PDA

View Full Version : Question about Kevin Love and Monte Ellis



beardown78
03-05-2011, 07:34 PM
I was just curious to know why Kevin Love gets all this love for putting up good numbers on A crappy in Minnesota, but Monte Ellis for example puts up great numbers on A crappy team as well but garners no allstar recognition and is called one dimentional for his lack of playing defense. Last time I checked Love wasn't A defensive force on the court. I'm not bashing Kevin Love I think he's A great talent just wondering why the different viewpoint of him and Monte Ellis or similar players putting up good numbers on lousy teams.

Doogolas
03-05-2011, 07:36 PM
Cause Love's numbers are historically amazing and Ellis' are merely good.

bovice163
03-05-2011, 07:36 PM
Kevin Loves numbers on a lousy team are much MUCH better than Monta's on a lousy team. The numbers he's putting up are historic, along with his double double streak which is at 48 or 49.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 07:39 PM
Cause Monta isn't efficient and plays no defense.

tredigs
03-05-2011, 07:40 PM
Cause Love's numbers are historically amazing and Ellis' are merely good.

Correct. Also, Monta*'s a black dude from Mississippi while Love's a well spoken white kid that went to UCLA. He's easier to market in that sense. The fact that there's more dominant guards than bigs in the West is another reason (especially when Deron was there).

Also, **** you for calling the Warriors crappy. Crappy as they may be.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 07:40 PM
In the History of the NBA there has never been a player to average 20 points 15 rebounds a game while shooting over 40% from the 3 and 85% from the line. Couple that with the fact that he now holds the modern era record for most consecutive double doubles with 49. That's just a start I can literally go on for this entire thread putting Love's season into history perspective.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 07:41 PM
Cause Monta isn't efficient and plays no defense.

Though I am a big Love defender I would say that even Monta plays more D that love :laugh:

tredigs
03-05-2011, 07:44 PM
Though I am a big Love defender I would say that even Monta plays more D that love :laugh:

WITHOUT question.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 07:44 PM
Cause Monta isn't efficient and plays no defense.

Monta is pretty efficient this year.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 07:47 PM
Monta is pretty efficient this year.

Warriors are better when Monta is off the court.

stats prove it.

Doogolas
03-05-2011, 07:48 PM
Monta is pretty efficient this year.

He started the year super efficiently. But he's been balls since mid December.

tmacsc2
03-05-2011, 07:50 PM
Correct. Also, Monta's a black dude from Mississippi while Love's a well spoken white kid that went to UCLA. He's easier to market in that sense. The fact that there's more dominant guards than bigs in the West is another reason (especially when Deron was there).

Also, **** you for calling the Warriors crappy. Crappy as they may be.

really dude? really? i dont think it matters where they are from or what color they are.

20 and 15 and 2
VS
24 and 3 and 5

i would K love has the upperhand based on Stats not the color of his skin or where he played

HaX
03-05-2011, 07:56 PM
Because Monta shots 100 shots a game.

Public Enemy #1
03-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Warriors have a way better record than the T wolves, Monta has a bigger impact on the game than Love. Love is just stat patting.

Duncan = Donkey
03-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Its cause Love is white, even though both are over rated

HaX
03-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Correct. Also, Monta*'s a black dude from Mississippi while Love's a well spoken white kid that went to UCLA. He's easier to market in that sense. The fact that there's more dominant guards than bigs in the West is another reason (especially when Deron was there).

Also, **** you for calling the Warriors crappy. Crappy as they may be.

Racist.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 07:59 PM
Warriors are better when Monta is off the court.

stats prove it.

Statistics can be deceiving. The only time Monta comes off the court is in a blowout. Monta is usually the only starter that comes out. Curry, Wright, and Lee of course will boost their +/- playing the Brian Scalabrines of the NBA.

Monta is top 50 in PER this year

Nothing screams out Inefficient.

CityofChaos
03-05-2011, 08:04 PM
Warriors are better when Monta is off the court.

stats prove it.

LOL I call ********. People that criticize Monta's defense are the same people that love Stephen Curry. The Warriors ARENT better without him on the floor. Id understand if you made the case for them being bad with BOTH him and Curry on the floor. He's the reason why the Warriors got back into the game against the C's and why theyve won most of their games with his scoring.

Without Monta, the Warriors would be worse than they already are which says ALOT about the teams bench depth and soft frontcourt and backcourt.

If anything, people need to criticize Curry's game more. He gets so much praise and yet hes the biggest liability on defense. He has trouble with almost EVERY point guard in the league. At least Monta can guard guys like Durant, Kobe, and Roy--which he has done a good job at doing in the past.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:05 PM
Warriors have a way better record than the T wolves, Monta has a bigger impact on the game than Love. Love is just stat patting.

lol it is the otherway.

Love is 5th in win shares while Monta is somewhere around 75th.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:07 PM
Statistics can be deceiving. The only time Monta comes off the court is in a blowout. Monta is usually the only starter that comes out. Curry, Wright, and Lee of course will boost their +/- playing the Brian Scalabrines of the NBA.

Monta is top 50 in PER this year

Nothing screams out Inefficient.

PER is useless, it favours players who score a lot.

Win shares are much better way to evaluate a player.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:09 PM
LOL I call ********. People that criticize Monta's defense are the same people that love Stephen Curry. The Warriors ARENT better without him on the floor. He's the reason why the Warriors got back into the game against the C's and why theyve won most of their games with his scoring.

Without Monta, the Warriors would be worse than they already are which says ALOT about the teams bench depth and soft frontcourt and backcourt.

If anything, people need to criticize Curry's game more. He gets so much praise and yet hes the biggest liability on defense. He has trouble with almost EVERY point guard in the league. At least Monta can guard guys like Durant, Kobe, and Roy--which he has done a good job at doing in the past.

Check yourself
http://www.82games.com/1011/1011GSW.HTM

Monta -5.4
Curry +4.3

Allstar21
03-05-2011, 08:13 PM
monta is black and has a bunch of tattoos
love is white

its as simple as that

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:15 PM
LOL I call ********. People that criticize Monta's defense are the same people that love Stephen Curry. The Warriors ARENT better without him on the floor. Id understand if you made the case for them being bad with BOTH him and Curry on the floor. He's the reason why the Warriors got back into the game against the C's and why theyve won most of their games with his scoring.

Without Monta, the Warriors would be worse than they already are which says ALOT about the teams bench depth and soft frontcourt and backcourt.

If anything, people need to criticize Curry's game more. He gets so much praise and yet hes the biggest liability on defense. He has trouble with almost EVERY point guard in the league. At least Monta can guard guys like Durant, Kobe, and Roy--which he has done a good job at doing in the past.

Are you joking or serious:confused:

LakersA's49ers
03-05-2011, 08:16 PM
Ellis had 41 against Boston. they only lost by 4, not too shabby! lol stop hatin just to hate

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 08:16 PM
Check yourself
http://www.82games.com/1011/1011GSW.HTM

Monta -5.4
Curry +4.3

When people are misinformed they say dumb stuff. Good thing there are guys who can state facts and put them in their place. I bet he'd come up with some absurd reasoning as to why he doesn't believe the stats.

GeekInThePink
03-05-2011, 08:19 PM
What's with all the racism in this thread?

The BodyGuard
03-05-2011, 08:19 PM
They're both very good, Just on bad teams

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:19 PM
Ellis had 41 against Boston. they only lost by 4, not too shabby! lol stop hatin just to hate

so...one good game after 10 bad ones.

Doogolas
03-05-2011, 08:20 PM
Why is it every time a white dude is doing well the excuse for him being talked up is "Oh it's just cause he's white." This is the NBA and 2011. Sometimes a white dude is just doing really ****ing good.

AddiX
03-05-2011, 08:21 PM
Its cause Love is white, even though both are over rated

I agree with this on both ends.

America loves a white boy who can ball almost as much as it loves eminem.

topdog
03-05-2011, 08:23 PM
I don't see Monta averaging an amazing number of anything. Love puts up points and ridiculous amounts of rebounds.

WSU Tony
03-05-2011, 08:25 PM
I was just curious to know why Kevin Love gets all this love for putting up good numbers on A crappy in Minnesota, but Monte Ellis for example puts up great numbers on A crappy team as well but garners no allstar recognition and is called one dimentional for his lack of playing defense. Last time I checked Love wasn't A defensive force on the court. I'm not bashing Kevin Love I think he's A great talent just wondering why the different viewpoint of him and Monte Ellis or similar players putting up good numbers on lousy teams.

I guess you didn't get the gratification for Ellis you were hoping for lol. Loves numbers are historic. Their are always bad teams in the NBA but nobody in history has played like love.

Your argument ofgood numbers because of a crappy team is based on the assumption that the player is highly used. Love is efficient, Ellis historically is a chucker.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 08:25 PM
I agree with this on both ends.

America loves a white boy who can ball almost as much as it loves eminem.

I am Black and not American but I can easily say Love is a better player than Monta because it is indeed a FACT.

Race holds no bearing in my decision.

beardown78
03-05-2011, 08:25 PM
So basically Kevin Love's historic year hes having statistically is only good for 15 wins to this point? Top the bottom the Wolves and Warriors have similar rosters but Ellis can lead his team to 12 more wins to this point.

topdog
03-05-2011, 08:25 PM
monta is black and has a bunch of tattoos
love is white

its as simple as that

Yeah 'cuz we all know the NBA's most popular players and big money makers are unathletic white guys :rolleyes:

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:25 PM
PER is useless, it favours players who score a lot.

Win shares are much better way to evaluate a player.

You called Monta inefficient, I said you were incorrect and used PER to prove my point which PER is supposed to prove.

Win Shares is a totally different statistic.

championships
03-05-2011, 08:26 PM
You guys who say it's a race thing are just ********!! How can you say crap like that when the league is dominated by black guys with tattoos who get all the love in the world.

beardown78
03-05-2011, 08:29 PM
I guess you didn't get the gratification for Ellis you were hoping for lol. Loves numbers are historic. Their are always bad teams in the NBA but nobody in history has played like love.

Your argument ofgood numbers because of a crappy team is based on the assumption that the player is highly used. Love is efficient, Ellis historically is a chucker.

Actually I could care less for Ellis to be honest just wondering why Kevin Love gets all this love with a similar roster talentwise of the Warriors but with this historic statistical year only manage 15 wins so far

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:29 PM
You called Monta inefficient, I said you were incorrect and used PER to prove my point which PER is supposed to prove.

Win Shares is a totally different statistic.

It is a totally different statistic but really good also.

The leading players (CP3, LeBron, Pau, Kobe, Dwight etc) on win shares are known to us as "winning players".

Don't see Monta in anywhere near those guys.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:30 PM
Love can have all the glory for the historic stats as long as he knows that he is also on a historically bad team.

KeepMonta#8
03-05-2011, 08:32 PM
so...one good game after 10 bad ones.

Monta hater!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to the max

beardown78
03-05-2011, 08:32 PM
Loves great year hes having has zero effect on winning. Kinda the same thing people were saying about David Lee last year

tredigs
03-05-2011, 08:33 PM
You guys who say it's a race thing are just ********!! How can you say crap like that when the league is dominated by black guys with tattoos who get all the love in the world.

Calm down children, I'm far from racist (I'm a white guy anyway, so it makes zero sense to claim that). As I already stated, it's one a few factors that make K. Love a more enticing All-Star selection.

If you're too blind to understand that the league will seek to promote a well spoken intelligent white guy over a tatted up black kid from Tennessee, then you simply don't understand marketing. The league has an abundance of black dudes who can ball, and very few white dudes that can ball.

That said - ONCE AGAIN, it's far from all about the race/demeanor of the two (love how the second fact of that point was completely overlooked by the "racist!%#!$" posters), the dude's flat out having a historic statistical season.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:33 PM
Actually I could care less for Ellis to be honest just wondering why Kevin Love gets all this love with a similar roster talentwise of the Warriors but with this historic statistical year only manage 15 wins so far

Love's supporting cast is much much worse than Monta's.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:33 PM
It is a totally different statistic but really good also.

The leading players (CP3, LeBron, Pau, Kobe, Dwight etc) on win shares are known to us as "winning players".

Don't see Monta in anywhere near those guys.

It's quite obvious individual win shares will be boosted because of teams with winning records. Those players mentioned are superstars and also have a great surrounding cast with a good bench. Why should Monta Ellis be penalized because of the team surrounding him? Is it his fault Biedrins sucks and the FO can't make a decent trade to upgrade the bench? That is why win shares should not be used to judge a player's efficiency.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:34 PM
Love's supporting cast is much much worse than Monta's.

At most, it is only slightly less and having a ******** coach in Keith Smart will have offset that difference.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:35 PM
It's quite obvious individual win shares will be boosted because of teams with winning records. Those players mentioned are superstars and also have a great surrounding cast with a good bench. Why should Monta Ellis be penalized because of the team surrounding him? Is it his fault Biedrins sucks and the FO can't make a decent trade to upgrade the bench? That is why win shares should not be used to judge a player's efficiency.

no not at all.

They are not based on teams records.

topdog
03-05-2011, 08:35 PM
Actually I could care less for Ellis to be honest just wondering why Kevin Love gets all this love with a similar roster talentwise of the Warriors but with this historic statistical year only manage 15 wins so far

Wolves have the youngest roster in the league for one thing with almost an entirely new roster.

Another thing is Love's points are the secondary point. It's "and he's averaging 20pts."

Rebounds are an "unselfish" stat. No one is averaging more this year, nor has been so consistently good at it in over a decade.

The league is filled with scorers and that's almost exclusively what Monta does.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 08:35 PM
You guys who say it's a race thing are just ********!! How can you say crap like that when the league is dominated by black guys with tattoos who get all the love in the world.

It's actually very logical in all honesty. That however is NOT the reasoning.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 08:36 PM
It's quite obvious individual win shares will be boosted because of teams with winning records. Those players mentioned are superstars and also have a great surrounding cast with a good bench. Why should Monta Ellis be penalized because of the team surrounding him? Is it his fault Biedrins sucks and the FO can't make a decent trade to upgrade the bench? That is why win shares should not be used to judge a player's efficiency.

Winning has nothing to do with it. You should take a read before criticizing.

WSU Tony
03-05-2011, 08:36 PM
Why do people never respond to my posts supporting love? Is it because nobody has an argument to shut me down? Lol.

When an argument can be put up about a player being efficient, being on a bad team has nothingto do with the argument. The premise of a player being on a bad team relies on the assumption that that player is used more often in the offense. It is assumed that the player takes more shots to put up big numbers.

Love on a nightly basis will shoot the ball 12 times and score 20 points.
Love shoots 45% from three point land. If he is on such a bad team, why Solent the other team cover him closer?

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:37 PM
no not at all.

They are not based on teams records.

Yes it is...wow. Can't believe you said that.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:40 PM
Yes it is...wow. Can't believe you said that.

read the win shares formula

it has nothing to do with team winning record

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 08:41 PM
Why do people never respond to my posts supporting love? Is it because nobody has an argument to shut me down? Lol.

When an argument can be put up about a player being efficient, being on a bad team has nothingto do with the argument. The premise of a player being on a bad team relies on the assumption that that player is used more often in the offense. It is assumed that the player takes more shots to put up big numbers.

Love on a nightly basis will shoot the ball 12 times and score 20 points.
Love shoots 45% from three point land. If he is on such a bad team, why Solent the other team cover him closer?

Lol I get that allllll the time.

If someone does respond its along the lines of his team is awful etc etc but with no logic behind it.

WSU Tony
03-05-2011, 08:42 PM
Yes it is...wow. Can't believe you said that.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

You take Ellis over love?

wesbeasflynn
03-05-2011, 08:45 PM
Calm down children, I'm far from racist (I'm a white guy anyway, so it makes zero sense to claim that). As I already stated, it's one a few factors that make K. Love a more enticing All-Star selection.

If you're too blind to understand that the league will seek to promote a well spoken intelligent white guy over a tatted up black kid from Tennessee, then you simply don't understand marketing. The league has an abundance of black dudes who can ball, and very few white dudes that can ball.

That said - ONCE AGAIN, it's far from all about the race/demeanor of the two (love how the second fact of that point was completely overlooked by the "racist!%#!$" posters), the dude's flat out having a historic statistical season.

I hear what tredigs is saying!Take tiger woods if he were white it would be no big deal it would just be another white guy dominating golf but since tiger is not white it makes him much more marketable because it is something different.Im not saying love is the only white guy that is any good but he is the best American born white player in a long long time therefor it makes him more marketable!

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:45 PM
Winning has nothing to do with it. You should take a read before criticizing.

Actually it does have a major impact on it. I'm not saying a bench player on a winning team will have a higher WS just because he's on the team, but I'm saying the starters or major contributors on winning teams generally do have a higher WS.

Team win shares should add up to the number of wins the team has. So a player on a winning team generally should have more because of the higher win total.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:46 PM
At most, it is only slightly less and having a ******** coach in Keith Smart will have offset that difference.

Wolves starting 5

Ridnour .101
Johnson .036
Beasley .042
Love
Milicic .004

Warriors starting 5

Curry .132
Monta
Wright .080
Lee .093
Biedrins .085

stat I used is WS/48 minutes

No doubt that Monta has a better team.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:46 PM
You take Ellis over love?

No, but would you read before posting?

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:46 PM
Monta hater!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to the max

classy response:eyebrow:

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:48 PM
read the win shares formula

it has nothing to do with team winning record

I read it and it calculates a lot of team totals and statistics, so its obvious the players on a good team (one with a winning record) will generally have higher win shares.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Wolves starting 5

Ridnour .101
Johnson .036
Beasley .042
Love
Milicic .004

Warriors starting 5

Curry .132
Monta
Wright .080
Lee .093
Biedrins .085

stat I used is WS/48 minutes

No doubt that Monta has a better team.

I like how you just leave out the bench.

Doogolas
03-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Also, as far as "well-spoken white guy vs tatted up black guy from Tennessee" I'm pretty sure the more important factor is the well-spoken part. Those are the people that get promoted out the ***. It has very little to do with race.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Actually it does have a major impact on it. I'm not saying a bench player on a winning team will have a higher WS just because he's on the team, but I'm saying the starters or major contributors on winning teams generally do have a higher WS.

Team win shares should add up to the number of wins the team has. So a player on a winning team generally should have more because of the higher win total.

no again.

When kobe was on 40+ win Lakers he still had win shares over .200 per 48 minutes

Look at Love's win shares per 48 .219

while monta's is .088

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 08:50 PM
Actually it does have a major impact on it. I'm not saying a bench player on a winning team will have a higher WS just because he's on the team, but I'm saying the starters or major contributors on winning teams generally do have a higher WS.

Team win shares should add up to the number of wins the team has. So a player on a winning team generally should have more because of the higher win total.

Dude. Hear what read again and understand the formula and then come back to us and discuss ok.

WSU Tony
03-05-2011, 08:51 PM
No, but would you read before posting?



Wild you think for yourself? Your argument is based on things you've heard and simply spitting them back out when you think it is appropriate. Lol

wesbeasflynn
03-05-2011, 08:55 PM
do u think p.jackson , g.popivich and j.sloan care what a win share is or a per?just wondering

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Wild you think for yourself? Your argument is based on things you've heard and simply spitting them back out when you think it is appropriate. Lol

What? Me and Kobe were debating whether Monta was efficient or not. I said Love was putting up historic numbers on a terrible team. I don't have to read anyone's opinion to come to that conclusion. Don't come and criticize me when you haven't read the dialogue between me and Kobe.

How am i spitting out things I already heard? I said I accepted win shares as a good statistic, but I am just arguing MY OPINION on how using it could be flawed. I may be right, I may be wrong, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons why we could questions stats.

Are you just mad I'm in the minority that is trying to downplay the importance of Kevin Love's accomplishments?

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 09:00 PM
Quick Question. Who is better Player A or Player B?


Rk Player Season Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Player A 2010-11 25 61 61 40.8 9.4 20.6 .455 1.6 4.5 .347 4.6 6.0 .775 0.6 2.8 3.4 5.4 2.2 0.2 3.3 2.7 24.9
2 Player B 2010-11 22 63 63 36.6 6.8 14.4 .471 1.3 3.0 .424 6.0 7.0 .863 4.6 11.0 15.7 2.5 0.6 0.4 2.1 2.1 20.9

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 09:01 PM
Dude. Hear what read again and understand the formula and then come back to us and discuss ok.

Look, I understand that the statistic is what it is, but I'm just trying to argument my opinion that is is flawed. All statistics are flawed in a way. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this.

WSU Tony
03-05-2011, 09:02 PM
I like how you just leave out the bench.

Adding the bench statistics would only further his point and make you look more foolish

wesbeasflynn
03-05-2011, 09:02 PM
Quick Question. Who is better Player A or Player B?


Rk Player Season Age G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
1 Player A 2010-11 25 61 61 40.8 9.4 20.6 .455 1.6 4.5 .347 4.6 6.0 .775 0.6 2.8 3.4 5.4 2.2 0.2 3.3 2.7 24.9
2 Player B 2010-11 22 63 63 36.6 6.8 14.4 .471 1.3 3.0 .424 6.0 7.0 .863 4.6 11.0 15.7 2.5 0.6 0.4 2.1 2.1 20.9

Don't u have to watch player b and player a play b4 u say that. stats never tell the whole story.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 09:04 PM
Look, I understand that the statistic is what it is, but I'm just trying to argument my opinion that is is flawed. All statistics are flawed in a way. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this.

I FULLY agree. I am just saying that your logic while it does make sense in its essence isn't 100% correct. It does make sense I am not bashing you but the formula doesn't take winning into consideration.

WSU Tony
03-05-2011, 09:05 PM
Look, I understand that the statistic is what it is, but I'm just trying to argument my opinion that is is flawed. All statistics are flawed in a way. I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this.

Stats are over rated when they don't back your opinions!

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 09:08 PM
Stat's aren't overrated, but they should not be the only deciding factor when making an opinion about a player.

BkOriginalOne
03-05-2011, 09:09 PM
Because Klove is paving a way to the Hall of Fame, and Monta is searching for his first all star nod.
And about klove's defense, when you rebound like he does, it makes up for some of the on ball D on the perimeter.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 09:12 PM
Don't u have to watch player b and player a play b4 u say that. stats never tell the whole story.

Sigh

Dude do you expect me to do then?

Bring a youtube highlight reel of each player?

C'mon I am using a basis for the debate. Stats hold a ton of merit in a discussion such as this.

What you look at when watching a basketball game is biased. Stats are not.

I am all for watching games more than relying on stats don't get me wrong but without the evidence of the stats you are more or less left with individual perception and opinion.

Jewelz0376
03-05-2011, 09:12 PM
Because Klove is paving a way to the Hall of Fame, and Monta is searching for his first all star nod.
And about klove's defense, when you rebound like he does, it makes up for some of the on ball D on the perimeter.

Not really

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 09:15 PM
Stat's aren't overrated, but they should not be the only deciding factor when making an opinion about a player.

:nod:

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 09:16 PM
Not really

Wow we actually agree on something pertaining to Love.

sf-fanatic
03-05-2011, 09:17 PM
Because Klove is paving a way to the Hall of Fame, and Monta is searching for his first all star nod.
And about klove's defense, when you rebound like he does, it makes up for some of the on ball D on the perimeter.

lolwut

So Love's rebounding will directly prevent the opposing team to score from the perimeter ? :confused:

wesbeasflynn
03-05-2011, 09:41 PM
Sigh

Dude do you expect me to do then?

Bring a youtube highlight reel of each player?

C'mon I am using a basis for the debate. Stats hold a ton of merit in a discussion such as this.

What you look at when watching a basketball game is biased. Stats are not.

I am all for watching games more than relying on stats don't get me wrong but without the evidence of the stats you are more or less left with individual perception and opinion.

all im saying is u cant say who the better player is simply by looking at a stat sheet you must see both of them play b4 you say one is better than the other.If you go by stats only love woudl be the best power forward or maybe even the best player in the nba and i dont think any of us are saying that.By the way I love me some Love.Oh yeah im not really a you tube guy i watch the GAMES.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 09:49 PM
all im saying is u cant say who the better player is simply by looking at a stat sheet you must see both of them play b4 you say one is better than the other.If you go by stats only love woudl be the best power forward or maybe even the best player in the nba and i dont think any of us are saying that.By the way I love me some Love.

You obviously don't understand stats or how to interpret them, which is why you would say something like this.

If I tell you IMO David Lee is better than Kevin Love because I watch David Lee play all the time and he's on my favourite team, would you try to sway my thinking by stating or opinion or giving me facts (which 90% of the time comes in stats) to bolster you case?

wesbeasflynn
03-05-2011, 09:59 PM
You obviously don't understand stats or how to interpret them, which is why you would say something like this.

If I tell you IMO David Lee is better than Kevin Love because I watch David Lee play all the time and he's on my favourite team, would you try to sway my thinking by stating or opinion or giving me facts (which 90% of the time comes in stats) to bolster you case?

What if neither player played for your favorite team!By the way I understand the stats I've forgotten more basketball than you've ever known.

I was responding to a guy that put a stat sheet up and said who is the better player!I simply said I need to see both players play b4 I come to a conclusion!If you can just evaluate a player by a stat sheet then why do teams work guys out and watch tape after tape on these guys b4 they draft them!I think we are arguing 2 different points.All i'm saying is I have to see the players play b4 I can say witch one is better if you can evaluate them with out seeing them play and just looking at a stat sheet than more power to you. Again Because the post just showed a stat sheet and said wich player is better and I simply said I need to see them both play first.

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 10:09 PM
What if neither player played for your favorite team!By the way I understand the stats I've forgotten more basketball than you've ever known.

I was responding to a guy that put a stat sheet up and said who is the other player!I simply said I need to see both players play b4 I come to a conclusion!If you can just evaluate a player by a stat sheet then why do teams work guys out and watch tape after tape on these guys b4 they draft them!I think we are arguing 2 different points.All i'm saying is I have to see the players play b4 I can say witch one is better if you can evaluate them with out seeing them play and just looking at a stat sheet than more power to you. Again Because the post just showed a stat sheet and said wich player is better and I simply said I need to see them both play first.

Ok

I rest my case with you because I realize that there is no reasoning. You obviously don't understand what debates on these boards mean.

Public Enemy #1
03-05-2011, 10:20 PM
Are you joking or serious:confused:

See, you can't have it both ways with your stats and analysis.... Go look back at the box scores and highlights and see what Ellis did vs Durant/Roy/Johnson on defense. Obviously you have a very subjective baseless opinion... Of course its kind of obvious when your a laker fan... :laugh:

Swashcuff
03-05-2011, 10:26 PM
See, you can't have it both ways with your stats and analysis.... Go look back at the box scores and highlights and see what Ellis did vs Durant/Roy/Johnson on defense. Obviously you have a very subjective baseless opinion... Of course its kind of obvious when your a laker fan... :laugh:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=ellismo01&p2=duranke01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=roybr01&p2=ellismo01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=bryanko01&p2=ellismo01

They all average better than their career averages against Monta.

Kobe absolutely renders him useless.

I am a Philly fan.

Edit: I just realised you said Johnson as well.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=johnsjo02&p2=ellismo01

Joe Johnson is what we call the resident "Ellis Stopper". Oh and he too averages more than his career average against Monta.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

cwilson21
03-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Love just became the first player since the '91-92 season to record 3 straight 20-20 games.

boeknows
03-06-2011, 12:32 AM
Calm down children, I'm far from racist (I'm a white guy anyway, so it makes zero sense to claim that). As I already stated, it's one a few factors that make K. Love a more enticing All-Star selection.

If you're too blind to understand that the league will seek to promote a well spoken intelligent white guy over a tatted up black kid from Tennessee, then you simply don't understand marketing. The league has an abundance of black dudes who can ball, and very few white dudes that can ball.

That said - ONCE AGAIN, it's far from all about the race/demeanor of the two (love how the second fact of that point was completely overlooked by the "racist!%#!$" posters), the dude's flat out having a historic statistical season.

Yep thats why they had the Brian Scalabrine decision on espn rather than the Lebron James decision.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-06-2011, 05:44 AM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=ellismo01&p2=duranke01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=roybr01&p2=ellismo01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=bryanko01&p2=ellismo01

They all average better than their career averages against Monta.

Kobe absolutely renders him useless.

I am a Philly fan.

Edit: I just realised you said Johnson as well.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=johnsjo02&p2=ellismo01

Joe Johnson is what we call the resident "Ellis Stopper". Oh and he too averages more than his career average against Monta.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

thanks, exactly my thoughts