True, but Monta is the more efficient defensive player - at least according to the same relevant stat. Moreover, of the top 5 offensive rating players, JJ Redick, Marc Gasol and Jose Calderon are #2,3,4. All three are solid players, JJ is clearly having his best year, and at over 41% three point shooting, of course, he's going to be efficient. Gasol is solid, and Calderon knows his strengths and weaknesses. But salaries aside, I don't think many (any?) GM's would take any of those three players above Monta. It's true, he doesn't get to the FT line enough and isn't a great 3 point shooter - but he doesn't jack them up, though, in huge amounts (though he's taking more this year), and he is an efficient two point scorer. I'd agree he has way to much Iverson in him, and not enough Billups in him. I'd just point out, on a horrible team, with a lame-duck'ish old, strange coach, Monta is having a great year and putting him on the all-star team, even above Chauncey, doesn't seem entirely out of the question.
Can I ask what may be a dumb question -- why does it seem that everyone on this board thinks that Aaron Brooks should be an all-star, but is ignoring what Carl Landry has done?
I think there are some GMs who'd take Marc Gasol ahead of Ellis, actually. I would. As you alluded to before, Ellis is a guy who's stats are way inflated because of the team he plays on, the free-chucking role he's been given, and the number of minutes he plays. I think I would give him more credit for his stamina than the quality of his offensive output. Actually, if you compared their points scored per possession, it is virtually identical. As of a few days, ago, Billups scored 22.8 (on only 18.3 true shots) per 40 pace-adjusted minutes, and Ellis scored 22.7 (on 21.9 true shots) per 40 pace-adjusted minutes. Statistical +/- put Billups' impact at +5.5, and Ellis's impact at -1. Is Ellis really a below-average player? Factoring in his youth and frequent sloppy play, perhaps. Consider that, as a team, the Warriors are -7 per 100 possessions when he is on the floor, and +7 when he is off the floor. It seems pretty evident to me that he's not helping his team win like one would expect a truly impactful player to.
Well said. I still remember that game against Chicago where he took 39 (!) shots to only score 36. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AiO84nl2eL_zqRtOVx0_sp.QvLYF?gid=2010011809
True. And I typically love your analysis and conclusions. Maybe a GM would take Gasol, given the lack of quality bigs, but clearly no one would take any of the other two guards. Plus, sometimes those statistics can be misleading, and you have to actually watch the game. Did you watch the game against the Rockets? Would you be surprised to find out Monta was a -20 and Devean George was a +5? Mind you, Devean played a full 21.5 minutes, was 2-8 from the field, 0-3 from three point land, scored a grand total of 4 points, 3 rebounds, 0 assists. Now he did have a steal and 2 blocks, but Monta had 2 steals and 2 blocks that game. The only reason the game was ever even close was because of Monta. Now I'm sure over a season or even partial season things like that tend to even out a bit, but that doesn't mean stats can't be misleading. We've already seen Monta's Defensive Rating measure is higher than Chanucey's this year, for example - but watching the two play, I'd probably rather have Chauncey as a defender. Just another example. Then factor in the unique suckage that is the Warriors. Current Don Nelson as coach. Everybody constantly unhappy. Always playing undersized and out of position. Year after year after year losing. Injured players. The fact they have 13 wins is amazing. But like I said, I understand Ellis' stats may be inflated, I'd agree that at best you can say you don't know if he contributes to winning or not, and that his attitude out there certainly doesn't seem to be helping things. But if he was traded to the Cavs, as an example, would I be surprised if he was a key factor in a championship run while puttting up large stats? Definitely not. He was a +17 that game, and also had 8 assists, 5 rebounds and 4 steals. There are so many variables that go into statistics these days. Again, I generally love the advanced statistics employed by durvasa, and Morey, but player evaluation is a really tough gig. He's basically an extra 5%-7% away on his three pointers from going from "average" efficiency to "above average to excellent" offensive efficiency. Of course, he hasn't done that yet, and there's no proof he will. But I see a solid enough player, athletically, skill wise, etc., that if the time was put in to really focus on 3 point shooting, it would get better...at least a bit.
As some said above, it's G's, F's and C that work in the All-Star system, with that being said, Carl Landry plays PF and Paul is a legit guard, so it doesn't make sense if they replace Paul by Carl Landry.
The Warriors are the worst rebounding team in the league by far and yet they were out-rebounding Dallas 36-24 at one point in the game last night and were still losing by 8 points. Ellis is a good player, I believe. I haven't looked but I'd wonder what Stephen Jackson's +/- per 100s with the Warriors looked like. He has a similar role in Charlotte now it seems, but with a dominant big like Gerald Wallace ripping down unholy amounts of rebounds and getting it done on the defense end, he looks more like a key cog than a headcase.
http://www.82games.com/0809/ONSORT6.HTM Looks like he was net +1.9 last year. He's doing somewhat better with the Bobcats. Of course, there is the mysterious Kevin Durant of last year, who was -8.9
The question is: Would you gamble money on Brooks making it next year? He will probably get all the China votes with Yao getting back. But it would be even better if he just had a tremendous year, did not get the votes, but got the coaches selection.
Brooks will not make an all-star game anytime soon unless there are a few injuries or China votes him in as a starter. This will be Deron Williams' first all-star game, and he's been a top 3 PG in this league for the past 3 or 4 seasons.
Carl Landry has been great for the Rockets this year, but he's not at an all-star level yet. If Landry were to be an all-star, who would he replace? Gasol? Randolph? Even Randolph is averaging a 20-10, and while Landry has been efficient, he's not an all-star caliber player yet.
True....BUT, Monta doesn't shoot that many, so hard to do for any single year, but for his career, he is 129-433, for basically 30%. To get that up to 35%, he needed to have made 22 more threes. I'd agree that is easier said than done, and if he could have done it, he should have. BUT, as noted, he just doesn't shoot a lot of three's - it's not his game. I do think with his skill-set, athleticism, etc. he could become a better 3 point shooter, even a mid 30's 3 point shooter. He takes a far number of mid range jumpers, and is a solid shooter overall. As another point, consider Michael Jordan similiarly didn't take a lot of threes, and at a horrible % (under 20% his first 4 years in the league), though did gradually improve, enough so that he actually played a full year and shot 260 threes at 43% one season.
I agree. Well, Monta played continuously from the start of the game and into the fourth quarter. The Rockets were up by 20 when he checked out. After that, the remaining minutes was garbage time for the most part. So the question is how much did Monta really help keep the game close? If he was replaced by merely an average player, are they trailing by 25? 30? I honestly don't know. I think the style the Warriors play is not conducive to winning basketball, and Ellis plays a very large percentage of the meaningful minutes, so maybe all the +/- stuff is unfair to Ellis. Maybe it is a coaching problem. But it still remains that even going by the boxscore, the numbers aren't that impressive relative to other all-star candidates. OK, well, the boxscore doesn't tell you everything either. Fine ... but then what should we go on? His team doesn't win, his boxscore numbers aren't that special, so should he be voted in based on his 1-on-1 skills in the open court? In Monta's defense, I think he is a good 1-on-1 defender. He plays with some very inexperienced players, so he may somtimes look worse than he actually is on defense. Regarding the DRTG stat, it is not quite analogous to ORTG. Both are essentially boxscore statistics, with some team stats mixed in. ORTG is a good reflection of offensive efficiency because offense is pretty well captured by the boxscore. DRTG is based on steals, blocks, fouls, defensive rebounds, and team defense. You make some good points here. Honestly, I did not see Jamal Crawford being a key factor for the Hawks, but he is a leading candidate for 6th man of the year and rightly so. The environment you play in makes a big difference in your quality of play.
