Official Monte “BigGameTae” Morris Thread!

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[NatP4]

Our two PGs combined to average 10 assists and 2.4 turnovers per36 and shot a combined 38% from 3 last year.

Dinwiddie, Westbrook, and Wall were all pretty inefficient players and useless off the ball. The latter two were also very turnover prone. This year will be a really nice change of pace. A couple efficient game managing PGs that can excel off the ball.

Great fit to run the offense through Beal and Porzingis.

[montestewart]

Our two PGs combined to average 10 assists and 2.4 turnovers per36 and shot a combined 38% from 3 last year.

Dinwiddie, Westbrook, and Wall were all pretty inefficient players and useless off the ball. The latter two were also very turnover prone. This year will be a really nice change of pace. A couple efficient game managing PGs that can excel off the ball.

Great fit to run the offense through Beal and Porzingis.

I am guessing that the overall defense from that platoon will be an improvement as well.

[FAH1223]

Watch on YouTube

[gambitx777]

I like this guy's attitude and I like giving him the chance to be a true starter !

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using RealGM mobile app

[payitforward]

It didn't take this board long to write off Monte Morris.
The same board, btw, that can watch KP have any number of terrible games & remain certain that he is, literally, a "great" player.

(In fairness, KP has also posted some incredibly great games!)

Now... there is no question that in some regards, Morris had a slow start to the season.
Well... in one regard, actually: early in the season, his 3-pt shooting fell off a cliff.

But, that problem appears to be over -- after that slow start Morris is now at 37.5% -- 42.5% over the last 8 games.
IOW, it looks like he's on his way back to his career 3pt. % of 39.2%.

OTOH, in some other respects Morris has been outstanding! He's well above average in assists, & his assist to turnover ratio is extraordinary! -- 5.3 to 1.

Does that make him some kind of a "star?" Nah.
An "impact point guard?" I don't know what that phrase means.

What it does do is put him among the top, say, 30 PGs in the league.

[nate33]

It didn't take this board long to write off Monte Morris.
The same board, btw, that can watch KP have any number of terrible games & remain certain that he is, literally, a "great" player.

(In fairness, KP has also posted some incredibly great games!)

Now... there is no question that in some regards, Morris had a slow start to the season.
Well... in one regard, actually: early in the season, his 3-pt shooting fell off a cliff.

But, that problem appears to be over -- after that slow start Morris is now at 37.5% -- 42.5% over the last 8 games.
IOW, it looks like he's on his way back to his career 3pt. % of 39.2%.

OTOH, in some other respects Morris has been outstanding! He's well above average in assists, & his assist to turnover ratio is extraordinary! -- 5.3 to 1.

Does that make him some kind of a "star?" Nah.
An "impact point guard?" I don't know what that phrase means.

What it does do is put him among the top, say, 30 PGs in the league.

An impact PG is a guy who can bend a defense, a guy who can penetrate and draw double teams, a guy that the opposition can't switch a big onto because he is too fast to be guarded by a plodder. If you are not doing any of these things, you better damn well be a top tier defender who can disrupt the point of attack and hold up in switches. Morris can't do that either.

[Dat2U]

Morris is a game manager. He can hit open shots and protect the ball but breaking down defenses and creating shots for others or himself is not a strength. You could appropriate his game to many successful role players like Steve Kerr, BJ Armstrong or even Derek Fisher (w/o) the defense. Problem is we don't have MJ or Kobe to create shots, instead were putting pressure on Beal, Kuzma, Porzingis & Will freaking Barton to create these opportunities. Not ideal. In a backup role, maybe even alongside Delon, Monte would be fine. But between Delon, Monte & Jordan G., we have 3 solid backup PGs. As we should know, modest success in numbers doesn't get in done in a 5 on 5 setting where the impact of a few is signficantly greater than most others. I don't think there's much room for improvement without upgrading to a starting quality PG in a league filled with quality PGs.

[payitforward]

It didn't take this board long to write off Monte Morris.
The same board, btw, that can watch KP have any number of terrible games & remain certain that he is, literally, a "great" player.

(In fairness, KP has also posted some incredibly great games!)

Now... there is no question that in some regards, Morris had a slow start to the season.
Well... in one regard, actually: early in the season, his 3-pt shooting fell off a cliff.

But, that problem appears to be over -- after that slow start Morris is now at 37.5% -- 42.5% over the last 8 games.
IOW, it looks like he's on his way back to his career 3pt. % of 39.2%.

OTOH, in some other respects Morris has been outstanding! He's well above average in assists, & his assist to turnover ratio is extraordinary! -- 5.3 to 1.

Does that make him some kind of a "star?" Nah.
An "impact point guard?" I don't know what that phrase means.

What it does do is put him among the top, say, 30 PGs in the league.

An impact PG is a guy who can bend a defense, a guy who can penetrate and draw double teams, a guy that the opposition can't switch a big onto because he is to fast to be guarded by a plodder. If you are not doing any of these things, you better damn well be a top tier defender who can disrupt the point of attack and hold up in switches. Morris can't do that either.

Sigh....
nate, please read the following sentence for its simple, literal meaning: you are more or less the last person I look to debate with on this Board, for the straightforward reason that you are both knowledgeable & smart (i.e. about goals, strategy, value, etc.). That's not flattery; it's simple description.

I'm guessing that if you give me a list of, say, 10 current NBA players who meet your definition of an impact PG, I will be eager for us to have 1 of them. Or more than one -- even better! Say... Ja Morant, Trae Young, Steph, Luka & a few others. I imagine we'd come up w/ the same list of players. None of whom we would have any way to acquire. &, more than likely, none of whom we would have any way to afford!

For sure, Monte Morris would not be on that list! Nor have I ever have suggested that he was a star. But he's damned high value all the same. & that was why I pointed at his numbers. Doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer having Tyrese Haliburton!

Remember when, during the off-season, you suggested we try to sign Tyus Jones or a "Tyus Jones level" player. That's what Morris is. But... he's actually a little better than Jones. The two guys have played almost exactly the same minutes this season. Their productivity is very close, & both are well above average, but Morris's numbers overall are slightly better than Jones's.

& Morris makes $9m -- 60% of what Jones makes.
Still... I'd rather have Halliburton. Do you think Indy would swap him our way in return for Morris & a R1 pick? ...

I didn't think so.

[nate33]

It didn't take this board long to write off Monte Morris.
The same board, btw, that can watch KP have any number of terrible games & remain certain that he is, literally, a "great" player.

(In fairness, KP has also posted some incredibly great games!)

Now... there is no question that in some regards, Morris had a slow start to the season.
Well... in one regard, actually: early in the season, his 3-pt shooting fell off a cliff.

But, that problem appears to be over -- after that slow start Morris is now at 37.5% -- 42.5% over the last 8 games.
IOW, it looks like he's on his way back to his career 3pt. % of 39.2%.

OTOH, in some other respects Morris has been outstanding! He's well above average in assists, & his assist to turnover ratio is extraordinary! -- 5.3 to 1.

Does that make him some kind of a "star?" Nah.
An "impact point guard?" I don't know what that phrase means.

What it does do is put him among the top, say, 30 PGs in the league.

An impact PG is a guy who can bend a defense, a guy who can penetrate and draw double teams, a guy that the opposition can't switch a big onto because he is to fast to be guarded by a plodder. If you are not doing any of these things, you better damn well be a top tier defender who can disrupt the point of attack and hold up in switches. Morris can't do that either.

Sigh....
nate, please read the following sentence for its simple, literal meaning: you are more or less the last person I look to debate with on this Board, for the straightforward reason that you are both knowledgeable & smart (i.e. about goals, strategy, value, etc.). That's not flattery; it's simple description.

I'm guessing that if you give me a list of, say, 10 current NBA players who meet your definition of an impact PG, I will be eager for us to have 1 of them. Or more than one -- even better! Say... Ja Morant, Trae Young, Steph, Luka & a few others. I imagine we'd come up w/ the same list of players. None of whom we would have any way to acquire. &, more than likely, none of whom we would have any way to afford!

For sure, Monte Morris would not be on that list! Nor have I ever have suggested that he was a star. But he's damned high value all the same. & that was why I pointed at his numbers. Doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer having Tyrese Haliburton!

Remember when, during the off-season, you suggested we try to sign Tyus Jones or a "Tyus Jones level" player. That's what Morris is. But... he's actually a little better than Jones. The two guys have played almost exactly the same minutes this season. Their productivity is very close, & both are well above average, but Morris's numbers overall are slightly better than Jones's.

& Morris makes $9m -- 60% of what Jones makes.
Still... I'd rather have Halliburton. Do you think Indy would swap him our way in return for Morris & a R1 pick? ...

I didn't think so.

Fair enough. I think Tyus Jones is a bit better defensively though. But point taken.

My main point is that the statistics aren't really telling the whole story with Morris. I look at positional production in the context of supply/demand. There is a MUCH smaller supply of tall people so it's much harder to find skill in a package that is also tall. A team can only get away with one short (6-3 or smaller) guy on the floor because of the defensive impact. If you are going to live with the defensive issues of a short player, he absolutely MUST be hyper skilled, because it's so hard to find skill in taller players. And you SHOULD be able to find an extremely skilled player at a 6-3 height because there are orders of magnitude more 6-3 people on the planet than 6-7 people. You can't just look at your 6-3 guy who posts the offensive numbers of a low-usage shooting guard and be happy about it because he is efficient. You simply need more production from your one short player.

[payitforward]

If you want to be a "good" team (i.e. post an above average record) in a league with a cap on what you can spend on your roster, then you have to have players who are, as a group, above average. Meaning that they produce above average numbers compared to other guys paid what they are paid.

Monte Morris is a big plus on the Wizards, because he produces at a level well beyond what you would expect from a guy being paid $9m.

The exception, of course, is a player on a rookie contract.

[payitforward]

My main point is that the statistics aren't really telling the whole story with Morris....

This is along the lines of your point that stats don't "totally encapsulate" a player's performance. That's 100% correct, of course.

You don't compare a measuring system with reality, you compare one measuring system with another measuring system -- the one that correlates better with real results is to be preferred to the other one that correlates less well. That's it. That's as far as it goes.

OTOH, if Morris shoots a 3, it's unquestionably better that it go in than that it bounce off the rim, right?
Hence, if he takes 10 of them, it's unquestionably better for 4 to go in than 3.

Hence, no matter what else is true, a higher 3pt. % is better than a lower one.
Moreover, if one complains about a player that his 3pt % is too low, then it has to be a good thing if it goes up!

... I look at positional production in the context of supply/demand. There is a MUCH smaller supply of tall people so it's much harder to find skill in a package that is also tall. A team can only get away with one short (6-3 or smaller) guy on the floor because of the defensive impact. If you are going to live with the defensive issues of a short player, he absolutely MUST be hyper skilled, because it's so hard to find skill in taller players. And you SHOULD be able to find an extremely skilled player at a 6-3 height because there are orders of magnitude more 6-3 people on the planet than 6-7 people. You can't just look at your 6-3 guy who posts the offensive numbers of a low-usage shooting guard and be happy about it because he is efficient. You simply need more production from your one short player.

This makes perfect sense. Only it doesn't seem to hold.

Or at least it's a truth that is hard to act on. I.e. where is that guy we SHOULD be able to find?

Well... come to think of it, maybe the fact that a guy like Jordan Goodwin gets overlooked reflects the larger selection set for back court players.

You eliminate with a negative (that's always the easier way to proceed) -- in Goodwin's case, the negative was "can't shoot": look at his college numbers. But you still wind up w/ a large selection set.

OTOH, do that at the front court positions, & you do not have a large enough selection set left. Hence, "can't x" gets a 6'10" guy more coaching at "how to x."

[Halcyon]

At this point, it's clear that he would be a great backup. Dude is not a starter in this league.

[DCZards]

I agree with those posters who say the Zards need better PG play. But I want to show some love to Monte Morris, who reps Flint, MI well with his solid, blue-collar play.

Monte may not be a great athlete, passer or scorer... and he doesn't bend defenses like the top PGs, but his overall play has been very impressive of late.

Monte is having his best season ever in rebounds and assists, and his 3pt% is up to almost 40% after struggling from 3 early in the season. And, probably most importantly, he averages less than one TO a game.

On top of that, he’s a poised and savvy oncourt leader.

Props to PIF who has consistently been Monte’s biggest fan and supporter on this board.

[FAH1223]

At this point, it's clear that he would be a great backup. Dude is not a starter in this league.

Spot starter but yes, he is one of the best backup PGs in the NBA.

[Frichuela]

I agree with those posters who say the Zards need better PG play. But I want to show some love to Monte Morris, who reps Flint, MI well with his solid, blue-collar play.

Monte may not be a great athlete, passer or scorer... and he doesn't bend defenses like the top PGs, but his overall play has been very impressive of late.

Monte is having his best season ever in rebounds and assists, and his 3pt% is up to almost 40% after struggling from 3 early in the season. And, probably most importantly, he averages less than one TO a game.

On top of that, he’s a poised and savvy oncourt leader.

Props to PIF who has consistently been Monte’s biggest fan and supporter on this board.

Agreed. This is very fair.

If we had a dominating all-NBA caliber ballhandling wing, Monte would fit even as the 5th starter. The problem is Brad ain't that and at best a top-30 player in the league. I guess the only hope is that Deni eventually becomes a top-50 player and is allowed to play more on the ball. Or we finally get lucky and we draft that dominating wing/tall PG...

[FAH1223]

I agree with those posters who say the Zards need better PG play. But I want to show some love to Monte Morris, who reps Flint, MI well with his solid, blue-collar play.

Monte may not be a great athlete, passer or scorer... and he doesn't bend defenses like the top PGs, but his overall play has been very impressive of late.

Monte is having his best season ever in rebounds and assists, and his 3pt% is up to almost 40% after struggling from 3 early in the season. And, probably most importantly, he averages less than one TO a game.

On top of that, he’s a poised and savvy oncourt leader.

Props to PIF who has consistently been Monte’s biggest fan and supporter on this board.

Agreed. This is very fair.

If we had a dominating all-NBA caliber ballhandling wing, Monte would fit even as the 5th starter. The problem is Brad ain't that and at best a top-30 player in the league. I guess the only hope is that Deni eventually becomes a top-50 player and is allowed to play more on the ball. Or we finally get lucky and we draft that dominating wing/tall PG...

That's the great utility of Monte. Him being a good shooter opens up a lot if you have that type of All-NBA ball handler.

Obviously in DEN, Jokic was such a cheat code being a ball handler and elite post player.

[payitforward]

Well, I'd say we both have been Monte's leading supporters here. & for good reason. Morris is quite a good player -- & he's a bargain given what he's paid.

As far as "the Zards need better PG play" -- sure! We could use better play at every position! Our record is not an accident; it represents the play of the guys on our roster! Duh. But, PG is by no means our biggest problem -- that's for sure!

Posters here have expressed interest in Immanuel Quickley, for example -- is he a better PG than Morris? Compare their per 36 minute numbers: https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?player_id2=quickim01&p1yrfrom=2023&player_id1=morrimo01&p2yrfrom=2023&sum=0&request=1&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=bbr&utm_medium=sr_xsite&utm_id=morrimo01

Quickley produces 3.6 more points than Morris -- but he uses an extra 3.75 offensive possessions to do it.
That's not good.
The result is that Morris is posting a TS% of .567 to Quickley's .549.

Quickley gets .3 more steals but turns the ball over .4 more times than Morris.
Quickley gets @1 more board than Monte, but he also commits @1 extra foul.

The capper is that Monte gets 2.5 more assists than Quickley.
In short, both players post above average numbers for a PG, but Morris's numbers are clearly better overall.

Now, even though Monte is the more productive player, Quickley is good too, & he's on a rookie contract, so he's a real bargain right now.
But, that's another matter entirely.

[payitforward]

I agree with those posters who say the Zards need better PG play. But I want to show some love to Monte Morris, who reps Flint, MI well with his solid, blue-collar play.

Monte may not be a great athlete, passer or scorer... and he doesn't bend defenses like the top PGs, but his overall play has been very impressive of late.

Monte is having his best season ever in rebounds and assists, and his 3pt% is up to almost 40% after struggling from 3 early in the season. And, probably most importantly, he averages less than one TO a game.

On top of that, he’s a poised and savvy oncourt leader.

Props to PIF who has consistently been Monte’s biggest fan and supporter on this board.

Agreed. This is very fair.

If we had a dominating all-NBA caliber ballhandling wing, Monte would fit even as the 5th starter. The problem is Brad ain't that and at best a top-30 player in the league. I guess the only hope is that Deni eventually becomes a top-50 player and is allowed to play more on the ball. Or we finally get lucky and we draft that dominating wing/tall PG...

That's the great utility of Monte. Him being a good shooter opens up a lot if you have that type of All-NBA ball handler.

Obviously in DEN, Jokic was such a cheat code being a ball handler and elite post player.

On the money -- & when we traded for Monte, there was some concern expressed here that Jokic attracted so much attention it left Monte w/ a high % of wide-open shots -- i.e. that he wouldn't maintain his 3-pt. % as a Wizard.

That was a reasonable concern, I'd say -- but, he's shot the 3 so well in the last several weeks (.397 for Dec-Jan) that it's fair to stop worrying about that issue.

[doclinkin]

Me. It was my concern. Agreed he has adjusted and is shooting well. Better still, his assist rates are up turnovers still absurdly low. If you want a game manager who won't force the action but is judicious with the ball and stingy in giving the opponents extra touches, he's about as good as you can ask for. Seems a good fit then next to three players who all need touches to play their game. No opponent gameplans to stop Morris, he isn't the player who will raise his game and carry you to a win, but he isn't the thing that is losing you games either. Though maybe he is, since we aren't winning. I dunno. It's strange, when the team is clicking it looks like we have enough talent that our record should be better. But the record is the record. Mediocrity forged of inconsistency. 5 game win streak, ten game losing streak. Neither way getting us closer to lotto rescue, nor playoff advancement.