In the end, an opinion is just that, an attempt to predict the conclusion. The only truth is history.
If Battier wasn't a freeagent next season and we didn't have the cap room to sign him I'd be with you. But we can let rad and gadziric walk and have enough room to sign him.
Geez, Phil, I apologize if that was construed as a personal attack to you. I was insinuating that your value of Monta to Battier was grossly overstated and that you're just ignoring the fact that Monta has value more than Battier. That doesn't mean you can't say what you feel about Monta. I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you're not considering salary (and the fact that Battier will be a UFA next season) and perceived value (you know, the value a lot of people place on flashy moves and freakish athleticism...this can be used to our advantage...sell high). I get what you're saying about Battier. Solid, fundamental player that makes people around him better on both ends of the court. You're saying that based on their impact on their respective teams, you'd rather have Battier. I get that and I actually agree with it. That being said, it's foolish to say you'd trade Monta for Battier straight-up. For one, it's not possible because of their salaries. Second, you can get a lot more for Monta than Battier. My "clam shell" statement was that you refuse to consider these facts that are relevant to a trade discussion. I appreciate your knowledge of NBA history. I hope you can appreciate where I'm coming from as well, as much my word choice may have been out of line. I would hate for you to no longer respect my words, but if that's where this discussion has lead, so be it. I'm more than happy to discuss this through PM's or email so we can be friends again.
Good point. Warriors may have a chance to sign him leaving Monta available to trade for someone with similar value (all things considered).
Okay that's fine. What p*ssed me off was the "That's just stupid." No that was just my informed opinion. As for salaries, sure I know that Battier makes significantly less (I believe its $6.5M v. $11M) but I was simply talking pure basketball. As for "perceived value", I understand that but at the core, that's one of the problems with the vast majority of teams right now, people (including the front office) focus on that instead of true value of winning and you end up with guys like Stoudamire making max $$ and people thinking that 'Melo is somehow one of the top 5 players in the league (I don't think he's leading anyone to a title.) Anyone, I appreciate your response.
Yes, I admit that was a little too much and apologize again. Monta definitely has value, perceived or not. He's not breaking the bank at 11M/year. I think your point is more about giving his starting spot to someone who doesn't hurt you with volume scoring and porous defense. From a pure basketball perspective, it's easy to replace Monta with a Battier and call it a day (and worry about the other roster ramifications after that). But it's not that easy since they play different positions and have different roles. Battier would be an awesome 6th man and backup to D. Wright (or vice versa). We'd need to figure out how to replace Monta's scoring. While we're at it, we might as well upgrade his scoring efficiency. I don't think Battier fits that role and I don't think the other guys on the team fit that role either, but you never know. Maybe we'd see David Lee and Steph Curry start to play a lot better? It's very possible. Point being, there's a lot of things to consider. Yes, I totally agree that a lot of people place way too much value on per game stats (PPG, RPG, etc) and flashy moves (like Monta's spin moves). Carmelo Anthony is a perfect example of this. Stoudemire is doing pretty well in NY though. Not sure he's worth 100M, but so far his value has been realized quicker than David Lee's.
1) As far as Monta v. Kevin Martin, there are two things that nobody mentioned: steals and assists. Monta is second in the league in steals at 2.35. Martin gets 0.7. Monta's steals usually lead to fast break buckets for his teammates. Monta averages more than twice as many assists as Martin (5.5apg versus 2.3apg). Not only that, but Martin's A/TO ratio sucks. It's 1. He gets 2.3 apg, and he has 2.3 topg. He doesn't create for others. He's not really a playmaker, he's just a shooter. By comparison, Monta's is close to double that, at 1.7. It's not great but it's decent. The thing is, Monta is scoring as much if not more than Martin, but at the same time he's also creating for his teammates. I think the thing that's obvious is that, while Martin might be the more efficient player based on percentages and FTs, Monta is clearly the better playmaker for his team. Not only does he score more than Martin per game, he gets more than three times the number of steals as Martin, and he gets double the number of assists with a much better A/TO. 2.) As far as trading Monta for Gerald Wallace, frankly I think that's no bueno. And the funny thing is that I like Wallace! I just don't think it's a good deal. Yes Wallace is good, but frankly, value-wise, he's not not nearly as valuable as Monta per $$. Yes, he had a phenomenal year last year with 18/10 while playing good defense. But right now, his numbers aren't much better than Dorell Wright's. Would I love to have him? Yes, of course. Would I give up Monta for him? Hell No. If the Cats want to give up DJ Augustin, then I'd do Monta/Charlie Bell for Wallace/Augustin, though... 3)Battier: I've said for several years now, a great analogy is between Battier and Maggette: Battier will give you half the stats, and he's twice the player. Battier is twice as valuable to a team as Mags, while getting half the stats. It's a perfect window into what good basketball is all about. And yes, Battier is one of my favorite players in the league as well, Phil. I totally agree. But, value wise, GS can't trade Monta for Battier. It's just a terrible business move. The Warriors have a true commodity in Monta Ellis, and a good GM will cash in on that. I'm all for moving Monta too, in the right deal (there are very few right deals right now IMO). I'd do an Iggy deal, for example. But if we move Monta, we have to get equal league value. A star player package in return, or something similar. An analogy might be: You own a $650,000 house. But you like another house even better, that's valued at $450,000. Do you just trade the two houses straight up? No, even though you like the more affordable house better, you'd be silly to not try to get market value for your current house first. Of course, there are differences, but it's a general idea.
I was saying the EFF stat points that out. Yes, Martin may be the more efficient scorer, but Monta is the more efficient player. If that Win Score posted their top efficiency players using their method, then Monta would come out on top. Yup. If we trade Monta, then we need to get Augustin back in the deal. However, the Bobs wouldn't do that. We'd have to include Reggie in the deal and even then I'm not sure it's enough. Larry Brown screwed up that team by wanting to select Augustin over Brook Lopez and not want Raymond Felton. It's better to go with BAP and the words of scouts and expert analysts than a head coach in the draft. I was advocating getting Felton previously and still would rather have him for the Warriors than Augustin. Still, Augustin is a scoring PG and fast, so he would be a worthy second. It would move Curry to SG and we'd be even smaller in the backcourt, but we get two guys who can handle the ball. After that, I'd try DWright as backup SG, but if that didn't work I'd try to get someone like Ronnie Brewer. Battier would be okay to get as a role player, but his age wouldn't fit our team. I'm not sure how good of a SG he would be, but he's a glue guy. Instead of going through all these trades, maybe we could keep Monta and get Ronnie Brewer. I wonder if the Bulls would go for Reggie and Bell for Brewer. Does phil like RB?
Yes, Monta gets more assists, but he also gets more turnovers. I think we can all agree that his playmaking abilities aren't really that of a true playmaker. He's just driving to the lane to get his points and when nothing is available, he'll pass it. Not every time, but this is most of the time. Look at their Wins Shared. This is an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player. The aggregate WS for the Warriors this season is 11.8. They have 12 wins. Kevin Martin career: 37.1 Monta Ellis career: 17.8 That's a disparity of 19.3 games. That's significant. Don't think GM's and NBA staff ignore these stats. These are proven stats. I'm not trying to get on a soap box and tell you guys are wrong. I'm just looking at this data that's been available for a while now that is useful and relevant. Again, Monta's spectacular athleticism is creating some distortion in his value.
Yeah, but the problem with EFF is it completely ignores scoring efficiency, which is part of being efficient. I'm not sure you can really say Monta is the more efficient player. I'd say he's the more dynamic player. I'd say he's more gifted. But I won't say he has room to improve. I think what we see is what we'll get. The bottomline when looking at all these stat is: does it equate to wins? And when you factor in all these numbers, Martin contributes to more wins. That doesn't mean he's "better." It could mean a lot of things, like the teams he was on, the role he was playing, etc.
Couldn't disagree with you more. As I said above, not only are the Warriors injuired in key positions, they have a core group of players that haven't really played together, and are not even matched up well for any system. Also, they're being coached by a Rookie coach that can't seem to get any rotations right. Don't sleep on any of those factors. Put martin on a team with no point guard or big to set screens and see how many wins he boosts. Martin is the definition of "2 guards are a dime-a-dozen" I watched a TON of Martin play in Sac (My parents live near Sac). Monta has major holes in his game, but I take him any day of the week over Martin. And Monta's actually gotten better at many of the things that he doesn't do well. Long-term, he can still improve a lot, whereas Martin is at his peak, and will only potentially get worse, when guys like Battier walk next season. People get too married to stats and forget about the eye test.
All of that being said, I think Monta is on track to being an All-Star this season, but I trade him in a heartbeat if the right opportunity came about. My perfect world would move him for Iggy and sign Battier in the off-season. Somehow Swing Marc Gasol for Beidrins + others and fill the rest of the roster. I'd be willing to stick it out with Biedrins for a couple more seasons, thought. Gotta remember that his contract is flat so it gets better every year. That would be a balanced roster that can run a system. I'm not sure who you'd get to run it, but the prospect of having Curry/Iggy/Battier/Lee/Biedrins as a starting 5 is exciting to me (And it's very realistic)
What are you disagreeing with? I'm just stating the facts that are out there and you're ignoring the facts. Martin, historically, has contributed to more wins to his teams than Monta has. I'm not saying I'd rather have Martin over Monta, but he has been a more efficient player than Monta. The variables you're laying out are exactly the same variables we could use for Monta; depending on what type of team he's on, we could see better/worse performance - this goes with every player in the NBA. So again, how does Monta contribute to more wins than Martin? The evidence shows that he doesn't. Tell me how Monta is going to improve? Because of his age? Studies have shown that players peak at around 25 - 26. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612553424283372.html http://basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=399 You say people get too married to stats and forget about the eye test. I agree, but I also disagree. People rely too much on what they see and it contradicts the evidence. This discussion seems to be a great example of such when we started talking about Martin vs. Monta. There's a reason why NBA staff members use studies by Dave Berri and Dean Oliver, et al. Although you've seen Martin play a lot, there is information available to us now that give us a pretty clear picture of how a player has performed throughout his career. Again, would I want Martin over Monta. Probably not. Because we've had a player like Martin: Corey Maggette. He didn't help...or, perhaps we just didn't have the right team to have him help. There are a lot of variables, but it's pretty clear that Kevin Martin is a much more efficient player than Monta. That's really the only argument I'm making. Monta brings a lot to the table such as his leadership and heart (at least we're seeing it this year as opposed to last year). His efficiency isn't terrible if we take out last year. He's an elite athlete. He's a player the defense focuses on and plans again. All of this is valuable, I'm not disputing that. So on that front, I agree, we could land a pretty good player for Monta.
Well, not really DK, because you keep referring to Win Shares. Now, I'm not knocking Win Shares, which relies upon Dean Oliver's points produced, offensive possessions, and defensive rating to credit a player's Win Shares. I've read about it, and looked at it, and it seems to use a combination of solid stats, that, when compiled and computed, seem to give a good picture of a player's value to a team. So I'm not knocking that, at least not completely. But, if Win Shares is the sacred measure of a player's value, and because you point out that Martin has a better WS than Monta -- in other words he supposedly contributes more to team wins -- then isn't he the better player? You mention Corey Maggette above: "he didn't help." But DK, did you know, among all active players, Corey Maggette is ranked 37th in career Win Shares per 48 minutes? That's ahead of Carmelo Anthony, Gerald Wallace, and Andre Igoudala. So...is Corey Maggette better than those three guys? He is according to career Win Shares. Or, take Tyson Chandler. He is 32nd on that list, ahead of Jason Kidd. Over his career, is Chandler responsible for a larger percentage of his teams' wins than Jason Kidd? Hmm... Or, if you look at career all time leaders in ws/48... Mehmet Okur is ranked 106 all time... that's ahead of Scottie Pippen, Tony Parker, Chris Mullin, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Jason Kidd, Gilbert Arenas, Tim Hardaway, Chris Webber, Rudy Tomjanovich, James Worthy, Allen Iverson, Penny Hardaway, Carmelo Anthony, Bernard King, Steve Francis, Lamar Odem, Jermaine O'Neal, and many others. It's even ahead of Dave Cowens, somehow. Did you know in 1972-1973 Dave Cowens averaged 21 PPG / 16 RPG / 4 APG... while playing all 82 games... there's a reason why that dude is in the hall of fame... (career averages of 18 PPG / 14 RPG / 4 APG) Is Okur going in to the hall of fame? According to career Win Shares per 48 minutes, he should be a lock. I'm not saying the stat is without merit. But it doesn't always paint the whole picture, apparently. I mean, in the example above, Maggette is ahead of guys including Chris Webber, Rudy Tomjanovich, James Worthy, Allen Iverson, Penny Hardaway, Carmelo Anthony, Bernard King, Steve Francis, Lamar Odom, Jermaine O'Neal. You've seen Maggette play here. Yes, you've seen his stats. the 20 PPG. The amazing free throw attempts... So, is he better than those players? Would you build your franchise around Mags, instead of, oh, say, Bernard King? Did you know Bernard King averaged 24 PPG / 10 RPG his rookie year? Did you know in 1984-1985 he averaged 33 PPG / 6 RPG / 4 APG? Point being... stats don't always tell the whole picture. They are helpful, yes. And, in general, they are usually the most reliable way to measure a player's production. But, as shown above, Win Shares is not the holy grail. I guess I'm wondering, DK. Who would you rather have: Monta or Martin?
By no means was I saying WS is the holy grail. I only brought that up to show how efficiency, which Martin is, can contribute to wins. I didn't mean for the discussion to get into WS because that's not something I'm knowledgeable enough in. Sorry about that. Would you consider Monta more efficient than Martin? I don't. Would you consider Monta more valuable than Martin. I certainly do. You're right, I did say Maggette didn't help, but at the same time, perhaps we didn't value him as much as we should have. I think I was pretty clear in explaining I'd rather have Monta over Martin. I'm far from a stat nerd and think a lot of variables need to be considered when using them, but I think they are pretty valuable as a supplement to our understanding of the game.
I should also acknowledge that of course there will be exceptions to the rule, or in this case, what stats show. But as AO says, in general, they are a good way to measure a player. Sometimes, it's the only way...I don't watch many other teams except the Warriors.
Okay, fair enough. I'm not trying to nitpick or anything, but but I was basing my response off of the first thing you said in the previous post: In that previous post, you're saying Martin has "...has contributed to more wins to his teams than Monta has..." (thus Win Shares) But it is two separate things: efficiency and total impact on team wins. I'll agree with you that Martin is more efficient than Monta is. Monta has a better FG%, but Martin has better 3pt FG%, gets to the line more, and has better FT%. But Monta's assist/turnover ratio is way better than Martin's, and he gets twice the assists. Overall, though, let's say Martin is more efficient. But I was disagreeing with your statement that Martin has contributed more to team wins than Monta (which is what Win Shares tries to show). I just think Monta does more for his team. Even though WS/48 would say otherwise, which is why I pulled up the above comparisons....
Dude you're such a homer Golden State fan, EFF doesn't measure defense and is "skewed" towards offense. In fact it randomly decided how to weigh the formula, it is a dumbed down version of Per. PER was based on what correlates with winning. Clearly you don't understand what EFF is. It doesn't adjust for pace or minutes and is inferior to what I have used. When did Points per game become my stat? Monta ellis is an inferior scorer, because he is not even close to as efficient, and barely outscores Martin. In addition he's a bad defender and his teams don't win because he has a poor plus/minus impact. +/- would have captured some of these intangibles you claim. The way Golden State fans can criticize someone on another team for defense, playing style, and poor +/-, doesn't make much sense. Defensive rating is not PER, and neither is offensive rating and usage rate. I've used different and simpler stats to make my point. EFF measures defense? Since when? Sorry I've never used that stat before and Monta's less efficient playing style is why we're having this discussion.
I agree with you, although I think an argument can be made (not by me) on how Martin contributes to more wins based on the WS stat. I mean, look at the W's record last year and so far this year. The fan in me thinks this year's team will be much better than what we've seen, especially with all the home games coming up and hopefully everyone being healthy. I think THAT will contribute to more wins for the Warriors and at the same time, Monta. Or, we will trade Monta for someone and we'll see. One thing last thing on Monta and Martin. Yes, Monta's A/TO ratio and steal rate is superior, but separately, how many points does Monta give up because he reaches so much on defense (not his fault I guess for being undersized)? In the end, I think a stat like WS can be useful when all these things are considered. I just don't know how to put it together, but at least we can discuss it. Thanks for keeping me in check though, AO. Sometimes we get carried away with a new toy...in my case, it's regurgitating smarter people's statistical arguments
Win shares is based on the usage efficiency tradeoff (rewarding high usage players while balancing low usage but efficient players), defensive rating, possessions played, and rewards great teams to capture some intangibles. % Usg, offensive rating, defensive rating, minutes, some intangibles. Adjusts for league average as well I believe. Martin wins usage rate or is at least equal, does it on a huge offensive rating, and in Sac even though he was on a bad team it was superior to this season's Warriors. Monta wins one category comfortably, and is also a poor defender like Martin.
