Monta Ellis

[James Kay]

I think without Carlisle Ellis is reverting back to his old ways, and worse.

Averaging like 12 points 4.5 assists on 42%. His steals are solid at 1.8 but I don't think the rest of his contributions are worth an 84 anymore.

Current: 84

Suggested: 81

[Walt Frazier]

Kind of want to wait longer but I would go lower now if I had to vote. 81.5

[Bryan Colangelo]

80

[Deleted]

he's always been pretty shitty

78

[Kevin Hollis]

81

[Brian Scalabrine]

79 plays no d offense isn't as good as it was

[Allen Iverson]

Yeah. Shitty. Always been. Not all players are Kawhi or Jimmy Butler. Some just play modest defense and yet being criticized for it.

He has helped the Mavs win 99 games in 2 seasons. The go-to-guy, the leading scorer, the pick and roll/pop ball handler.

Now that he's been playing hurt, on a new team and new system, he'll be getting all these votes? This thread just doesnt make sense. Are we guys playing 2k here? When's the next update?

Try reading this: www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2015/12/16/monta-ellis-faces-old-team-returns-former-self/77303948/

[Brian Scalabrine]

Dec 22, 2015 3:01:03 GMT Allen Iverson said:

Yeah. Shitty. Always been. Not all players are Kawhi or Jimmy Butler. Some just play modest defense and yet being criticized for it.

He has helped the Mavs win 99 games in 2 seasons. The go-to-guy, the leading scorer, the pick and roll/pop ball handler.

Now that he's been playing hurt, on a new team and new system, he'll be getting all these votes? This thread just doesnt make sense. Are we guys playing 2k here? When's the next update?

Try reading this: www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2015/12/16/monta-ellis-faces-old-team-returns-former-self/77303948/

You can argue his offense is still good but it's obvious he sucks on d. He isn't average or even below average. He's small for a sg, doesn't give a shit a lot of the time and is older now. He's always been a horrid defender but he's just worse now.

[Jeremiah Hill]

I think Allen is right, we should give it a bit more time. It wasn't really that long ago he was playing really well for Dallas. Believe it or not he's actually playing better on defense than offense right now. And lets not forget he's playing in a Pacer's offense that I would politely call anemic. Lets see how his offense goes into the all-star break and then make a decision.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Dec 22, 2015 3:01:03 GMT Allen Iverson said:

Yeah. Shitty. Always been. Not all players are Kawhi or Jimmy Butler. Some just play modest defense and yet being criticized for it.

He has helped the Mavs win 99 games in 2 seasons. The go-to-guy, the leading scorer, the pick and roll/pop ball handler.

Now that he's been playing hurt, on a new team and new system, he'll be getting all these votes? This thread just doesnt make sense. Are we guys playing 2k here? When's the next update?

Try reading this: www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2015/12/16/monta-ellis-faces-old-team-returns-former-self/77303948/

Allen is pointing into the thing that I have been saying for a while now. ALMOST ALL OF YOU ARE PUTTING VALUES ON THEIR CURRENT PERFORMANCE INSTEAD EVALUATING SKILLS. 

So, Monta's numbers are down now. What if PG goes down with an injury and they let Monta be the focus and he plays great again, putting better numbers compared to his Dallas days, we will be putting him back again on his same rating.

So, twice the work for the RCs and his team suffered.

If nobody wants to listen to this  , how about just put it on the stockwatch rule itself. "Rate the Current Performance of the Player." 

[James Kay]

Dec 22, 2015 14:24:31 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Dec 22, 2015 3:01:03 GMT Allen Iverson said:

Yeah. Shitty. Always been. Not all players are Kawhi or Jimmy Butler. Some just play modest defense and yet being criticized for it.

He has helped the Mavs win 99 games in 2 seasons. The go-to-guy, the leading scorer, the pick and roll/pop ball handler.

Now that he's been playing hurt, on a new team and new system, he'll be getting all these votes? This thread just doesnt make sense. Are we guys playing 2k here? When's the next update?

Try reading this: www.indystar.com/story/sports/nba/pacers/2015/12/16/monta-ellis-faces-old-team-returns-former-self/77303948/

Allen is pointing into the thing that I have been saying for a while now. ALMOST ALL OF YOU ARE PUTTING VALUES ON THEIR CURRENT PERFORMANCE INSTEAD EVALUATING SKILLS. 

So, Monta's numbers are down now. What if PG goes down with an injury and they let Monta be the focus and he plays great again, putting better numbers compared to his Dallas days, we will be putting him back again on his same rating.

So, twice the work for the RCs and his team suffered.

If nobody wants to listen to this  , how about just put it on the stockwatch rule itself. "Rate the Current Performance of the Player." 

Hanamichi


I agree with what you’re saying, for the most part. BUT, a few things.

A player’s skills are not constant. People have up years and down years or even multiple up and down years - and they need to be reflected as such in their ratings. To that end, we can use a player’s current performance as a reflection of their abilities. That and the eye-test are really the only tools we have.

This is somewhat problematic, because a player’s current performance is largely influenced by their teammates, coach, organization, offensive and defensive schemes, injuries, etc. So it becomes hard to try and rate a player’s “objective abilities.” But as I said before, their current performance is really all we have to work with. So, I think when people offer ratings, or at least most people as I can not speak for everyone, they are factoring in that player’s “resume,” or what they have proven in the past.

In this case, at least, I think Monta’s current performance is even below what he is going to be lowered to. I think his current performance deserves a rating below 80. But he has proven that he can be an effective player in the past, given the right situation, so I voted 81. There has to be a middle ground. When a player plays poorly, their rating should reflect that. It should also account for their past performance and take their performance into context, which is why I’m not voting for an even lower rating.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Dec 22, 2015 14:58:18 GMT James Kay said:

Dec 22, 2015 14:24:31 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Allen is pointing into the thing that I have been saying for a while now. ALMOST ALL OF YOU ARE PUTTING VALUES ON THEIR CURRENT PERFORMANCE INSTEAD EVALUATING SKILLS. 

So, Monta's numbers are down now. What if PG goes down with an injury and they let Monta be the focus and he plays great again, putting better numbers compared to his Dallas days, we will be putting him back again on his same rating.

So, twice the work for the RCs and his team suffered.

If nobody wants to listen to this  , how about just put it on the stockwatch rule itself. "Rate the Current Performance of the Player." 

Hanamichi


I agree with what you’re saying, for the most part. BUT, a few things.

A player’s skills are not constant. People have up years and down years or even multiple up and down years - and they need to be reflected as such in their ratings. To that end, we can use a player’s current performance as a reflection of their abilities. That and the eye-test are really the only tools we have.

This is somewhat problematic, because a player’s current performance is largely influenced by their teammates, coach, organization, offensive and defensive schemes, injuries, etc. So it becomes hard to try and rate a player’s “objective abilities.” But as I said before, their current performance is really all we have to work with. So, I think when people offer ratings, or at least most people as I can not speak for everyone, they are factoring in that player’s “resume,” or what they have proven in the past.

In this case, at least, I think Monta’s current performance is even below what he is going to be lowered to. I think his current performance deserves a rating below 80. But he has proven that he can be an effective player in the past, given the right situation, so I voted 81. There has to be a middle ground. When a player plays poorly, their rating should reflect that. It should also account for their past performance and take their performance into context, which is why I’m not voting for an even lower rating.

That is actually our problem. But, with the current information about stockwatch, I still believe that it should only be a plain evaluation of skills. 

It is like this, Monta Ellis is playing bad. So what? Does that mean that his skills has regressed? AI has brought out injury issues. Did anybody take notice of that? I doubt it. Because a lot of us just look at the numbers and then boom, that should be his rating.

and if in few weeks, his numbers improve, nobody will not even bother to get back in his thread and improve his vote. Or worst, his rating is already updated so he needs another thread or the worst, his team will suffer because he has a rating that do not really reflect his skills.

The players are not robot who will put numbers that will reflect their true skills. 

I will not have any problem if we just put it on any formal thing or way that stockwatch should weigh the current performance of the player heavier. Even though I am not for it, at least it is an official thing. 

[James Kay]

Dec 22, 2015 15:13:22 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Dec 22, 2015 14:58:18 GMT James Kay said:

Hanamichi


I agree with what you’re saying, for the most part. BUT, a few things.

A player’s skills are not constant. People have up years and down years or even multiple up and down years - and they need to be reflected as such in their ratings. To that end, we can use a player’s current performance as a reflection of their abilities. That and the eye-test are really the only tools we have.

This is somewhat problematic, because a player’s current performance is largely influenced by their teammates, coach, organization, offensive and defensive schemes, injuries, etc. So it becomes hard to try and rate a player’s “objective abilities.” But as I said before, their current performance is really all we have to work with. So, I think when people offer ratings, or at least most people as I can not speak for everyone, they are factoring in that player’s “resume,” or what they have proven in the past.

In this case, at least, I think Monta’s current performance is even below what he is going to be lowered to. I think his current performance deserves a rating below 80. But he has proven that he can be an effective player in the past, given the right situation, so I voted 81. There has to be a middle ground. When a player plays poorly, their rating should reflect that. It should also account for their past performance and take their performance into context, which is why I’m not voting for an even lower rating.

That is actually our problem. But, with the current information about stockwatch, I still believe that it should only be a plain evaluation of skills. 

It is like this, Monta Ellis is playing bad. So what? Does that mean that his skills has regressed? AI has brought out injury issues. Did anybody take notice of that? I doubt it. Because a lot of us just look at the numbers and then boom, that should be his rating.

and if in few weeks, his numbers improve, nobody will not even bother to get back in his thread and improve his vote. Or worst, his rating is already updated so he needs another thread or the worst, his team will suffer because he has a rating that do not really reflect his skills.

The players are not robot who will put numbers that will reflect their true skills. 

I will not have any problem if we just put it on any formal thing or way that stockwatch should weigh the current performance of the player heavier. Even though I am not for it, at least it is an official thing. 

It’s like you ignored everything I said. Why should Monta stay at an 84 when he’s playing like a 77?! He’s now 30 years old, and no longer has Carslise to bring out the absolute best in him.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Dec 22, 2015 15:30:52 GMT James Kay said:

Dec 22, 2015 15:13:22 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

That is actually our problem. But, with the current information about stockwatch, I still believe that it should only be a plain evaluation of skills. 

It is like this, Monta Ellis is playing bad. So what? Does that mean that his skills has regressed? AI has brought out injury issues. Did anybody take notice of that? I doubt it. Because a lot of us just look at the numbers and then boom, that should be his rating.

and if in few weeks, his numbers improve, nobody will not even bother to get back in his thread and improve his vote. Or worst, his rating is already updated so he needs another thread or the worst, his team will suffer because he has a rating that do not really reflect his skills.

The players are not robot who will put numbers that will reflect their true skills. 

I will not have any problem if we just put it on any formal thing or way that stockwatch should weigh the current performance of the player heavier. Even though I am not for it, at least it is an official thing. 

It’s like you ignored everything I said. Why should Monta stay at an 84 when he’s playing like a 77?! He’s now 30 years old, and no longer has Carslise to bring out the absolute best in him.

Not that I ignore it James. I am talking in general and just putting Monta as an example. 

[Walt Frazier]

Hanamichi - As much as it would be great, we can not all be expected to watch every player play every game, every season of their career. If you can, great! Convince us of what you've seen in their skills, bring that to the table in the Rating Discussion. I know I read every post that comes through here, so if someone makes a strong case that a player is just not fitting in a system, or is partially injured, or whatever it may be, that WILL influence my rating decision.

But, you can't expect everyone to have watched the player enough to "know" their skill level. It's quick and easy to look at stats, and at least we can supplement that with some advanced stats to back it up or shed more light onto their performance.

In the end, "we are what our record says we are" so if someone is putting up shitty numbers, their rating should make them play like a player putting up shitty numbers.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Dec 22, 2015 15:59:31 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Hanamichi - As much as it would be great, we can not all be expected to watch every player play every game, every season of their career. If you can, great! Convince us of what you've seen in their skills, bring that to the table in the Rating Discussion. I know I read every post that comes through here, so if someone makes a strong case that a player is just not fitting in a system, or is partially injured, or whatever it may be, that WILL influence my rating decision.

But, you can't expect everyone to have watched the player enough to "know" their skill level. It's quick and easy to look at stats, and at least we can supplement that with some advanced stats to back it up or shed more light onto their performance.

In the end, "we are what our record says we are" so if someone is putting up shitty numbers, their rating should make them play like a player putting up shitty numbers.

I fully understand that Walt. I am just kinda trying to shed some light to this issue because I really see it as a big one. The negative effects of it on the RCs and the teams are huge. 

I think adding more restrictions could help. I am not that sure though.

[Deleted]

Bruh, you can't say his skills are the same with any more evidence than that they have decreased, of which there is plenty of evidence.

OH HIS SKILLS ARE THE SAME? Prove it.

Because we have plenty of stuff to prove that they aren't.