Is KAT an empty stats player?

[Barnzy]

It depends what you define as empty stats. Some would define it as a guy who chases numbers over wins. I don't think that is KAT. He wants to win.

Some would define it as a guy so flawed on defense that his offensive numbers are empty because he gives up as much as he scores. That is KAT. His defense is bad. That is a no go as a big man in the NBA and it is why his impact hasn't been what it should be.

The Wolves should've taken Wiseman and moved to KAT to the 4. But they **** up again.

[abark]

So it’s Monta’s fault that duo never did anything together even though Curry was the lottery pick/franchise guy and Monta was a 2nd rounder? Curry obviously grew into a better player, but let’s not revise history and pretend like their numbers were drastically different in the years they were playing together. Monta was 20PPG on 46% in GS. For every one guy that can do that there’s about a dozen who can’t do half that and not much anything else. I feel like there’s plenty of players to call career losers before Monta Ellis. Or are we just looking for a scapegoat for Curry’s early career team disappointments?

No, its Monta's fault that he was a ball-stopping, inefficient chucker and no one else's. Again, citing draft status means nothing.

And you are basically proving why watching games is important, and how people can fall for *empty stats*. His peak efficiency as a go-to scorer was 53.6 TS%. He played no defense. The only time he ever helped a team win was one year, the post WE BELIEVE year, where he was our 3rd option.

Trying to make it about Curry is hilarious. That argument was one of the worst all time in Warriors board history, where 2 or 3 posters really believed Monta was the better player and cited things like FG% like you're doing.. just stop. He was one of the worst investments the W's made, the Bucks scrapped him, the Pacers scrapped him, the Mavs scrapped him, and he was out of the league at 31 years old.

Takes like yours are why the term empty stats exist. So when people just read boxscores a decade later, they can't rewrite history and pretend that Monta Ellis helped teams win.

Curry was puttin up about 17PPG on 47% in his time with Monta. Monta was puttin up about 23PPG on 44% in his time with Curry. Neither of them play defense. You wanna say Curry was still better even during that time? I won’t refute. But to pretend as if Ellis was a cancerous black hole holding the team back while Curry was this shining beacon during that time is revisionist history. They didn’t have any help. That’s why they lost. Once they got some help and Curry learned how to dribble after Ellis left then team was on the rise. Calling Ellis empty stats career loser off his 18PPG 45%FG career isn’t fair. It sounds more like a convenient narrative that people pick and choose when to apply when it’s time to cherry pick which players to prop up and which players to shoot down.

This is another example of why FG% is an outdated useless stat. Comparing the FG%'s of a player like Monta, who shot mostly inside the arc, to Curry makes no sense.

In Monta's two 20 point seasons with the warriors...

Monta: 22.2 on 51.7 TS%, 21.1 on 53.6 TS%

Curry: 17.5 on 56.8 TS%, 18.5 on 59.6 TS%

The day the 3 point line was introduced, FG% essentially became obsolete. It has only become more obvious as the 3 point shot has taken over the league. You get 50% more points for a made 3, so it only makes sense to give the player 50% more credit in their efficiency. This is what EFG% does by simply counting made 3's as 1.5 FG's made.

But the best measure of efficiency is TS%. This includes FT's, where Curry led the league at 93.4% in that 2nd season. Team TS% differential is the best single predictor of which team will win a game.

Curry was a rookie in that first year, and Monta led the league in minutes played, with over 40, both seasons. If we look at the 2nd year, I will take the player scoring 2.6 less points when he's scoring a full 6% more efficiently every day.

Monta was a high volume poor efficiency scorer, while Steph was clearly scoring on above average efficiency the day he stepped on the court. He was already in the top 20 by his 2nd season and is currently the 4th most efficient player ever, and has the highest career TS% for anyone that has ever had a 20 point season.

I don't see how anyone still uses FG% as a measure of efficiency. This is how you end up making ridiculous claims, like Monta was a better scorer in those 2 seasons.