Hoopsworld says Monroe to the Kings

[KingKong55]

If Monroe can be like Roy Hibbert (another Georgetown product), would people be happy?

25 mpg, 4.7 rpg, 1.6 bpg, 2.0 assists, 11.7 ppg

 

[Sparky6string]

Cousins is best Big but has some buts....

Man that's better than that baby buggy bumper thing.

 

[Vlade4GM]

If Monroe can be like Roy Hibbert (another Georgetown product), would people be happy?

25 mpg, 4.7 rpg, 1.6 bpg, 2.0 assists, 11.7 ppg

He's not like Hibbert though.

 

[Widowmaker2k]

If Monroe can be like Roy Hibbert (another Georgetown product), would people be happy?

25 mpg, 4.7 rpg, 1.6 bpg, 2.0 assists, 11.7 ppg

You mean if he suddenly grew 3 inches and became a shot blocker? I'd be reasonably happy with it, though I would hope for more with the fifth pick in a class of big men.

 

[Sparky6string]

Hibbert has value that can't be measured in stats. Someone of that height brings a huge intimidation factor.

 

[beb0p]

Came across this from Rick Kamla of NBA TV. If true, it somewhat explains the T-Wolves' lukewarm interest in Demarcus Cousins.

I know my team is in love with Darko Millicic. I'm not seeing it the same way.

I've heard from two reliable sources that at a post-season review meeting among the brass of the Timberwovles, out of that meeting came this news: they perceive one player on the roster from last season as a starting player in the NBA. Not Al Jefferson. Not Kevin Love. Not Jonny Flynn. His name is Darko Millicic.... And thus you get 15 wins with thinking like that.

http://www.nba.com/video/channels/draft/2010/06/20/20100620_lac_draft_preview.nba/

.

 

[jimbodan]

Basically, Monroe is Brad Miller V 2.0

Not even, Brad could at least shoot, Monroe can't even do that. About all Monroe can do well is pass, everything else he does subpar except for possibly rebounding and I have serious doubts about him being able to rebound well in the NBA.

At this stage I really want cousins, but I'd be ok with ANYONE other then Monroe.

 

[Widowmaker2k]

Came across this from Rick Kamla of NBA TV. If true, it somewhat explains the T-Wolves' lukewarm interest in Demarcus Cousins.





.

Wow, that simply can't be true. If it is...may God have mercy on T-Wolves fans...

 

[Smills91]

I do believe that the Kings will go with Monroe, but that would probably mark the first time a mock draft or an expert got a Kings draft pick right in some time.

Also, Cousins makes Artest look sane? Gimme a break

Since Hawes to be exact.

 

[hammystyle]

I had meant in 2/3 the time - just FYI.

Either way, Cousins is MUCH more productive in the right categories (rebounds and blocks).

Pick the most dominant big men in the NBA right now or over the past 15 years. Go back and look at their college production and compare against the above. You tell me whose numbers translate out to better NBA production.

That wasn't your orginal point. You said that your problem with Monroe was he didn't produce enough in college to be an NBA quality big man. That's false. Monroe's stats stack up just fine to a number of very good NBA big men, maybe not dominant, but we're picking 5th. Sure-fire dominant big men do not fall to 5. Cousins was extremely productive and about as close as you can get but teams are terrifeid of his attitude and conditioning.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

So far I've heard nothing from the Kings about the last Monroe workout. But it didn't sound good that the Warriors reported that Samhan out played Monroe in their meeting the next day. Its not like the Kings to say anything bad about a player, but they have been known to say good things. They certainly pointed out that Cousins had a good workout. So read into it what you want, by the Kings saying nothing about Monroe's last workout.

As an aside, I hope they invite Samham to play on the summer league team. I really like the kid and he's breath of fresh air when interviewed.

I actually read somewhere that the Monroe workout went really well. Ahh, just found it. None other than Chad Ford.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?name=nba_draft

Note: Monroe had a terrific workout over the weekend. Sounds like Monroe and Cousins are neck and neck here.

When you think about it though, are you ( or anyone ) that surprised Samhan worked Monroe? Im not, but Im a big Omar fan. Samhan has a nice post game, Monroe isnt a very good defender and he's on the thin side ( compared to Cousins ) I wasnt surprised at all when I read this.


On another note - We have been talking about Cousins and Monroe for months now, but I wouldnt be all that surprised If Favors falls to us. Ford said that Cousins dominated Favors in NJ, and now its a toss up for who gets taken there. If minni still has their heart set on Johnson ( and reports are they are trying hard to resign Darko, giving them three bigs) then you have to think we would take Favors. At least I would hope so.

 

[cfechter]

That wasn't your orginal point. You said that your problem with Monroe was he didn't produce enough in college to be an NBA quality big man. That's false. Monroe's stats stack up just fine to a number of very good NBA big men, maybe not dominant, but we're picking 5th. Sure-fire dominant big men do not fall to 5. Cousins was extremely productive and about as close as you can get but teams are terrifeid of his attitude and conditioning.

I challenge you to show me one current productive NBA big who averaged 10 rebounds and less than 2 blocks in 40 minutes in his final college season.

 

[Bricklayer]

I challenge you to show me one current productive NBA big who averaged 10 rebounds and less than 2 blocks in 40 minutes in his final college season.

Er what?

I'm not sure what you are calling "productive", but there would probably be tons of them were it not for the fact that many of the top NBA bigs right now entered the league before the age requirement and so came straight from high school or Europe.

But how about Carlos Boozer? Junior year averaged 8.7reb and 0.6blk in 28.4min (one of the easons he was a 2nd round pick who suprised everyone with his pro productivity).

 

[cfechter]

Er what?

I'm not sure what you are calling "productive", but there would probably be tons of them were it not for the fact that many of the top NBA bigs right now entered the league before the age requirement and so came straight from high school or Europe.

But how about Carlos Boozer? Junior year averaged 8.7reb and 0.6blk in 28.4min (one of the easons he was a 2nd round pick who suprised everyone with his pro productivity).

His final season he averaged 12.5 rebounds over a 40 minute stretch.

 

[cfechter]

Er what?

I'm not sure what you are calling "productive", but there would probably be tons of them were it not for the fact that many of the top NBA bigs right now entered the league before the age requirement and so came straight from high school or Europe.

But how about Carlos Boozer? Junior year averaged 8.7reb and 0.6blk in 28.4min (one of the easons he was a 2nd round pick who suprised everyone with his pro productivity).

This is actually interesting to me (an accountant) - I've been bored this evening and going through current pro rosters and using basketball-reference.com to look at guys' college stats then just computing their 40 mpg numbers. You'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of any big man on an NBA roster averaged greater than 2 blocks and 12 rebounds per game (on a 40 mpg basis).

All this to say that I just don't see NBA big-man production in Greg Monroe out of his college production. If he wasn't good enough or athletic enough to dominate in college, I would say that he's probalby not good enough or athletic enough to come close to dominating in the NBA.

 

[hammystyle]

This is actually interesting to me (an accountant) - I've been bored this evening and going through current pro rosters and using basketball-reference.com to look at guys' college stats then just computing their 40 mpg numbers. You'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of any big man on an NBA roster averaged greater than 2 blocks and 12 rebounds per game (on a 40 mpg basis).

All this to say that I just don't see NBA big-man production in Greg Monroe out of his college production. If he wasn't good enough or athletic enough to dominate in college, I would say that he's probalby not good enough or athletic enough to come close to dominating in the NBA.

Go back and look at everyone's age 19 season. Its the best comparison point.

Here's a few counter-examples: Brad Daugherty didn't get the blocks or the rebounds. Just a very skilled, underathletic big man with a good head on his shoulders like Monroe. Brook Lopez had the blocks but not the rebounds and was a poor shooter. Rasheed Wallace had the blocks but not the rebounds. Same with Lamarcus Aldridge.

Either way, you just picked two numbers that came out slightly ahead of what Greg Monroe did and arbitrarily said here is the cutoff point to NBA success. It doesn't mean a thing. If you want a good argument start picking out 19 year old centers with stats similar to Monroe's in the best conferences who weren't pretty good.

 

[fnordius]

I challenge you to show me one current productive NBA big who averaged 10 rebounds and less than 2 blocks in 40 minutes in his final college season.

Well sure, 'cause Bargnani didn't play college ball.

Oh, wait, you said "productive."

There are a number who wouldn't meet the rebounding criterium, such as Hawes, Hollins and Frye. But even all of those guys managed to squeak past 2.0 blocks per 40. Finding a C who is that weak of a shot blocker is pretty hard.

But I'm assuming that, if we take him, it will be as a point player, and that you're looking at the wrong stats. He gets 4.4 assists per 40, and you probably can't name another big currently in the NBA who topped that his last year in college. JT was good that way, but he only got 3.1/40.

Not that I like the idea.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I actually read somewhere that the Monroe workout went really well. Ahh, just found it. None other than Chad Ford.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog?name=nba_draft


When you think about it though, are you ( or anyone ) that surprised Samhan worked Monroe? Im not, but Im a big Omar fan. Samhan has a nice post game, Monroe isnt a very good defender and he's on the thin side ( compared to Cousins ) I wasnt surprised at all when I read this.


On another note - We have been talking about Cousins and Monroe for months now, but I wouldnt be all that surprised If Favors falls to us. Ford said that Cousins dominated Favors in NJ, and now its a toss up for who gets taken there. If minni still has their heart set on Johnson ( and reports are they are trying hard to resign Darko, giving them three bigs) then you have to think we would take Favors. At least I would hope so.

If Favors drops to us, I don't think Petrie hesitates for a second to grab him. I don't see NJ taking Cousins though when Favors is a perfect fit. Cousins and Lopez cannot play together.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Monroe is a PF size and length wise, but he's an extremely poor athlete for a PF. He's a poor athlete for a center too IMO. He also has a very subpar reach for a center at 9'0.5

I don't think Monroe is Rafael Araujo or anything, but I don't think he gives you all-star potential at all, and he doesn't give you a go-to scorer or defensive anchor. I really don't see the point in taking a player that has so little of a chance of being a real impact cornerstone player. I'd take Johnson, Davis, or Cole Aldrich (in that order) over him in a heart beat.

 

[Kingster]

True but that doesn't have any effect on the decision making process. So I don't think its much use in predicting what will actually happen.

I think Capt Fact's main point is that those who are going to throw up need to relax a little and make some peace with the idea. Because based off speculation (Kings like him maybe more than Cousins) and the facts (two workouts) Monroe is obviously a real possibility.

I'll make sure to have the pail handy if they pick Monroe.

 

[Sparky6string]

Monroe is a PF size and length wise, but he's an extremely poor athlete for a PF. He's a poor athlete for a center too IMO. He also has a very subpar reach for a center at 9'0.5

I don't think Monroe is Rafael Araujo or anything, but I don't think he gives you all-star potential at all, and he doesn't give you a go-to scorer or defensive anchor. I really don't see the point in taking a player that has so little of a chance of being a real impact cornerstone player. I'd take Johnson, Davis, or Cole Aldrich (in that order) over him in a heart beat.

Cole Aldrich? Man I almost forgot a bout him. Seriously tho I would too, but I'd prefer him over Davis. Not Johnson tho.

 

[swisshh]

My main concern with Monroe is that his best asset(passing) is negated by the fact Tyreke will be handling the ball for 18 seconds of the shotclock.

 

[cfechter]

Well sure, 'cause Bargnani didn't play college ball.

Oh, wait, you said "productive."

There are a number who wouldn't meet the rebounding criterium, such as Hawes, Hollins and Frye. But even all of those guys managed to squeak past 2.0 blocks per 40. Finding a C who is that weak of a shot blocker is pretty hard.

But I'm assuming that, if we take him, it will be as a point player, and that you're looking at the wrong stats. He gets 4.4 assists per 40, and you probably can't name another big currently in the NBA who topped that his last year in college. JT was good that way, but he only got 3.1/40.

Not that I like the idea.

Obviously - the guys who are from Europe and/or out of high school won't be comparable.

The point isn't even necessarily the sheer # of blocks or rebounds a guy got -

The point is high rates of rebounds, steals, blocks indicate guys who are bigger, quicker, react faster, are stronger, have better hands and/or anticipation skills, etc. I.E. - guys who have these higher rates in college have a much better chance to succeed at the next level. So when I see a center with a relatively low rate in the athletic indicating stats, it just shows me that he'll most likely be nothing but a mediocre NBA player.

 

[hammystyle]

Obviously - the guys who are from Europe and/or out of high school won't be comparable.

The point isn't even necessarily the sheer # of blocks or rebounds a guy got -

The point is high rates of rebounds, steals, blocks indicate guys who are bigger, quicker, react faster, are stronger, have better hands and/or anticipation skills, etc. I.E. - guys who have these higher rates in college have a much better chance to succeed at the next level. So when I see a center with a relatively low rate in the athletic indicating stats, it just shows me that he'll most likely be nothing but a mediocre NBA player.

They're good markers. Hollinger built a system taking them heavily into account along with size, age, and the offensive statistics and Greg Monroe came out as the 4th best prospect in the draft. He's going to be good.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Hollinger is a hack.

 

[Megalodon]

They're good markers. Hollinger built a system taking them heavily into account along with size, age, and the offensive statistics and Greg Monroe came out as the 4th best prospect in the draft. He's going to be good.

And Cousins came out as the #1. But I get your point

 

[Capt. Factorial]

This is actually interesting to me (an accountant) - I've been bored this evening and going through current pro rosters and using basketball-reference.com to look at guys' college stats then just computing their 40 mpg numbers. You'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of any big man on an NBA roster averaged greater than 2 blocks and 12 rebounds per game (on a 40 mpg basis).

All this to say that I just don't see NBA big-man production in Greg Monroe out of his college production. If he wasn't good enough or athletic enough to dominate in college, I would say that he's probalby not good enough or athletic enough to come close to dominating in the NBA.

Although Monroe's per-40 numbers aren't as good as Cousins', the idea that he was a poor rebounder is not very well supported by the more advanced statistics.

For instance, defensive rebounding rate (DRR) is a really useful stat - it's a measure of what percentage of available defensive rebounds a player gets. Amazingly, Monroe was actually marginally better at DRR than Cousins (25.2 to 25.1). Each player led his respective conference in DRR. It can be noted that the Big East was a better conference than the SEC this year (and Georgetown's strength of schedule was #4 in the country to Kentucky's #50) so this is not exactly faint praise for Monroe. It looks a bit like dominating on the defensive boards.

What does this suggest? It suggests that part (and only part...) of the reason that Monroe had fewer rebounds than Cousins is that there were fewer available defensive rebounds to be grabbed. And sure enough, Georgetown allowed a higher shooting percentage on both 2PT shots (46.0% to 41.1%) and 3PT shots (33.5% to 31.3%) than Kentucky, so yeah, Cousins did have more rebounds available to grab.

Furthermore, if you want to see a guy on a DRR learning curve, Monroe is your guy. He improved from 16.7% in his freshman year to 25.2% in his sophomore year. That's an incredible improvement - almost equivalent to Jason Thompson's improvement from 18.4 to 27.8...but Thompson did that between his freshman and SENIOR years, in a weaker conference, after growing like six inches.

Of course, there's always offensive rebounding, and Cousins was WAY better at offensive rebounding than Monroe (an absolutely ridiculous 19.6 ORR for Cousins to only 8.7 for Monroe). So this either means that offensive rebounding and defensive rebounding are completely and totally different beasts, or that maybe Monroe and Cousins were being used differently on offense. I don't know which, but it's probably some of each.

But really the bottom line is that a guy who is the best rebounder in one of the top conferences in the country with the 4th hardest overall strength of schedule probably doesn't deserve "not athletic enough to dominate in college". Cousins is overall a better rebounder taking the offensive side into account, but that's no reason to trash Monroe.

 

[cfechter]

Although Monroe's per-40 numbers aren't as good as Cousins', the idea that he was a poor rebounder is not very well supported by the more advanced statistics.

For instance, defensive rebounding rate (DRR) is a really useful stat - it's a measure of what percentage of available defensive rebounds a player gets. Amazingly, Monroe was actually marginally better at DRR than Cousins (25.2 to 25.1). Each player led his respective conference in DRR. It can be noted that the Big East was a better conference than the SEC this year (and Georgetown's strength of schedule was #4 in the country to Kentucky's #50) so this is not exactly faint praise for Monroe. It looks a bit like dominating on the defensive boards.

What does this suggest? It suggests that part (and only part...) of the reason that Monroe had fewer rebounds than Cousins is that there were fewer available defensive rebounds to be grabbed. And sure enough, Georgetown allowed a higher shooting percentage on both 2PT shots (46.0% to 41.1%) and 3PT shots (33.5% to 31.3%) than Kentucky, so yeah, Cousins did have more rebounds available to grab.

Furthermore, if you want to see a guy on a DRR learning curve, Monroe is your guy. He improved from 16.7% in his freshman year to 25.2% in his sophomore year. That's an incredible improvement - almost equivalent to Jason Thompson's improvement from 18.4 to 27.8...but Thompson did that between his freshman and SENIOR years, in a weaker conference, after growing like six inches.

Of course, there's always offensive rebounding, and Cousins was WAY better at offensive rebounding than Monroe (an absolutely ridiculous 19.6 ORR for Cousins to only 8.7 for Monroe). So this either means that offensive rebounding and defensive rebounding are completely and totally different beasts, or that maybe Monroe and Cousins were being used differently on offense. I don't know which, but it's probably some of each.

But really the bottom line is that a guy who is the best rebounder in one of the top conferences in the country with the 4th hardest overall strength of schedule probably doesn't deserve "not athletic enough to dominate in college". Cousins is overall a better rebounder taking the offensive side into account, but that's no reason to trash Monroe.

I'm not really trashing Monroe, but just based on comparing college stats to pro stats on productive NBA players, he doesn't stack up to anything more than a mediocre player.

 

[hammystyle]

Hollinger is a hack.

I think he's excellent, but it doesn't matter. The point is when you're bringing up "athletic markers" in college basketball I'm pretty sure Hollinger is the guy who coined the phrase when he built the tool back in 07. At least I'd never heard of it before I read that column. Anywho, even if he didn't invent the term he's the one who polpularized it and his system says Monroe is a good prospect.

That's just one tool to use along with scouting and the intangibles about a player. I think from watching him that the GT system really didn't do him any favors and he'll be a better pro than collegian and his defense is a heck of a lot better than he gets credit for on this board. Reasonable minds may differ.

 

[Section 101]

I just curious where the speculation comes from. I've heard nothing from Petrie or any Kings official that they're in love with Monroe. I hear most of that from pundits on the east coast, or from other teams pr dept. Petrie was almost asked point blank on Grants show, what was the deciding factor when a player is very talented and is known to have other issues. Petrie sort of danced around the isssue by saying that sometimes you can get an entirely different impression of a player when you go out into a relaxed atmosphere of a resturant and sit around an just chat about things over dinner.

Jerry Reynolds on the rise guys show said that every team would love to draft nice guys, but if a player is talented enough you can live with a some immaturity problems. As I've said before, I'm not a big Monroe fan. But if the Kings pick him then I'll live with it and hope like hell that I'm wrong and they're right.

Mike Lame asked last week a hypothetical question to Petrie about a big with issues. Petrie paused response was basically talent is the first thing you have to look at. If the talent is big enough you take it no matter the other stuff.