2017 NBA Draft Thread

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think the problem is that the Huskies stink.

If they were coasting to the PAC-12 conference championship and Fultz was literally no different in any way, noone would have a problem. But because they stink, everyone thinks he should be pissed off all the time and "working harder" to make the Huskies stink less.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Loaded draft. I also lean towards Josh Jackson as No. 1, but Tatum may be a better offensive player. And you can also make a good case for Isaac, who is two inches taller than either Jackson or Tatum. And then there are the guards: Fultz, Ball and Ntilikina.

So many riches, and only one pick.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
I don't see Josh Jackson in Johnson's chart. Nor do I understand how PAWS accounts for defense, or how it adjusts for Euroleague vs NCAA stats.
 

rhopkins2323

New Member
Mar 14, 2010
111
That's a good article. To my eyes, he gets lost on D and I don't think its lack of awareness/inexperience. I would say it's a lack of being locked in. It's too bad he's not in more competitive games as we would get a feel for how he closes games.

The article mentioned Kawhi and I don't think that's a good comparison. It's easy to see how hard Kawhi competes and locks up his guy. My general concern is his compete level. It could be the coaching, the fact that they suck, or something else. I wonder if NBA execs have this concern as well. They obviously get more insight than we do.

Put it this way, would you draft Fultz knowing he had the approach Rondo does? Or JD Drew like someone else mentioned.

Again, I could be off on my assessments as I don't see Fultz in practice or how he works out individually on his game, but it's a question that needs to be answered when making this pick.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I don't see Josh Jackson in Johnson's chart. Nor do I understand how PAWS accounts for defense, or how it adjusts for Euroleague vs NCAA stats.
Click through the link. Jackson is the SF below Isaac.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
I haven't delved too deeply but there is all kinds of stuff on PAWS going back to 2010. It wasn't a very good predictor for either Jaylen Brown (so-so numbers at Cal) or Rozier.

Two other questions: how does it account for the value of the numbers when a kid is 18, vs their value when he's 20 or 21? Are physical attributes like wingspan taken into account?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
With standard "scouting means more, and stats mean less the younger you are" caveats, here's a draft model from Andrew Johnson. As far as his model goes, there's a very clear #1 in this draft:

Interesting. Overall I don't think PAWS is very useful, purely data based analysis of college kids is tough. It's basically impossible to really adjust for the quality of opponents, and just the athleticism issue. Ball is a great example to me, he could be great, he could be pretty bad, and a lot of it depends on issues that aren't going to be evident when he's on a really good team and never will play an NBA quality offense or defense. The concerns are defense, getting his shot off, ability to handle NBA halfcourt. You're not getting much of that in a data analysis because UCLA is able to play on the break a ton, he never has to really matchup against NBA caliber offensive players, and college D schemes are mostly garbage. Also he only plays like 4 NBA caliber guards a year.
I do think a thing like PAWS can be useful though in seeing guys who are really struggling and figuring out where it's coming from.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I haven't delved too deeply but there is all kinds of stuff on PAWS going back to 2010. It wasn't a very good predictor for either Jaylen Brown (so-so numbers at Cal) or Rozier.
I'm not sure I'd call Rozier a miss. He's been a pretty fringy player so far this year. Brown too for that matter - he's been better than expected, but it's not like he's some kind of revelation yet either.

Two other questions: how does it account for the value of the numbers when a kid is 18, vs their value when he's 20 or 21? Are physical attributes like wingspan taken into account?
There's an aging curve applied. I don't believe he accounts for physical measurements in this model.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
How can I get PAWS from previous years? Are there charts like this on a yearly basis? Or was this the first time Andrew Johnson did this?
He posts stuff on his blog, on Nylon Calculus, and twitter @countingbaskets, but it's not well organized.

Like everyone else, he's had hits and misses. Here's the 2014 rankings for instance. He was very high on Jokic and Clint Capela (4th and 2nd in the 2014 draft respectively) for instance, but had a relative miss on Embiid I'd say (ranked him only 10th), and also overrated Noah Vonleh (5th overall). I give him a pass on Jordan Adams, given the injury situation.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Interesting. Overall I don't think PAWS is very useful, purely data based analysis of college kids is tough. It's basically impossible to really adjust for the quality of opponents, and just the athleticism issue. Ball is a great example to me, he could be great, he could be pretty bad, and a lot of it depends on issues that aren't going to be evident when he's on a really good team and never will play an NBA quality offense or defense. The concerns are defense, getting his shot off, ability to handle NBA halfcourt. You're not getting much of that in a data analysis because UCLA is able to play on the break a ton, he never has to really matchup against NBA caliber offensive players, and college D schemes are mostly garbage. Also he only plays like 4 NBA caliber guards a year.
I do think a thing like PAWS can be useful though in seeing guys who are really struggling and figuring out where it's coming from.
I'm sympathetic to these arguments, but it's also the case that analytics based models have performed pretty well. Despite their limitations in what they can see, they're not just spitting out total garbage results. They have hits and misses like anyone else, but I suspect they probably outperform actual NBA teams, who have access to all the same stats, as well as the scouting reports. It's tough to do a good study on this however, since the models change year to year and a lot of top analysts have been hired by NBA teams. I may poke around this some more however.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,469
Somewhere
Here's PAWS from last season; you have to click the tab labeled "model rating by position".

Doesn't really deviate too much from your standard mock draft projections (at least last year).
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Here's a very quick look at this using James Brocato's draft rankings, which are roughly similar in that they're just stats based rankings. I used his rankings instead of PAWS because they're conveniently available in one place going back a bunch of years.

Going back to 2009, here's a correlation between actual draft order and BPM/VORP vs. Brocato's rankings and BPM/VORP.



(Higher R^2 is better). The stat model does even better if you look at the Projected Impact score instead of just the ranking, but that's "cheating" a bit. I've also excluded foreign players here, since Brocato doesn't rank them. From looking at PAWS however, foreign players are a strength of the analytics models. If I have time, I'll go back and add in PAWS rankings for 2014 onward.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Actually I think are of these data models are useful, or at least interesting, so long as they are viewed as just one more piece of information among many pieces.
 

rhopkins2323

New Member
Mar 14, 2010
111
Here's a very quick look at this using James Brocato's draft rankings, which are roughly similar in that they're just stats based rankings. I used his rankings instead of PAWS because they're conveniently available in one place going back a bunch of years.

Going back to 2009, here's a correlation between actual draft order and BPM/VORP vs. Brocato's rankings and BPM/VORP.



(Higher R^2 is better). The stat model does even better if you look at the Projected Impact score instead of just the ranking, but that's "cheating" a bit. I've also excluded foreign players here, since Brocato doesn't rank them. From looking at PAWS however, foreign players are a strength of the analytics models. If I have time, I'll go back and add in PAWS rankings for 2014 onward.
Thank you. This is a good read while watching the Cs tonight. I did check out 2009 draft because of the guys chosen before Curry. It was cool to see this have Curry at #2 after Harden. For the most part it nailed the top of draft. I mean it missed on Derozan, but he had such bad numbers coming out of USC.

I can see how this would be useful to use in combination with scouting athleticism, size, shooting form, etc.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,314
I'm still not sure what to make us Fultz vs. Ball in terms of their impact on their respective programs. Washington is 9-18. That's really (REALLY) bad. When you have the best player on the court every single night in a 5-on-5 contest, you should at least be a .500 team, right? Meanwhile, Ball took over a mediocre UCLA squad (15-17 last season) and they're 25-3. I don't want to sound like Morgan or Kruk making antiquated analysis, but there has to be something there.

I watched Fultz against Arizona a couple of weeks ago, and he was fine. He checks the boxes, but he's not Westbrook. What makes Westbrook elite is his manic competitiveness. Westbrook wants to kick your ass every night; he plays harder than his competition. I didn't see that from Fultz. His effort was fine, but he wasn't an ass-kicker. I'd love to see him with a real supporting cast though because the tools are there.

I've seen Ball twice (Kentucky, Arizona) and I was super impressed with his feel for the game. I think he's a much more instinctive player than Fultz, but how does a guy as talented as Ball only attempt 3 free throws a game? That's nuts. Of course, his jumper is funky as hell. But he made contested, deep threes so I'm not overly concerned about it. My only question on Ball is if he can get into the paint.

As an aside, I wouldn't touch Dennis Smith. I watched him against Louisville and he didn't look like a draftable player. Just a complete non-factor. I got a 2nd look at him against Miami the other weekend and while he put up a productive stat line, I hated his game. Played with a bad pace, no sense of urgency in the final minutes with his team down in a close game, and not much defensive effort. He screams Monta Ellis to me.

I wouldn't have any qualms with Fultz, Ball or Jackson if they end up keeping their pick. But I see this as essentially a three player draft the way last year was viewed as a two player draft. So hopefully the ping pong balls bounce their way.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I'm still not sure what to make us Fultz vs. Ball in terms of their impact on their respective programs. Washington is 9-18. That's really (REALLY) bad. When you have the best player on the court every single night in a 5-on-5 contest, you should at least be a .500 team, right? Meanwhile, Ball took over a mediocre UCLA squad (15-17 last season) and they're 25-3. I don't want to sound like Morgan or Kruk making antiquated analysis, but there has to be something there.
UCLA is loaded with Talent, it was a team that underperformed last year then added THREE 5 star recruits (Ball, Leaf, Anigbogu) all top 25 by rivals. Leaf is a likely lottery pick this year. That team is loaded (most of the returning guys are 4 or 5 star recruits as well). It is a great situation for Ball, that plays to all his strengths and he's playing well so credit to him, but the transformation of the team is what should happen when any talented team that adds three 5 star recruits without losing anyone, they'd be a top team with any of the top freshman PGs.

By comparison Washington has nobody with any talent at all, last year they went 19-15, since then the lost Murray and Chriss to the NBA, their top scorer graduated, a bench wing transfered, and all they brought in this year was Fultz and two 3 star (rivals, ESPN didn't even rank them) recruits who probably shouldn't be getting offers from PAC-12 schools.
This is by FAR the worst major conference roster we've ever seen a star college player on, LSU who was terrible with Simmons last year had a class that included Simmons, another 5 star and a 4 star, added to several more 4 stars already in place.

Washington is amazingly bad, and beyond just talent, they ended up somehow with no wing depth, so they have to play a terrible traditional 2 bigs lineup which is just abysmal and makes it much harder on Fultz.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
I wouldn't have any qualms with Fultz, Ball or Jackson if they end up keeping their pick. But I see this as essentially a three player draft the way last year was viewed as a two player draft. So hopefully the ping pong balls bounce their way.
There are not a lot of humans who play like Westbrook but some of them are really good basketball players.

I'm way more scared about Ball than Jackson or Fultz. His shot is going to tilt the court as he's certainly not shooting if he's going right and even going left he has a diffcult time pulling up. I.e., https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-podcast-lonzo-ball-shooting-motion-b51bd8a2fbfd#.6ogdx9k3m. I mean he'll hit catch and shoots but I think he's pretty guardable at the NBA.

If you want competitive, then you want Jackson. And the one thing that sticks out to me hen watching him is that his quick twitch is quicker than just about everyone. He just seems to be a different kind of athlete than the people he plays against.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
There are not a lot of humans who play like Westbrook but some of them are really good basketball players.

I'm way more scared about Ball than Jackson or Fultz. His shot is going to tilt the court as he's certainly not shooting if he's going right and even going left he has a diffcult time pulling up. I.e., https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-podcast-lonzo-ball-shooting-motion-b51bd8a2fbfd#.6ogdx9k3m. I mean he'll hit catch and shoots but I think he's pretty guardable at the NBA.

If you want competitive, then you want Jackson. And the one thing that sticks out to me hen watching him is that his quick twitch is quicker than just about everyone. He just seems to be a different kind of athlete than the people he plays against.
Agree on Ball. Guy can't really even get to the rim against college players. Very good feel for the game and a decent but not great athlete but I don't see the offensive game ever being much to write home about at the NBA level. I want a higher ceiling from a top pick. It's either Fultz or Jackson for me.
 

rhopkins2323

New Member
Mar 14, 2010
111
There are not a lot of humans who play like Westbrook but some of them are really good basketball players.

I'm way more scared about Ball than Jackson or Fultz. His shot is going to tilt the court as he's certainly not shooting if he's going right and even going left he has a diffcult time pulling up. I.e., https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-podcast-lonzo-ball-shooting-motion-b51bd8a2fbfd#.6ogdx9k3m. I mean he'll hit catch and shoots but I think he's pretty guardable at the NBA.

If you want competitive, then you want Jackson. And the one thing that sticks out to me hen watching him is that his quick twitch is quicker than just about everyone. He just seems to be a different kind of athlete than the people he plays against.
Exactly. Ball will have a tough time getting that low shot off in NBA. Especially because the speed of the game. And I can't see him making shots off the move. He's essentially a good stand still college shooter when he has time and space. I still see value in his size and passing ability. It's very rare.

Jackson is truly a freak. He's in that Westbrook level type of quick twitch. Not the top end speed with the ball, but he can really explode and elevate. How many 6'8 guys are like that? Plus he has a feel for the game and can really defend. All reasons why he has most potential in this draft. If he fixes that shot, he is potentially a top 10 player which is why I might take him over Fultz.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
With the caveat that it's a 4.5 game sample on a dumpster fire of a team, the more I see Dennis Smith Jr., the less I like. Great athlete who can get his shot off, but a primary initiator with a poor feel for the game and inconsistent effort and focus is not a foundational piece on a good team. His ceiling looks like Eric Bledsoe on offense, but a liability on defense.

If Bradley leaves, and Donovan Mitchell lasts until pick 20 or so, I'd like to see Ainge try to package some second rounders to snag him as a 3&D guard with crazy athlecism and a great motor. Love what I've seen from him.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
With the caveat that it's a 4.5 game sample on a dumpster fire of a team, the more I see Dennis Smith Jr., the less I like. Great athlete who can get his shot off, but a primary initiator with a poor feel for the game inconsistent effort and focus is not a foundational piece. His ceiling looks like Eric Bledsoe on offense, but a liability on defense.

If Bradley leaves, and Donovan Mitchell lasts until pick 20 or so, I'd like to see Ainge try to package some second rounders to snag him as a 3&D guard with crazy athlecism and a great motor. Love what I've seen from him.
Agree on Smith. I've soured on him after initially being pretty high. I sure as hell hope we're not picking #4, which is really the only way he'd come into play. My top 4 are Fultz, Jackson, Ball, and Isaac. Tatum might work his way into that group if he keeps up his strong play.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,291
Only seen a few games of Smith. Maybe they were his worst games but I never came away impressed. Seems like the type Ainge would never draft and is a poor fit for the current roster to boot. Praying for top 3. Would be fascinating to see who Ainge likes at 4 if it came to it.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
Monk lighting Florida on fire with 24 in the second half and counting. He reminds me of CJ McCollum but probably has a higher ceiling.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Monk lighting Florida on fire with 24 in the second half and counting. He reminds me of CJ McCollum but probably has a higher ceiling.
You mean as a scorer on the floor only right? Because he's completely useless at everything else. He's egregiously bad at rebounding (CJ was a pretty bad college rebounder and his rates are more than twice Monk's) he's not much of a passer, he's probably a worse defender, and he doesn't draw fouls at the same rate.

Monk is fascinating in that he's a true 1 skill player, he does nothing other than get buckets, I mean worse than Jamaal Crawford or Nick Young even, just 1 thing and one thing only.

Edit- so his TRB% is 4.1, they haven't tracked that very long, but it's the worst ever for a drafted player as far as I can tell, definitely worst by a 1st round pick.
Looking back using general rebounding numbers, the only guys drafted in the 1st who likely have even a shot of having been that bad rebounders for any season in college were: JJ Redick, Nick Van Exel, DaJuan Wagner. NVE and Wagner were much better passers than Monk. Redick I guess is what you're hoping for, a guy who develops his defense and passing in the NBA.
 
Last edited:

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
You mean as a scorer on the floor only right? Because he's completely useless at everything else. He's egregiously bad at rebounding (CJ was a pretty bad college rebounder and his rates are more than twice Monk's) he's not much of a passer, he's probably a worse defender, and he doesn't draw fouls at the same rate.

Monk is fascinating in that he's a true 1 skill player, he does nothing other than get buckets, I mean worse than Jamaal Crawford or Nick Young even, just 1 thing and one thing only.
From the game I saw he was passing really well and floating the ball inside to Bam all second half. He also got to the line close to ten times in the second half alone. He also moves around the floor really well and at the very least I can see him being a good shooter that can start for a good NBA team.

Complaining about his rebounding rate is kind of like complaining about Jose Altuve not hitting enough homeruns.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
From the game I saw he was passing really well and floating the ball inside to Bam all second half. He also got to the line close to ten times in the second half alone. He also moves around the floor really well and at the very least I can see him being a good shooter that can start for a good NBA team.

Complaining about his rebounding rate is kind of like complaining about Jose Altuve not hitting enough homeruns.
His stats say he's a bad passer, though not horrendous, it just isn't a strenght in any way and he doesn't defend or force turnovers. His rebounding rate is historically awful as I edited into my post above. If anything a lot of the peripheral stats are more likely to tell you what translates than his shooting percentages.
He's an amazing shooter, who one day MIGHT turn into JJ Redick, but there's basically no precedent of a similar player who made it in the NBA, and that has to make you worry.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
His stats say he's a bad passer, though not horrendous, it just isn't a strenght in any way and he doesn't defend or force turnovers. His rebounding rate is historically awful as I edited into my post above. If anything a lot of the peripheral stats are more likely to tell you what translates than his shooting percentages.
He's an amazing shooter, who one day MIGHT turn into JJ Redick, but there's basically no precedent of a similar player who made it in the NBA, and that has to make you worry.
Just from the game I saw, whatever peripheral stats say, he passed the eye test. He was relentless on offense, not just shooting but attacking the basket and dropping some nice passes inside (10/11 FTs, and 5 assists) and scored 30 points in the second half. This was against a good Florida team that thumped UK earlier in the season in Gainesville and Kentucky didn't even have Fox which meant Monk was their primary creator.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
With Monk I've heard the argument similar to the one made for Jamal Murray last year- that he's a better distributor than his role at UK permits. I didn't really buy it last year for Murray, and I'm looking a bit off on that. I don't really buy it for Monk either, though his handle looks pretty advanced to me.

Markkanen is another one skill guy, but damn that jumper is sweet.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
You mean as a scorer on the floor only right? Because he's completely useless at everything else. He's egregiously bad at rebounding (CJ was a pretty bad college rebounder and his rates are more than twice Monk's) he's not much of a passer, he's probably a worse defender, and he doesn't draw fouls at the same rate.

Monk is fascinating in that he's a true 1 skill player, he does nothing other than get buckets, I mean worse than Jamaal Crawford or Nick Young even, just 1 thing and one thing only.

Edit- so his TRB% is 4.1, they haven't tracked that very long, but it's the worst ever for a drafted player as far as I can tell, definitely worst by a 1st round pick.
Looking back using general rebounding numbers, the only guys drafted in the 1st who likely have even a shot of having been that bad rebounders for any season in college were: JJ Redick, Nick Van Exel, DaJuan Wagner. NVE and Wagner were much better passers than Monk. Redick I guess is what you're hoping for, a guy who develops his defense and passing in the NBA.
Monk is Jr Smith at college. I think the current obsession with shooting means he gets over drafted. I'd in may ways prefer markkanen, his height and shooting at least gives options. But I don't believe in lottery pick one skill players. Esp as its the one skill people can develop. Defense too, but if you can't move laterally etc you can't become a good on ball guy.

With Monk I've heard the argument similar to the one made for Jamal Murray last year- that he's a better distributor than his role at UK permits. I didn't really buy it last year for Murray, and I'm looking a bit off on that. I don't really buy it for Monk either, though his handle looks pretty advanced to me.

Markkanen is another one skill guy, but damn that jumper is sweet.
That argument is bad for Murray too. He was asked to more and failed. Hard.

Monk is a potentially elite shooter. But I'd rather let someone else overdraft him. That said he's a potential great fit for Boston and Philly who need shooting.

Smith is slipping a little for me for sure. I'd have Jackson level or even ahead of Smith right now.

Tier 1 Fultz
2 Jackson
3 very close behind 2 Smith and ball
4 Tatum Isaac
You're gonna get a good player at 6 and if someone draft monk or Fox too high maybe lower.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Isn't Devin Booker a good comp for Malik Monk? Same college too. Neither do much outside of score. Per40 Devin was at 18.7 points, 3.7 rebounds, 2.1 assists, 0.8 steals .470/.411/.828. Monks is 26.3, 3.1, 2.9, 1.5 .472/.409/.828. Booker was also 6 months younger.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Also, why does Jamal Murray get so much love while Gary Harris is a bum? Seems like both should be getting some love. Murray has shown a lot as a 19 year old and Harris is shooting lights out. Is it because shooting from that position is just so commonplace now and I haven't adjusted? Kinda seems that way but Harris has been great in February and is still only 22. He's hitting on 44% of his 3's this year.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
Isn't Devin Booker a good comp for Malik Monk? Same college too. Neither do much outside of score. Per40 Devin was at 18.7 points, 3.7 rebounds, 2.1 assists, 0.8 steals .470/.411/.828. Monks is 26.3, 3.1, 2.9, 1.5 .472/.409/.828. Booker was also 6 months younger.
I see Monta Ellis with better range. Valuable player for sure but may be better served as a 6th man type. I certainly wouldn't spend a high lotto pick on Monk but he would make sense for a team like Philly, particularly if they can get the Lakers pick this year.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Monta Ellis is a far better passer and rebounder than Monk and did have a decent peak. He was a starter and 4 different teams used him as such. I don't know where to find his college numbers but I'm guessing his assists and rebounding numbers were considerably higher. I'm not sure Ellis was better served off the bench. He was better served not being the number 1 option which he was for a chunk of his career.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellismo01.html
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
Monk is a tremendous athlete. He's not just a spot up shooter. I've made the comparison here before, but he's a lot like Eric Gordon before the knee injury. He can shoot and he can get to the basket, but it is his size that will limit him defensively in the NBA unless he can convert to PG (I'm not convinced). Still, he's a very useful player.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
Monta Ellis is a far better passer and rebounder than Monk and did have a decent peak. He was a starter and 4 different teams used him as such. I don't know where to find his college numbers but I'm guessing his assists and rebounding numbers were considerably higher. I'm not sure Ellis was better served off the bench. He was better served not being the number 1 option which he was for a chunk of his career.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ellismo01.html
Better all around player, yes, but a tough fit on a roster because of his size and inability to play the point. I think Monk would fit perfectly next to Lonzo Ball since Ball could guard the 2's and Monk the 1's. Imagine if Philly could keep Lakers pick and put Ball/Monk next to an Embiid/Saric/Simmons frontcourt.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Better all around player, yes, but a tough fit on a roster because of his size and inability to play the point. I think Monk would fit perfectly next to Lonzo Ball since Ball could guard the 2's and Monk the 1's. Imagine if Philly could keep Lakers pick and put Ball/Monk next to an Embiid/Saric/Simmons frontcourt.
The 6'3 Ellis is the same height as the 6'3 Monk (does he have crazy arm length like Rondo?) and neither one can really play point. That didn't stop teams from trying to play Ellis there anyway. There is no chance at all Monk is playing PG in the NBA.

edit: Nevermind, I was reading your comments as Monk would be a better fit because of his size and position. Instead you were implying he is in the same position Ellis was in.