talented player, but he doesn’t really seem to fit as a SF or PF. Seems best used off the bench when big men aren’t quite as tall and wings aren’t quite as quick.

He’s just a guy thats been offered. I say move Monta for Mcgee and our second rounder.

Dude...

McGee isn’t that awesome,he’s got good numbers but so much to learn. If we had a lottery pick to deal I’d do that but trading a proven good player for him is iffy. He doesn’t understand defense at all yet

as an expiring

He has no value. Bet we could offload beans for beasley + some fodder who makes 3-4 mil

Only to unload Andris would I want him

Terrible fit for this team, doesn’t give us anything we lack or need

dubzfan - February 12, 2012 reply

+1

My thoughts exact. Would be nice to get a average starting center like Okafor or Varejao without giving up much.

Varejao is playing really well right now, but under the radar.

He’d be a great guy to go get. His contract isn’t massive, and he’s a versatile defender who helps facilitate motion on offense. Very good at receiving the pass off a pick and roll or high post up and getting it where it needs to go. Doesn’t really pick up a lot of assists, but he’s an asset not just to any defense, but offense as well.

How about Pekovic

Been beasting lately after starting over Darko. Not sure what it’ll take to nab him from Minny though.

He's their starter now. I don't see why they'd trade him.

He’s been playing way to well to trade him away for anything but a better proven starting center.

Logic is Monta is the best player on the team and its pretty obvious. He dont have to have a good shooting night to make his team better. Alotta guys get open 3’s because of his penetration.

Logic is Monta is the best player on the team and its pretty obvious

actually, that’s called “opinion.”

bradyk2 - February 12, 2012 reply

That should be in reply to Gov

He brought up logic as it pertains to our best player.

I thought you guys were talking about Monta?

bradyk2 - February 12, 2012 reply

Supposed to be a joke right?

What happened to opinion?

Logic is defined as “the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.”

Correct is defined as “conforming to fact or truth”

Statistic is defined as “a numerical fact.”

Find me a “numerical fact” that suggests Monta is better than Curry. Until then I’ll “correct” your “logic.”

oh, and btw:
Opinion is defined as “A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.”

bradyk2 - February 12, 2012 reply

Where does logic say the evidence has to be a numerical fact?

I think you’re forgetting that logic, often, doesn’t use statistics at all.

If anything, your point only further proves that it is an opinion to hold any player as the best player on our team.

Logic doesn’t say that numerical facts are more valuable than visual observation. That’s an opinion. So therefore, when you draw a conclusion from that, it is also an opinion.

warriorsablaze - February 12, 2012 reply

Also...

…. The world is flat.

Well, it gets down to what your definition of "best" is.

Some people use it to mean “most exciting.” Some people use it to mean “capable of the most amazing play.”

Other people use it to mean “the player who most consistently helps you win games.”

By that last definition, Monta is not our best player. By some other definitions, he may be.

Ronaldinho - February 12, 2012 reply

That last satatement is still an opinion.

It's a testable opinion.

It’s an opinion on which we have data.

We know certain things about what wins games. We know that defense wins you games. Almost all of the available evidence suggests that efficiency is more important that shot creation in terms of winning you games.

So, yeah, you could be of the opinion that the best evidence we have on the subject is bunk.

But not all opinions are created equal.

In fact, there are plenty of opinions out there which are downright moronic. And defending them by saying “they’re just an opinion” is equally moronic.

yup

yes, the conclusion is an opinion, no doubt.

But the problem is that when you compare this argument to a pro-monta argument, it’s pretty apparent that the Monta apologist argument is tenuous, at best.

When you are analyzing Steph, it’s relatively easy to use un-doctored numbers to prove your point. With Monta though, the whole argument is essentially discounting a wide variety of well-regarded metrics, and creating a scenario where Monta could play under ideal conditions and therefore supposedly improve.

Basically, looking at the evidence (IMO) it is pretty easy to conclude that Steph is the more valuable ball player; while concluding that Monta is the best on our team requires a fair amount of logical acrobatics

That's not the case either.

With Monta though, the whole argument is essentially discounting a wide variety of well-regarded metrics, and creating a scenario where Monta could play under ideal conditions and therefore supposedly improve.

All it requires is counting visual observation as more important than said “well-regarded metrics.”

And what makes them so “well-regarded” in the first place? That people who don’t really understand basketball came up with most of them? That a decent number of people on GSOM use them?

FOs clearly don’t value them as much as people here, nor do most other fan-bases.

I’m just unclear who appointed these metrics as the basis for most basketball evaluation. Just because they’re the best statistics we have at measuring or predicting things in the NBA, doesn’t mean they’re more valuable than visual observation, depending on the person or situation. Nor does it mean that it’s right in any particular case, even if it were proven a better tool than said observation.

And what makes them so "well-regarded" in the first place?

That they’ve been proven to accurately correlate with winning basketball.

No.

They’ve been proven to better predict than anything we’ve had in the past.

It still doesn’t make them more valuable than observation. Obviously, you need a smart evaluator who can judge well for themselves, and visual break-down doesn’t work for everyone, but when it’s applied correctly, it’s just as valuable.

As I have said multiple times, statistics can be misinterpreted the same way that watching the game can be.

I'll make it much more simple

All it requires is counting visual observation as more important than said "well-regarded metrics."

This is also known as “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts”

bottom line is that Monta is pretty bad at a few key areas of successful basketball. And even though he is admittedly awesome to watch, turns out he is actually not that good of a scorer either (meaning he does not make enough of his shots).

sure, some of thismay be fixable, and/or can be explained away (system issues, he’s “being asked to carry the team”, yada yada yada)…but the thing is, there is a ton of concrete, unbiased evidence supporting the “anti-monta argument”…Literally everything (aside from PPG) supports this conclusion…

and then on the other hand, you have these old curmudgeons saying “nah, none of that matters, I trust my eyeballs”

this is what I was trying to initially point out:
yes, these conclusions are opinions…
but from a logical standpoint, the burden of proof is pretty squarely in the pro-Monta side; unfortunately, all that gets trotted out is these old tired regurgitated “arguments” that quite frankly suck.

one side, opinions supported by actual evidence, which leads pretty directly to the stated conclusion.

on the other side, opinions supported by…more opinions…which disregard (or explain away) a number of verifiable truths

No, no it's not.

This is also known as "my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts"

Because if I said “from watching the games, I think Andris Biedrins is a good FT shooter, maybe around 75%,” I could be shown wrong and accept that.

The thing is, with all encompassing stats, there’s so much to explain that it just isn’t as simple as one number proving my thesis wrong. You have to account for why things are happening, rather than just pointing to a number and saying there is no debating it.

Even in the instance of +/- many other things need to be accounted for than just which players make our team perform better when we’re on the court. Obviosuly we already know sample size, but there are also many other questions like:

Do any players play a different style of game while a specific player is on the court? Why?
Is anyone less aggressive in certain circumstances? Why?

It’s more complicated than “we don’t perform as well with Monta on the court.”

For instance, one argument I’d like to present is that Steph, is, in fact, much less aggressive a lot of the time that Monta is on the court. Rather than being just a product of Monta causing Steph to play worse, it also says something about Steph’s (over?)willingness to defer. I think that if the two could learn to be aggressive at the same time, things would work a lot better.

Bottom line, there’s just too many questions to be asked for me to take a stat and have it refute any argument. There is still much to be discussed even if it’s been brought up.

this would be a good point

except that nearly every statistic favors Stephen Curry over Monta Ellis.

It’s not like adjusted +/- favors Steph and PER favors Monta. It all favors Steph.

alright, well...I'm over it

this here is one nice strawman you’ve constructed

Because if I said "from watching the games, I think Andris Biedrins is a good FT shooter, maybe around 75%," I could be shown wrong and accept that.

this is actually a little extra funny to me, because this is exactly what’s happening within the anti-Monta debate. Someone will say “he’s a great finisher” or “he’s impossible to defend” or “he’s the only guy on the team who can penetrate”…the thing is NONE of these are really true (once you look at the numbers)….then the pro-Monta argument comes back with an excuse (“oh, those don’t matter becase x,y, and z”)…the thing is, this is really the only way to actually test a hypothesis, you take this away, and we may as well be debating the existence of god (where there is no real proof of anything for or against)

The thing is, with all encompassing stats, there’s so much to explain that it just isn’t as simple as one number proving my thesis wrong. You have to account for why things are happening, rather than just pointing to a number and saying there is no debating it.

here’s the problem, it’s not just one all-encompasing stat (although those are in favor of Steph too, as Brady2k points out), there are a bunch that we can look at, and they all tend to point towards Steph as being better/ more useful at basketball

http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=%25&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=30

Not to nitpick

but now you’re stating things that just aren’t true. This doesn’t have anything really to do with the original point, but

"he’s a great finisher"

is actually true.

sort it by FG% at the rim. He’s really good.

As far as penetrating

http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=%25&type=pg&posi=%25&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=30

sort this one by how many attempts players have at the rim.

It’s Lee, then Monta, and after that it’s a wide margin between him and either of our other ball-handlers (Nate and Steph). Monta shoots at the rim more than 4 x more per game than either Steph or Nate. Also, while Steph’s numbers were better last year, Monta was still shooting at the rim twice as much.

So unless you’re considering Kwame, Lee, or Dorell “penetrators” I’m not really sure what you’re arguing. Monta really is our only conistent pentrator, especially so far this season.

All of these numbers are backing up what I see when I watch the games. Like FT%, they’re much simpler and more obvious, though even they don’t account for everything.

Back to the original point. You’re saying I’m constructing a straw man, but you’re not realizing that was the argument I constructed. I wasn’t saying that was your direct argument. It was a comparison to the response to your argument that came later.

If you’re attributing this type of argument to me:

this is actually a little extra funny to me, because this is exactly what’s happening within the anti-Monta debate. Someone will say "he’s a great finisher" or "he’s impossible to defend" or "he’s the only guy on the team who can penetrate"…the thing is NONE of these are really true (once you look at the numbers)….then the pro-Monta argument comes back with an excuse ("oh, those don’t matter becase x,y, and z")…

then you’re the one making the straw man. of course that’s only if you’re trying to say its the argument I’m using.

Anyway, many of the all-encompassing stats measure the same things, and therefore would miss many of the same things. +/- is distinctly different than most in what it measures, but things like WS, PER, etc are all pretty much variations of each other. They raise entirely different questions than an adjusted +/- number.

I really don’t see how that is that difficult to understand.

http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx?team=GSW&type=pg&posi=%25&yr=2011&gp=0&mins=0

ugh my second link is wrong

here:

They’ve been proven to better predict than anything we’ve had in the past.

You asserting this does not make it true.

Ronaldinho - February 14, 2012 reply

All it requires is counting visual observation as more important than said "well-regarded metrics."

so you’re in favor of the BCS over a playoff system?

And I'm the one being accused of contructing straw men?

How is this even relevant.

In that case, the BCS rating IS the supposedly well-regarded metric. It’s not like people have a problem with the way it ranks teams (most people thought Alabama and LSU WERE the two best teams), they have a problem with the fact not all teams are given a chance to prove they are the best despite being ranked lower in that number.

Seriously, WTF kind of question is this?

66% of the BCS ranking is voter-dependent. It’s one third metrics, one third harris interactive pollers, one third coaches poll.

The point being, the majority of BCS voting is based on what people see

Even if it was all based on the BCS number the teams generate based on the computers, there would still just be 2 teams competing.

That’s what your question pertains to:

How many teams get to participate

So it truly is a completely irrelevant topic.

no

there is a 2-team “playoff” because they think that using the eye test is adequate to choose the two best teams.

Um...

Very few are arguing for the voters polls to be disbanded…

What people want is more teams.

They DON’T want a 2 team “playoff” decided by just computer data.

They DO want a 4-16 team “playoff”
decided by the same ranking system we currently have.

So, still observation being part of the ranking process is not the problem. Most objectors to the BCS actually like the ranking process and think the best teams end up where they should, but despise how the system is set up into a a bunch of bowl games rather than a playoff.

How are you not getting the difference?

I understand the difference. I don’t mean to imply that I don’t.

But the people who devised the BCS system devised it because they thought that they could determine the top two teams in the nation based on watching them play.

I understand that the system for ranking teams is decent, and that the fight is for more teams. I’m simply saying that the current BCS format was constructed under the premise that you’re arguing: that you can deem who’s “better” simply by watching them play.

You don't think that's possible to do?

It’s clearly not an exact science. Observation never is. But those who know what they’re doing have shown time and again that what you see is often just as valuable as the box score.

I agree!

What you see is every bit as far as the box score. I would posit that they are more valuable. Box scores don’t show hustle, charges, lucky shots, good screens, good plays where your teammate messed up, etc.

I fully, absolutely, completely agree that observing a game shows more than reading a box score.

With that said, advanced metrics look at the big picture. The importance of the aforementioned non-box-score things (such as charges, screens, etc.) will let their importance be known, and evened out over the course of a season, or more.

Stephen Curry could make a habit of pulling up for three 45 foot jumpers a game. We’d watch him and think “what an idiot!” even if he made all three on any given game. If you look at the box score, you’d think “woah, 3-3 on 3s!” and not understand the stupidity. But over the course of the 150 or so games that Steph has played, his 45-foot bombs would come to a normal average, around 5-10% which is what we can realistically expect. Long-term adjusted +/- take into account everything that factors into a game.

What goes on that’s not in the boxscore that we see? Charges, screens, loose balls recovered, bad passes forced, clutch shots, etc. But what goes on that we DON’T see? Leadership, heart, not making certain plays, etc.

We have no way of quantifying how important it is to set a good screen, or how important it is to be more competitive than your opponent. But what we do know is that, over time, statistics reach an average that preaches the law of diminishing returns. Monta’s +/- for one game may look drastically different than his adjusted +/- for a 5 game sequence, which may look vastly different than his adjusted +/- for a 40 game sequence. but his adjusted +/- for 40 games looks very similar to his adjusted +/- for 50 games looks very similar to his adjusted +/- for 75 games, etc….

paradoxical as it sounds, the things we can’t quantify show up, over time, in how a player quantifiably affects his team’s chances of winning. Yesterday may say differently, but a ~150 game sample shows us that Steph increases our chances of winning more than Monta does.

You can argue why. You can argue (as i have MANY times) that with the right coaching, Monta can buck this trend. But you cannot argue with the fact that, for a large sample period stephen curry has – consistently – proven to have a greater impact on winning than monta ellis has.

and this is coming from an ENORMOUS monta ellis fan.

EDIT

meant the first sentence to say “what you see is every bit as important as the box score.”

Logic doesn’t say that numerical facts are more valuable than visual observation.

I’m sorry, but this as an absolutely absurd statement. Let’s again look at the definition of logic: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."

Observation is neither correct nor reliable. Observation is defined as “the act of noticing or perceiving.” It has nothing to do with correctness or reliability.

You fail to understand that logic is based on things that we know. Statistics are things that we know. As Ronaldinho smartly said, if you define “best player” as “giving us the best chance of winning,” than we

know,

based on facts and therefore logic that Stephen Curry is that player. If you define “best player” in some other way, then, well…..that’s weird.

Observation does not result in logic. After all, when I was four, I saw Santa.

whoops

second “know” was supposed to be bold.

Ever here of Plato?

Socrates? You know the ancient philosophers who spent most of their time debating and arguing things using logic, while very seldom using numbers? I guess not.

You’re pointing to an argument against observation that doesn’t hold water. Just like an interpretation of statistics, the interpretation of what you saw is not always right. That doesn’t make it not valuable.

from a debate geek

it’s really funny to me that you would use this reference because both of those guys (and their school of debate) are known for their reliance on solid logical construction of arguments, and an understanding of logical fallacies.

the pro-Monta arguments are extremely weak, and rife with logical fallacies.

the thing is, there’s not a ton of analysis going into the anti-monta conclusion…it’s pretty much this:
-the better player should be better at making shots, better at helping others make shots, better at defense, better at rebounding, less prone to turnovers.

maybe I missed one or two issues, but the key element here is that Steph is superior to Monta in nearly every aspect

Socrates? You know the ancient philosophers who spent most of their time debating and arguing things using logic, while very seldom using numbers?

you may have made a poor analogy. I’m a philosophy major, and think you actually helped my point.

it has nothing to do with numbers. it has everything to do with facts. statistics are factual evidence. I don’t care about integers, neither should you. it’s that these particular integers represent facts. visual opinion does not equate to fact. It equates to opinion.

It’s ironic that you bring up philosophers. I just opened up my copy of “Physics” by Aristotle. In case you didn’t know, this great work is not a book, but a compilation of Aristotle’s notes from classes that were taught by Plato, who you just mentioned in your argument. So, essentially, Aristotle is paraphrasing your Plato.

The opening sentence of the work is

in any subject which has principles, causes, and elements, scientific knowledge and understanding stems from a grasp of these, for we think we know a thing only when we have grasped its first causes and principles and have traced it back to its elements. It obviously follows that if we are to gain scientific knowledge of nature as well, we should begin by trying to decide about its principles

Last I checked, statistics (which are facts) tell us more about the principles of Monta Ellis than watching him does. FORGET NUMBERS. it’s not about numbers. It’s about facts, knowledge, and principles, which, fortunately for us can be quantified.

Think of it this way: I’ve watched almost Warriors game this season. I’d guess he scores about 24 points a game. Now, using the numbers you abhor, I can see that Monta Ellis actually averages 22.7 points per game.

Is it “logical” for me to say he scores 24 points a game based on what I’m watching? Or is it logical to say that he averages 22.7 points a game because….well….he averages 22.7 points a game?

I clearly stated that not all observation leads to correct inference.

I don’t get why you’re arguing that certain things can be wrong.

Break-down isn’t always correct. Just watch Magic Johnson try to do it. Or go to the local bar and ask people who way too little about the game. You’re not going to get good results.

However, informed people who can understand the complicated things that are happening on the court can make very valuable observations that are true (making them facts) that no statistic can explain or incorporate. Its not that hard to understand that stats do miss things and can be interpreted the wrong way, just the same as observation does.

Going back to the philosophers. My point is, that even with these numbers at hand, they’d wouldn’t rationalize their points based on them. They’d understand that a sport where 10 players, the crowd, and a few coaches are affecting the outcome at any given time is far too complicated to be measured completely by any of these numbers. They would realize there is a counterpoint to every stat or fact, just as they are counter points to the observation I claim to see.

Its not that hard to understand that stats do miss things and can be interpreted the wrong way,

this is true, but as it pertains to our argument it’s like saying the earth is almost perfectly round, which is a fact. you can interpret it the wrong way by saying “all planets are round.” but you can’t interpret the shape of the earth incorrectly. it is round. that is fact.

The fact of the matter is, in a game determined by the team with the most points, Stephen Curry contributes to a positive differential more than Monta does.

You are completely right that we can misinterpret facts. We can extrapolate things incorrectly. But it’s the same as the earth being round. We can misinterpret WHY Stephen’s stats are better than Monta’s. We can misinterpret what affect this will have on the future. But there’s no way to misinterpret when X > Y.

Not a fact.

Stephen Curry contributes to a positive differential more than Monta does.

That’s a meaning you’ve extrapolated from the statistics you’re looking at. You came to that conclusion from the stats. What the stats told you was that there’s either a better differential of +/- for Steph. It didn’t tell you why. You’re taking it to mean that he is the best player who contributes most to the team. Even the adjusted number doesn’t tell you that it’s all a product of just him, because it assumes all players are supposed to be about even. It counts for strength of opponent, but not necessarily chemistry or match-ups, and all of the little things that contribute to the +/- number.

If you’re referring to Win Shares or PER or the like, then they measure exactly what their formula states and nothing else. It’s been covered far too many times that there is more to basketball than just the numbers calculated in those metrics.

It counts for strength of opponent, but not necessarily chemistry or match-ups, and all of the little things that contribute to the +/- number.

but don’t you see? You can argue that Steph’s adjusted +/- is because of better match-ups, but what does that tell you? It tells you that, given the strength of respective positions in the NBA, Stephen Curry helps the Warriors win more basketball games than Monta Ellis does. I don’t think you get that that is incontrovertible.

It’s like saying Allen Iverson is better than LeBron James because he was 10 inches shorter and 100 lbs. lighter. It doesn’t matter! Sure, AI may be more impressive, but the nature of the NBA is that a guy with LeBron’s body has a huge advantage. I don’t care if that’s unfair. It helps you win games.

The same is true with Steph and Monta. You can say that Monta has more unfavorable matchups. Say that the team relies on him more. Say whatever the heck you want. At the end of the day, the basketball game is decided only by who has the most points. sidebars be darned, Stephen helps us achieve that better than Monta does, and that’s a fact.

That wasn't my point.

But continue to keep twisting what I’m saying.

I’m tired of arguing now. We’ve nowhere left to go anyway.

well now we’re even, because you told me that my using the word “differential” was extrapolating a statistic that measures differentials. ;)

Anyone who rec'd this doesn't understand logical thought processing.

Not really thought processing

Just staring at numbers

you spelled "PPG" wrong

Just staring at numbers

No I meant advanced stats

Implying that was all that Gov looked at

I got that

my point was that the only number that contradicts the stance shared by the Gov, and many others around here is PPG.

we all watch a ton of bball.
if there are differences of opinion, all we have to clarify this are the numbers (besides more opinion….“my eyeballs tell me x” is not really useful as far as debating the merits of one conclusion versus another)

True but ONE player will win you some games here and there and also lose a lot when you rely on a one-man show all the time. It’s a team sport, I rather trade Monta KNOWING he is our best player, for pieces that help the Warriors defensively.
Obviously Biedrins has to go, but how and for who i dont know.

AlbinoWhale - February 12, 2012 reply

Monta's been a team player for a while now.

MonstaEllis - February 12, 2012 reply

Monta is the player most capable of dominating a game.

That doesn’t make him our best player.

He’s also the player most capable of shooting us out of one.

Ronaldinho - February 12, 2012 reply

He’s also the player most capable of shooting us out of one.

That;s not fair. I’m confident if biedrins took 25 shots he’d shoot us out too.

“Player most ‘likely’ of shooting us out..”

Well, when you're the only consistently aggressive offensive player a lot of nights

you tend to shoot your team out of far more games than anyone else, best player or not.

Monta isn’t as good as Kobe or Rose, but they’ve shot their teams out of plenty of games while remaining the best player. Sometimes there’s just no one else aggressive enough to balance out the shot attempts.

Kobe and Rose are incomparable

Kobe regularly deflects shots from much better options in the post. Rose doesn’t have pau and bynum.

also

Rose is a better passer and looks to dish, plus his efficiency is rising.

I'll agree to disagree.

Post players need to get fed the ball with guys already guarding them. Since the defense is really only guarding 3 guys, it becomes a lot more difficult to get them the ball in good spots. They’re constantly crowded down low.

Don't fully disagree

However the unnecessary increase in volume this year for kobe is particularly disconcerting.

He’s shooting more than ever. 2nd most attempts per minute in his career, behind 05-06, when he had much less help.

They’ve got a few decent 3 point shooters now, which points more to rotating the ball out of the post, and off kobe for open 3s for blake, kapono, murphy, goudelock.

You been watching the Lakers much?

Those rotation guys you’re talking about can’t make 3s to save their life. It’s why they’re considering signing Gilbert Arenas.

Outside of Kobe, Pau and Bynum:

Blake: 20-64, 31%
Murphy: 16-38, 42%
Goudelock: 14-35, 40%
Fisher: 11-43, 25%
World Peace: 11-58, 19%
Barnes: 10-41, 24%
Kapono: 8-24, 33%
Morris: 3-5, 60%
Ebanks: 0-2, 0%
Walton: 0-4, 0%

For a total of 83-291, 28%

Which is actually by lower than Kobe’s awful 30%

Those guys aren’t doing what they’re supposed to. It’s a huge reason Kobe is shooting so much.

Besides, I was talking about beyond this year. Overall. A best player is way more likely to shoot you out of a game than anyone on your team, especially if your best player is a volume scorer.

i'm aware

But cmon, murphy, blake, kapono and fishers career numbers speak for themselves. Got to give them shots

Not metta/barnes etc.they could never hit 3s consistently.

They are giving them shots.

They’re not making them.

They’re primarily wide open shots as well (discounting Fisher, who will shoot any shot he feels is in rhythm). The percentage at which they’re all making 3s is embarrassing, as Steffun pointed out below. If I’m Kobe, I’m taking the shot before them, because even the stats say its a better option.

And to build upon that further

Murphy at 42% has been arguably worse than Derek Fisher on defense.
Kapono at 33% is embarrassing. He gets payed to shoot, and he sucks at everything else.

Goudelock is the one bright spot, but he almost never plays with the big 3, anyways.

steffun4tw - February 12, 2012 reply

i mean ultimately, i think lakers offensive problems are pisspoor ball movement

The teams passing is atrocious. That effects bigs more than anyone. However, does kobe sitting on the ball and chucking really help?

When was the last time Monta shot us out a game? It’s been plenty of times lately Curry has turned us over outta games tho with lazy passes and giveaway’s.

Charlotte?

But the whole team was pretty bad in that one.

Looking back, I’m not sure he’s done it once this season.

Sacramento he was poor, so was steph

OKC again, both.

I do agree with you though, Steph’s consistency is more key. When Steph plays well, everyone tends to. You don’t see him go off and we lose often.

The thing is, most of the time Curry's "inconsistency" is still not actively hurting us.

He’ll only take 9 shots or something, which can be frustrating, but it’s not like he’s jacking up a ton of missed shots or, despite claims to the contrary, turning it over like a madman.

Curry’s turnover percentage and variation are totally within the norms of the position.

Yes

I am less concerned with shooting. I would like him to shoot more, because his shooting ability is proven and a poor stretch is likely to be snapped out of with a shot.

However I’m more concerned when he doesn’t have it going, he turns passive. I’d like him to command the ball a bit more, even if he isn’t shooting.

The turnovers have been bad, but he’s still our best decision making, and one who keeps the team flowing.

However I’m more concerned when he doesn’t have it going, he turns passive. I’d like him to command the ball a bit more, even if he isn’t shooting.

That’s reasonable. However, if that “commanding of the ball” resulted in more bad shots, I’m not sure it’s a worthwhile tradeoff.

This is particularly the case on a team which has Monta, and thus is generally just fine if Curry plays passively for stretches. So long as Monta is playing “good Monta” ball as he was last night, and working in the team context, I don’t think Curry’s doing anything wrong by defering.

The problem is the relative inconsistency with which good Monta shows up – so sometimes we get bad Monta + passive Curry, and that’s a problem.

The turnovers have been bad, but he’s still our best decision making, and one who keeps the team flowing.

His turnovers are down to the same number/36 they were last year, and his TOV% has been falling steadily. I really think that the whole “turnover machine” thing is an absurd meme which people can’t let go of. Curry had a bad start to the season with respect to TOs, but that’s not surprising given that he missed a chunk of camp and was limited by an injury.

I think it’s also worse because some of Curry’s turnovers look so stupid – those weird one-handed passes, for example. But he actually doesn’t turn it over that much. We just notice because when we see a Monta up-in-the-air-with-nowhere-to-go TO, we subconsciously say “well, he’s trying to make something happen” but a Curry-lazy-pass TO gets us to pull our hair and say “WTF were you thinking?”

But they’re still just both TOs.

This is particularly the case on a team which has Monta, and thus is generally just fine if Curry plays passively for stretches. So long as Monta is playing "good Monta" ball as he was last night, and working in the team context, I don’t think Curry’s doing anything wrong by defering.

Yes, but when Steph gets passive, I believe it tends to lead Monta to shoot too much. Think about it, they are generally our only two players capable of creating a shot. Lee, unless he gets it open in the high post, can’t create his own. Rush, Dorell and co. can’t either.

and thats my major issue with monta. When he feels he needs to do too much. I get why he does it, but the effect is rarely good.

I think it’s also worse because some of Curry’s turnovers look so stupid – those weird one-handed passes, for example. But he actually doesn’t turn it over that much. We just notice because when we see a Monta up-in-the-air-with-nowhere-to-go TO, we subconsciously say "well, he’s trying to make something happen" but a Curry-lazy-pass TO gets us to pull our hair and say "WTF were you thinking?"

That’s what’s more frustrating though. He might not be chris paul level ballhandler but in general, he is among the best dribblers/handlers in NBA. If he just cut those stupid passes out, his assist to turnover rate would probably be around 3 to 1.

I disagree here

Lee, unless he gets it open in the high post, can’t create his own

Not sure what the numbers say, but it seems to me like he is pretty crafty at getting some decent looks, even while covered. Maybe not drive by your man (like Monta), but certainly crafty little hooks, up and unders, spins, etc.

I dunno, he seems to work a LOT out of the the high post

He either passes, drives or shoots the ball. He hasn’t been that great at post-ups.

doubleteapot - February 13, 2012 reply

yeah, but he's generally covered

open high post = david lee jump shot
(we see plenty of this)

he just doesn’t force it into unfavorable situations, I can respect that

lee does force it at times like last night when facing up on the wing.

Parsons never cleared his area when Lee drove right into two or three defenders forcing a T and a fast break opportunity for Houston.

I like Lee in the high post. He can’t really do much in the low post because he’s too small to back down most PF’s and generally plays more of a finesse game down there.

I mean i can live with a loss where steph is 2-17, because it’s a rarity he’ll be that off, that long. However it doesn’t bother me he recognizes his shot is off and he slows down.

I worry about when that happens, he gets out of flow of the game and touching ball in general.

An inconsistency to be aggressive does very much hurt us.

A lot of times, it’s part of what leads to Monta shooting too much, and even when it doesn’t, it still puts more pressure on him and other players to pick up the slack.

Curry does turn it over more than he should, but it’s not so much more outrageously than Monta does. I could live with those turnovers as long as he stayed consistently aggressive.

agreed

a dumb play here and there is allowed (even at the NBA level)

I just think we notice Steph’s stupid TOs more because they are such headscratchers

Monta shooting us out of games?

@ Charlotte. Monta goes 6-26 and the Warriors lose by 12. Lee is lighting it up, and yet only gets 18 shots.

Vs Sacramento, Jan 31. Monta goes 5-17 and we lose by 3. Despite Lee shooting over .600, he only gets 11 shots.

Those are only the two most obvious cases.

Of course, you say Curry turned us over out of games: Curry has had four games with 5 or more turnovers. We lost two of those games by over 15 points, making it really hard to blame Curry’s TOs.

Monta had to take more shots because Steph didn’t play. In regards to the Sac game, its the point guards duty to get the ball to DLee not the 2 guards.

Nonsense.

When Monta is dominating the ball like that, it’s his responsibility to share it, not anyone elses. He took 26 shots @ Charlotte. You can’t put that on the PG because he was in bad-Monta mode all night.

If Steph played in the Charlotte game Monta would not have shot as much.

What do you base that on?

We have lots and lots of examples of Monta playing in bad-Monta mode (dumb shots, lack of court awareness, driving into a set defense) when Steph was in the game.

How, then, can you conclude that he wouldn’t have done it in that game if Curry was playing?

We won that Sacramento game.

Both he and Curry were terrible, but the bench pulled it out…

Only In Fairfax - February 13, 2012 reply

Exactly....when Monta dominates the team looses but when Monta plays like he did last night the team can win.

You’re wrong, as always.

Surprised you didn't invoke nightclubs.

Better yet...

I dont care what haters say.

Well once you say you won’t listen…

Didn't you already reply to this with the same basic message?

Repeating your response to the same comment is definitely borderline spamming the thread, isn’t it?

I didn't respond to this specific statement.

I knew you didn’t care much for logic.

Might want to click the up button on that one.

Talking about Monta being the best player...

Actually you didn't mention Monta at all.

You inferred that J-Ridah doesn’t use logic. Pretty much the same thing that you just said.

Are you inferring that he does? Because that is absurd.

Somestimes he does. Sometimes he doesn't.

Like most of us, he’s not always right.

He rarely posts anything of real value or merit. Hes misguided, obsessed with hip hop clubs for young black male athletes and is horrible at evaluating NBA talent.

Monta is not our best player now, and will never be as we move into the future. Steph Curry is better now, and has far more potential than Monta ever did.

Statistically, Stephen Curry is better, he also has far more trade value than Monta.

For example, Stephen Curry was the key cog in the CP3 trade, while Monta was the key cog in an O.J. Mayo/Hasheem Thabeet trade.

Anytime you try to argue with that moron he brings up irrelevant points such as:

1. He has a bridge tattoo
2. His jerseys don’t sell as well as Steph’s
3. Monta is loyal, perfectly exemplified by his moped incident and berating Steph before even playing a single minute with him.

Anonymous1337 - February 13, 2012 reply

I really don't feel the need to respond to this.

But here’s my one-time explanation of why I probably won’t respond to your next post in this conversation or any future ones in which you direct responses to me.

Beyond anyone else on this site, you are clearly the biggest Monta hater. Beyond anyone else on this site, you are clearly the biggest J-Ridah hater. The second part I understand even less, but that’s irrelevant. Bottom line is, you are clearly not anymore logical than J-RIDAH, and far more often a troll than anything else.

I totally agree with Brownie.

1. I don’t hate Monta
2. I don’t hate J-RIDAH

But good luck, one less moron to deal with.

Anonymous1337 - February 13, 2012 via mobile reply

And lol at “troll”.

Maybe I should spread around some more nightclub conspiracies?

Anonymous1337 - February 13, 2012 via mobile reply

Do you always have to try and belittle someone by calling them names? I thought that was not allowed on this site.

qin - February 13, 2012 reply

Why would I ever argue with a guy that only has 32 followers on twitter?

Hahaha, you told me to link it in order to validate my arguments, don’t you remember?

Anonymous1337 - February 13, 2012 via mobile reply

Biedrins = done in the NBA

He can go play in Latvia

maybe some team over there is willing to match the contact he has here?

are we allowed to release him from his contract if he wants to? lol

Honestly, does the FO understand how much we dislike Biedrins?

Why would you ever amnesty Charlie Bell?

the world may never know

Because if you amnesty Biedrins without having another C, you look like a idiot. Beans was gonna get amnestied if Chandler signed here.

Could have amnestied Beans and sign Dalembert to the deal Houston got him for if we couldn’t get Tyson. And still got Kwame for 1 yr to backup Dalembert.

Dalembert wanted more than 1 year. He wasn’t gonna get that here.

He has a team option for next season.

They could still end up only having him one year. The difference is, if they don’t want him, it costs them $2M, so it’s more like a one-year $9M contract than two years for $14M

I don’t see why we couldn’t have offered him a front loaded $9M contract, with a team option for $6M next season. Not like we didn’t have the cap space.

All things aside, yes it only makes sense to amnesty Biedrins if you’re giving up or you get another center to start in his place.

Because the front office has its sights set on the 3 restricted free agent big men in Mcgee,Hibbert and Lopez. They believe they’ll nab 1 of them by getting a sign and trade done. I think they can peel Mcgee off but Hibbert and Lopez wont get away from their teams. Also they liked Kwame more than Dalembert who they felt didn’t bring it every night unless he’s in a contract year. They clearly got that move wrong tho. I wanted Dalembert.

They clearly got that move wrong tho.

I’m not sure about that. We’ll nevery really know with Kwame going out for the season so early. In hindsight, yeah it’s the wrong move because Kwame got hurt, but he had played really good post defense until that point, and was actually developing some sort of chemistry with Monta off of the pick-and-roll. I also wanted Dalembert over Kwame before the season started, but I was surprised at how well Kwame contributed.

Also, are you sure we have enough cap room going into next season to sign a RFA like McGee. I’m not sure how much I want him, but more importantly, I’m not really sure how much he’ll cost.

Mcgee could be had via sign and trade the same way we acquired D-Lee. I dont think the Wizards are willing to commit to him and would take the best offer for him being that they can easily draft Sullinger or Drummond. We can give them a explosive guard in Monta and a second rounder. That should compensate them.

You think they'd do it before the deadline?

They are going nowhere….

Also if we’re willing to take Blatche, I think they jump now. Monta for McGee, Blatche and Young? They get smaller, but a Wall, Monta, Crawford backcourt rotation might appeal. Monta’s a leader these days and could help the duo.

I would only be in favor of this IF we found a way to dump Andris. We can’t afford 15 mil in deadweight contracts (Blatche + Biedrins).

Also, any chance they part with Rashard? He’s only owed next year. I’d take him + Javale for Monta, Andris, Dorell without thinking twice. Might make us worse initially, but Rashard’s contract will be a gigantic expiring gift. Something, if we partnered with a couple players (maybe Tyler shows something, jenkins, klay or udoh) we could steal 1-2 good players next year.

I dont see the Wiz doing it before the deadline. They’ll be without a C.

Excuse me?

Hah. But in honesty, they are going nowhere. Just trying to build for future, no center could only help their chances to draft high for one of the bigs (davis, drummond, sullinger etc.) granted most are pf’s

You’re probably right. IF they are in a position to draft someone like Drummond and like him, they’ll deal McGee in offseason, but probably not gamble in march on potential they might get him

I'm gonna start drowning kittens if we sign McGee to a huge deal no one else would offer.

So typical, I should be expecting it now.

Mcgee is a double double machine and the best shot blocker in the game.

Also a bad defender right now

whoa!

I’ll leave out the whole “double double machine” thing…but do you honestly believe this?

the best shot blocker in the game.

What about Ibaka?

Omg iblocka has had multiple 10 block games this year. The man is an animal.

I just can’t give McGee a great deal of credit because his defense is not good outside of his blocks. His weak side is inconsistent and it’s a known fact he’s got a bbiq of a pet rock. Actually the rock plays stouter defense more consistently so I shouldnt be talking so bad about rocks.

Only In Fairfax - February 13, 2012 reply

Right now Wall seems to be playing more for his own highlights....

Get the ball ….zoom down the court to make a play(same as in college) …which is why Lin is "currently " looking better than Wall(note the “currently”)…add Monta to that and the Wiz would really be making a bad move there…even they may not be that stupid…

epitome of a bad team

No coaching, no leadership, no one likes each other, everyone is playing for themselves..

They need a coach first. Then they need to clear some of the chuckers.

I still stand by my belief, a young Westbrook would be the same in washington, maybe even Rose.

Bad team disease is contagious. Especially for young guys

I think McGee is most likely.

DC’s an utter mess. They could think someone like Monta or LEe would change culture. I also think he has highest upside of the 3, just needs coaching the most. I think McGee isn’t a bad kid or a selfish player, but he’s surrounded by them. Anyone who’s played on a team of selfish players knows how that makes EVERYONE worse by default.

I think Hibbert is safest bet, but we have least to offer. Why would they trade Hibbert and Hill for Monta, for ex?

Brook Lopez, I want no part of. Defensively he makes David Lee look good. He’s charmin soft.

I’m mostly annoyed because I wanted to dump Biedrins 1.5 years ago, and they’ve been p*ssyfooting around it. I’m also disgusted how he still gets support here. He does nothing, and his attitude is disgusting. I’d rather have someone chuck us out of game trying than lose by not trying.

We could have had either of these centers 1-2 years ago for Andris, when writing was on the wall. When he said he doesn’t want to play hurt and shows his true colors, ie, he’s a selfish/scared player
-

As for Kwame v. Dalembert. Just bad luck. I think Dalembert looke much better last night cause of Andris. when you don’t have to guard your man, and can cheat to lane it’s easier to effect shots!. Otherwise Kwame was also having a career year. Rebounding, scoring a little. (11 and 11 per 36, good numbers which were going up). Dalembert’s having a good year too, however the 1 v. 2 year thing made it an easy choice to me.

Also, KWame’s lockerroom presence is underrated. He invited all the young guys over the first week he got to team. Udoh and Tyler specifically talk about the help Kwame gave them, in terms of not making his mistakes and also, just general post D.

I hope we can bring him back. Or atleast it makes sense financially. A dream scenerio would be trading someone for McGee, and if we don’t make playoffs, FINALLY having lottery luck and jumping to top 3. After Davis, I’m putting money on Kidd-Gilchrist being best prospect. He has all the tools and intangibles. Just needs right coach to pull it out of him like Westbrook. How much of a difference situation can make (Westbrook v. Wall. Wall definitely has more raw talent)

Only In Fairfax - February 13, 2012 reply

Not a popular thing to say but I would hate to loose David Lee.....

….have we forgotten the PF position was our biggest black hole for years…heck we killed 2 draft picks trying to solve that problem and quite frankly Lee was the best option that we had a realistic chance to bring in…Udoh was an attempt to further shore up that position(defensively) and does not come close to bringing the scoring, passing and rebounding the Lee does….everyone talks about dumping Lee as if there is an easy fix to bringing in an allstar PF with offense and defense combined plus great contract which is a ….fantasy..the only rational is really for tanking …..which aint gonna happen either….we need a center or a complete rebuild and this owner is not going to throw in the towel in the near future for a rebuild unless someone offers us 1rst round top 5 draft picks this year which aint gonna happen either…lets be realistic!

Well OK we do need more than just a center ha!

You cant name 5 Power Forwards having a better season than David Lee is right now. He’s having a damn good season.

quick question

if monta is as good as you think he is, and lee is as good as you think he is, and the bench is as good as you think they are, then why are we such a bad team?

bigkino217 - February 13, 2012 reply

I’ve said before, its almost impossible to win in this league without a Center. If you dont have a Center you better have at least 2 allstars.

yet you clearly think that both are all-star talents

and we’re still bad

bigkino217 - February 13, 2012 reply

Blake, Pau, Love, Smith, Aldridge, Bosh, Millsap

Then Lee, but then think about the guys slumping who will bounce back like Stat and Dirk

Take Millsap off that list. I think Lee is having a better season. Its debatable if Bosh is having a better season. Lee is having a better season than Bosh and no im not discounting defense at all.

See I think Millsap's D puts him above Lee (but I'm not a rapper.... bad joke)

But Bosh is definitely better then Lee

Houston gave him 2yr 14mil or something. I’m completely fine with that if we amnestied Biedrins. Unless your saying Dalembert would not sign that here but did it with Rockets.

They can also buy him out for $2M next season by nixing their team option

And what is Biedrins doing at the C position? Nothing?

We didn’t need to amnesty an expiring contract, you know. We could have waited a year, THEN amnestied Biedrins.

Saw Tyler play last night….he has a jumpshot! He’s already better than Beans. It sucks that he’s 26 and over the hill already.

axelfoley - February 13, 2012 reply

Honestly, Chris Hunter on a league minimum produces same amount

They could have found some junk 1-2 mil center who’d play like this

Too true.

Mbenga might have been able to do this.

So annoying we have this 9 mil albatross

When we could have dumped him. Good god he’s worthless.

You realize in last 10 games he’s attempted 11 shots?! 5 in one game!

186 minutes!

WORTHLESS passenger who makes everyone worse

I wish the opposing team would attempt a hack-a-Biedrens strategy just to see how he reacts. He’d probably fake an injury just to avoid going to the line.

You realize in last 10 games he’s attempted 11 shots?! 5 in one game!

You realize that you can help your team win in ways other than scoring, right?

Ronaldinho - February 12, 2012 reply

Too bad Biedrins doesn't do that

I guess he rebounds and is okay (not above average) on defense for a center… but if you suck in everything else that’s not really considered “helping the team”

He's been very hit and miss.

But actually, yes, there have been a lot of games this year where Biedrins has been helping us with good aggressive post defense, solid rebounding, blocking shots, etc.

There have also been games where he sucked donkey balls, where he was passive and looked lost.

biedrins is a disgrace

he always always always gets 2 fouls in the first quarter and then sees action like one more time after that. even if he has no offensive game, he could still score points, ala kendrick perkins.

ekpeudoh20 - February 13, 2012 reply

And for majority of those games he has not

Don’t act like he’s ben wallace or dennis rodman. He’s not rebounding, his D is average.

And thats without talking about how his lack of aggressiveness gets everyone else worse looks. Did you not see how Dalembert was basically able to be a free defender?

He’s a detriment. As his nice ~~10 +/~~ in 10 minutes says it all. Crap player. The nba equivalent of bernie madoff.

Stop defending the undefendable.

Stop attacking straw men.

I never said that Biedrins is like Rodman or Wallace.

But he has had plenty of good games this year. He was a big reason we took control against Denver, for example.

And he play was a big part of wins against, Clevaland, Utah, and New York. If he was that guy every game we’d be very happy with him.

He’s not that guy every game. Not even close. But the fact that he’s been downright terrible on some nights doesn’t change the fact that he’s been good on others.

Blaming him for the -10 last night is absurd. EVERYBODY was horrible in the first quarter, and then they figured it out int he second. If you watched the game you know that his -10 last night doesn’t “say it all” or even close. He wasn’t good. He also wasn’t responsible for the -10 when he was on the floor.

I never said that Biedrins is like Rodman or Wallace.
But he has had plenty of good games this year. He was a big reason we took control against Denver, for example.

No, you insinuated he’s been impact-ful during that 10 game stretch. He has not. 1-2 games max he;s had a positive impact. The way he refuses to roll or get involved on offense, makes us play 4 on 5 which hurts EVERYONE.

And he play was a big part of wins against, Clevaland, Utah, and New York. If he was that guy every game we’d be very happy with him.

And that’s a total of 4 games out of 24.

Blaming him for the -10 last night is absurd. EVERYBODY was horrible in the first quarter, and then they figured it out int he second. If you watched the game you know that his -10 last night doesn’t "say it all" or even close. He wasn’t good. He also wasn’t responsible for the -10 when he was on the floor.

I did watch the game and I strongly disagree.

Dalembert controlled the beginning stretch because he could sit in the lane. He didn’t have to pay attention to Andris at all.

That kept us out of having any effect in the lane and into forcing jumpers.

If andris did ANYTHING, cut to the basket, generally have a pulse out their, Dalembert could not cheat as much.

He was very responsible for the slow start.

And that’s a total of 4 games out of 24.

I was restricitng myself to talking about wins.

And he’s also missed three games due to injury, I believe.

I could also have grabbed a bunch of other games (including other wins) where Biedrins has been good. It’s not “just” four games. I think he’s probably had about 10 games where he’s been a clear net positive – eg the Spurs game, the Orlando game, the Christmas game against the Clips.

There have been a lot of games where in the post-game thread a lot of us were saying “Wow, he was good when he was in … why’d he only get 12 minutes?”

He’s also been downright terrible in plenty of games, and he certainly wasn’t good last night.

35 rebounds.

That’s 6.8 per 36. That’s tolliver status

ya

tolliver - February 12, 2012 reply

tolliver rebounding

Without the slick shooting and all around awesome game.

LOL I'm sure there was no offense intended Anthony

Added

nba.com: Amazing Curry Circus Shot. nba.com highlights, recap. Adam Lauridsen, MT2 recap. Updated the note about when Dominic tweaked his knee. Mark Jackson at the podium. Monta, Lee in the locker room. CSN highlights, recap.

best warriors performance of the year

On both ends.

maryjane - February 12, 2012 reply

I disagree.

The Bulls or Heat game were better

Not sure which though

dubzfan - February 12, 2012 reply

Heat game.

They were more into the flow of the season. They played pretty well. It went overtime. They were coming off a couple days of rest. It was a really good game for us.

I don't think either team played all that well against us

Rockets came to play but we shut em down in all departments

maryjane - February 13, 2012 reply

Lakers getting desperate

They’re trying to sign Agent Zero

They have no shooting.

If nothing else, he can spot up. He hasn’t lost that ability yet.

28% on 3's last year?

Spot. Up.

Was he doing a lot of spotting up last season? No. I remember watching them and always thinking:

“he’s handling the ball way too much”
“why is Gilbert getting so many isolation plays so he can jack up a 3?”
“Gilbert would be way better off ball”

He can still shoot. He just can’t do much else or do it for himself.

They've looked at Rafer Alston too

It’s really sad :/ Lakers have the worst 4-12 in the league (even Charlotte’s 4-12 is arguably better)

steffun4tw - February 12, 2012 reply

That's not true.

Is Miami’s any better?

They're shooters are shooting.

Like they’re supposed to.

Also:

Chalmers, Battier, and Haslem are all playing really well.

No comparison there at all.

Haslem is pretty good on D and rebounding

and Chalmers is having a pretty good year.

Is there that much of a difference though?

It mainly comes down to your top 3 players.

LOL

You get on J for “deflecting” all the time.

The topic was 4-12, and now you’ve changed it to 1-3. SMH

Point is your #1 isn't as good as you think.

My #1?

Taking more swipes at Monta, I see.

But in all seriousness, why even argue there wasn’t a difference between 4-12?

Point is your #1 isn’t as good as you think.

If this, as you say, was your point, why not just say that in the first place? Instead you argued something else. Now, I’m not sure what you really believe.

Mamba..

Yeah, I get that you were talking about Kobe.

He’s not “MY” #1. I like him. I enjoy watching the Lakers. I like it when they do well. That’s about as far as my Laker/Kobe fandom extends. Everything else is just observation.

The only my/we/us concept I have with an NBA team is the Warriors.

Now please feel free to respond to the part of the above post that was actually directed at what you said.

Just drop this

Why does anytime you two debate Brownie has to be a Laker fan? Second of all what does it matter if he was? He wouldn’t be the annoying type obviously

Interestingly enough

The Warriors are still 4 games back because the Jazz also won. This is a competitive division.

Pretty sure they are only 3 behind Utah and Portland.

Whoops you're right it's three games

we are not gonna make the playoff man

tolliver - February 12, 2012 reply

Probably right, but it’s more fun rooting for them to make the playoffs than it is to root for them to tank.

Amen

So have fun with the same team next year.

I'll always have fun rooting for the Warriors.

I realize there are at least 7 teams worse than the Warriors. I am not in denial, and I’ve come to the realization they are most likely going to lose their pick. I don’t like it, but that is the reality of the situation. My only hope is they win in the lottery and get one of the top 3 spots. So, I’m not gonna be miserable all season long rooting for them to lose, and being disappointed when they win. Instead I’m gonna try and enjoy the season and the occasional win. Who knows, maybe the Warriors will start listening to West and will actually make some bold moves, and we won’t have the same team next year.

I've accepted the no pick thing as well. It's so disappointing though cause we lost our pick basically for nothing.

Then we loosened the restrictions on an already bad deal for a trade we never ended up making.

Goodness that’s a lot of dumbf***ery. My only hope now is that Larry Riley is tarred and feathered and left with his dickens on the top of Coit Tower. I want that idiot off the team. Yesterday.

+1

Duby Dub Dubs - February 14, 2012 reply

Monta shows up the 'economical' QuickeMart. Again

What does that mean?

kmart

prefer quickiemart nickname, because i think he’s a tier below kmart.

Oh

I see now

F*ck Kmart, the store and the player.

Added

Rusty recap. Highlights by gumbywithpokey.

Added

Stephen Curry in the locker room.

Biedrins needs to hire Greg Anderson as his personal trainer

bernardking - February 12, 2012 reply

Nice Win.

I thought this was a team win. Hopefully we can make the right trade soon. Just want everyone 2 know, that any 1 on the Warriors is TRADEABLE for the right player. The time is now, maybe after Wednesdays game on ESPN, would be nice.

DaveinSJ - February 12, 2012 reply

Like the photo of Nate

Strike a pose

David Leezy - February 13, 2012 reply

Like Mark Jackson said, its scary to think how good Klay can become.

Think of what the record would be if we didn’t give away the games we gave away late in the 4th quarter. We’d be a 8th seed right now.

dont_stop_believin' - February 13, 2012 reply

Sacramento
Memphis
OKC
Indiana
Utah

Could easily be 15-9 with slightly better execution and a little luck (officiating).

Yep.

Not to mention:

San Antonio
New Jersey

especially that San Antonio, Memphis, and Sacramento games.

ugh…we had huge leads

bimmercirem3 - February 13, 2012 reply

You could say that about any team

A couple things break their way and they win instead of lose.

doubleteapot - February 13, 2012 reply

but we have like 6 games that were like that

ekpeudoh20 - February 13, 2012 reply

If we had any production out of the 5

We’d have a 3-4 game swing. I’m confident.

I’m going to post a fanpost later, but Andris’ play the last 10 games is actually thr worst of his career. I didn’t think it was POSSIBLE to get worse.

ohcleverhansyou - February 13, 2012 reply

He must've had a scary dream

About when Nellie called him out in public.

GREAT!

A list of other Biedrins non-factors on offense I've recently noticed

So if you’re weird enough to read my comments, you’ll know that I’ve written several times before about Biedrins not rolling on pick and rolls. But I’ve noticed several other things from this game and recent games about Biedrins on offense. And each item I noticed made my eyes roll more and more:

- He doesn’t try to get open. He’s often times hiding behind defensive players. In this game, he never even tried to get into a post up stance against his defender Dalembert, even when Monta/Curry/Lee/whoever was holding the ball and seeing if Biedrins would go into a post up.
- He doesn’t look for the ball or watch the ball. Instead he “focuses” on looking for screens to set or looking for offensive rebounds, and he’s looking AWAY from the ball.
- This is the second game I’ve seen Biedrins put his hands up into a “ready to catch the ball” stance AFTER the whistle had blown the play dead. I think this was in the 3rd qtr when Monta was driving down the baseline and Biedrins was under the hoop behind a defender. To me this is both an indicator that Biedrins doesn’t want the ball, and an indicator that he’s trying to hide it by “going through the motions” when it’s safe to do so. Sort of like a “See? I did have my hands up ready to catch and score”, even though the play was dead and it didn’t matter.
- He doesn’t crash the offensive glass. He doesn’t try to sneak in for a clean up dunk or even a clean up tip. He’s often behind a defender trying to grab or tip an offensive rebound his way. Remember Lee’s clean up dunk in the 4th? I can’t remember Biedrins doing anything close to that this season.

I think at this point, everyone knows that Biedrins is contributing nothing. But man, when I rewatched his 2 short stints from tonight’s game and became aware of this list, it made me think, is it possible to contribute LESS than nothing??? Where’s that amnesty when we need it?

IQofaWarrior - February 13, 2012 reply

the best thing Beans could do is

Give his 9mil to charity.

maryjane - February 13, 2012 reply

Rec'd IQ

This is pretty much what I’ve been saying but in a more detailed, eloquent manner (as only you can do).

It’s hard to not want to strangle him. I can’t for the life of me get how what he does is defendable. If Andris gave us decent production (I’m not asking for the guy who was getting 12-15 ppg on high efficiency, I’m asking for a guy who if he plays 30 minutes can give us 7-10 points, 10-11 rebounds) I am positive we’ve be .500 or above.

The most frustrating part of last night was beginning when Dalembert was dominating. Dalembert was able to effect EVERY shot, because he knew he didn’t have to guard Andris.

Playing 4 on 5 is impossible for most teams to overcome. Surprise surprise he’s ~~10 +/~~ in 10 minutes. Rest of starters were in +, despite playing that stretch with him….

I am tired of seeing posts on Monta and Lee being problems, when they have to work so much harder (doubles) because Andris cannot carry his own weight and keep a man honest on offense. They might be overpaid. I might want them both traded. But they are playing with potentially worst center in NBA. We can’t even count on throwing an uncontested alley oop to him.

He doesn’t crash the offensive glass.

Statistically this is undeniable.

He’s rebounding 40% less on offensive glass this year compared to his career average. Heck, 35% compared to last year, and even lower than the 09-10 horror show! (2.4 offensive rebs per 36 v. career average 4.0)

It’s not Nellie, it’s not Smart, it’s not Jackson. It’s ANDRIS. And to a degree, it’s Riley for not recognizing this and just dumping him. The ‘no center’ argument doesn’t hold ground with me. He’s played at the same level as a miki moore/chris hunter last two years. Atleast they cost 1/9th the price.

StephCurry4President - February 13, 2012 reply

It is impossible to believe at this point that we would be any worse with a D-Leaguer at the 5.

Supafishal - February 13, 2012 reply

It is disappointing since you see how focused Monta is during games, and how badly he wants to win.

Not just Monta

But majority of our players. Lee, Steph, Dorell, Rush, etc.

I really think we should start Udoh

StephCurry4President - February 13, 2012 reply

Missing Kwame's big body in the paint.

Local media now ripping him

I’m guessing the front office gave them the OK to start ripping him at will, anytime they please, without getting their access restricted. Cause in all these years, I have never seen all the media go after a Warrior, unless the team wanted it that way.

Critical Roach - February 13, 2012 reply

Yep it's sad

doubleteapot - February 13, 2012 reply

I think he has just run out of chances

we’ve pretty much ran out of excuses for the big Latvian.

he is only asked to play in a very limited role, which is ok (but not ideal)…as long as he does his job, and isn’t too terrible in other areas.

the problem is that he hasn’t really been able to fill his role for a while now, and he seems to be getting worse somehow in the areas that he is known to suck in

Biedrins is done.