Monta Ellis vs. Kobe Bryant
by Hul10 on Apr 20, 2008 5:52 PM PDT
87 comments
Okay, so I'm not saying that Monta is the next Mamba, but before we consider what Monta is worth on the FA market, maybe we should compare his first three years in the Association to Jellybean Junior's first three years, especially since they both hit The League out of HS, and they both were broken in on a similiar playing-time schedule.
When placing a value on any position, why not start with comparing against the best...tell me what you think:
Monta's first three years:
| YR | TM | G | GS | MIN | FG | FG% | 3P | 3P% | FT | FT% | STL | BLK | TO | PF | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PTS |
| 05-06 | Gsw | 49 | 3 | 18.1 | 2.7-6.5 | .415 | 0.6-1.7 | .341 | 0.9-1.2 | .712 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 6.8 |
| 06-07 | Gsw | 77 | 53 | 34.3 | 6.2-13.1 | .475 | 0.5-1.9 | .273 | 3.5-4.6 | .763 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 16.5 |
| 07-08 | Gsw | 81 | 72 | 38.0 | 8.0-15.1 | .531 | 0.1-0.6 | .231 | 4.0-5.1 | .767 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 3.4 | 4.9 | 3.9 |
20.2 |
Kobe's first three years:
| YR | TM | G | GS | MIN | FG | FG% | 3P | 3P% | FT | FT% | STL | BLK | TO | PF | OFF | DEF | TOT | AST | PTS |
| 96-97 | Lal | 71 | 6 | 15.5 | 2.5-5.9 | .417 | 0.7-1.9 | .375 | 1.9-2.3 | .819 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 7.6 |
| 97-98 | Lal | 79 | 1 | 26.0 | 4.9-11.6 | .428 | 0.9-2.8 | .341 | 4.6-5.8 | .794 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 15.4 |
| 98-99 | Lal | 50 | 50 | 37.9 | 7.2-15.6 | .465 | 0.5-2.0 | .267 | 4.9-5.8 | .839 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 4.2 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 19.9 |
Maybe we're all a little too close to the situation to realize how good Monta really is...I think Simmons is right on in saying that Ellis is the best under 25 FA since McGrady. Thoughts???
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
3 recs |
87 comments
Email
Print
Comments
asdf
I don’t care what it costs to sign Monta, we CANNOT let him go. He’s by far the best under 25 FA talent since Mcgrady and even then if I had a choice I still pick Monta over Mcgrady. He’s pretty close to unstoppable but can you imagine how unguardable he’ll end up being if he can ever develop a 3 point shot? You can’t crowd him because he’ll go right by you, you can’t sag off because he can hit a jump shot or a 3, you don’t see talent like he has everyday. He’s already one of the best finishers around the rim in the league, he’s like a more efficient AI and I think he’ll end up having a better career than AI.
Stephen Jackson catches on the wing and faces up against Vujacic. When Jax looks down and sees Vujacic, his eyes light up. He pulls out his nine, screams "Thug Life" and empties the clip, then drives in for a basically uncontested layup.
by J Rich 4 MVP on Apr 20, 2008 6:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His
Monta’s Clutch, Defense, and 3 Point ability is no where close to Kobe’s. Monta Ellis is one of the best scoring guards in the league under 25, but come on he is no where close to Kobe. Is he worth his alue. Yes. Will we keep him? Yes.
6 Years/72 Million.
Do It.
by ejdacanay on Apr 20, 2008 6:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not now obviously
but kobe was NOT clutch at all his first few years. Monta will never be the great defensive presence kobe is, but the steals stats show he is dangerous on the defensive end with his quickness.
by sam23 on Apr 20, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of his stats
His steals are inflated because the scrappy way the Warriors play D. His points and FG/FT/3PT% are inflated because of the accelerated offensive style he plays in. His FG% also came from a huge amount of layups. Secondly, Monta Ellis started a good part of his 1st year and started in years 2 and 3. Kobe didn’t start in his 2 seasons. Kobe in his first 3 years also was 2nd in 6th MOY as well as an All-Star. He also won the Dunk competition.
There is a fine line between reality and being biased.
Monta will turn out to be more of an AI type player then a Kobe player. To compare the two is Apples and Oranges.
by ejdacanay on Apr 20, 2008 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah
Monta needs better handles to become an AI type of player. There is only one Monta Ellis and only one AI.
by saintdee on Apr 20, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a not-so-fine line...
...between statistical comparisons and subjective personal analysis. I stipulated that I was only comparing the statistics of these two players during the first three years of there careers.
You have the tendency to twist reality to support your belief. – which is probably why you can’t support your argument soundly. Winning the Dunk Contest, for instance, has no relevance in a comparison of statistics.
Also, you are off base with your theory that Monta’s FG/FT/3P percentages are inflated due to a type of offense. Uhh, percentages have nothing to do with pace of play. If anything, Monta’s percentages standout because of his efficiency, despite the fact that his team doesn’t “value” posessions as much as more defensive-minded squads.
Further, I don’t know what makes you think the fact that Monta scores a lot of his buckets at the rim cheapens his FG%. Would you prefer that he cast off jumpers from 22 feet and shoot 41 percent?
Monta is an unusually effective finisher. It’s not like Kobe didn’t drive to the rim in his first three years – he just didn’t do it as well as Monta. This is further proved by looking at their respective 3PT FG%. Very similiar – yet Monta leads in overall FG% by a wide margin. Meaning – both players were marginal three point shooters at best, but Monta shot far more effectively than Bryant from inside the line.
It’s obvious that you’re a Kobe stan and feel threatened by any comparisons of Monta to the Mamba – but don’t worry. No one’s saying that Monta is the next Kobe, or that Monta is better than Kobe.
I’m just saying that Monta’s first three years in the league out of HS are as good as, if not better than Kobe’s. This makes for an interesting discussion because of Monta’s pending RFA status.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Some good points
But you’re still being disingenuous with the comparison.
By PER at comparable ages (I don’t love PER, but it’s easier to look at, and basically synthesizes the numbers you posted):
Age … Kobe/Monta
——-
20 … 18.9 / 11.1
21 … 21.7 / 15.0
22 … 24.5 / 19.0
Not that close. Factor in Kobe’s very obvious defensive advantage over our guy (which isn’t really represented in PER), and it’s really not that close.
As others have said, Wade and Iverson are much better comps, in terms of playing style and numbers.
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 21, 2008 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Of course there is a not-so-fine line between statistical and personal analysis. But looking at many of your posts and the thread title it seems that you are further trying to embed your ideas into the population of this site, especially with your quick Defense of those who are rebutting your points.
It seems your only looking at the flaws in my argument as I stated that Kobe won three awards or competitions at an age 2 years younger then Monta’s. The Dunk competition reference was just icing to the cake in regards to the regular season achievements he has received.
And yes the FT% was a typo as that % has nothing to do with a style of play. However, the FG and 3P% does, especially on an offense that relies on fast break points and the majority of those FB points that came from Monta were from layups, which usually should be automatic. If the Warriors were playing more traditional basketball with a slow temp then Monta would certainly have to make more of those 22 foot shots, thus lowering his FG and possibly his 3P%.
And what do you mean by stan? Is that even a word?
And lastly in my first post I already state that, yes, he is worth his value and should be re-signed.
by ejdacanay on Apr 21, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stan
1. Stan Based on the central character in the Eminem song of the same name, a “stan” is an overzealous maniacal fan for any celebrity or athlete.A Typical Kobe Bryant Stan would say something like.
“Kobe Bryant scored 81 points last night. Kobe could beat God himself in a game of 1 on 1 hoops. To hell with Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain, they aren’t on Kobe’s level!”tags stalker fanatic fan obsessed infatuated blind loyalty
From the Urban Dictionary. And I didn’t add that Kobe stuff. It’s really in there that way…weird.
I get your point…but you’re arguing as if I’m trying to say that Monta is better than Kobe. This post was just about comparing statistics through the first three years in the League.
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you be sure...
that he’s “no where close to Kobe”...not right now…but his 3pt numbers are the same as Kobe’s through three years, his FG % is far superior, his scoring is slightly better, and his boards and assists are the same…
So I’m just asking you to support your statement with some data. The data we have indicates that Monta is very similiar to Kobe at the same age and experience.
by Hul10 on Apr 20, 2008 6:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Numbers...
First of all, it’s a little dishonest to compare their “first three seasons,” given that Kobe was 18 when he started and Monta was 20. Those are a big two years. It’s fairer to compare Monta’s year 1-2-3 with Kobe’s year 3-4-5.
Second, as with the earlier Brand/Duncan comparison, you’re omitting one of the most important numbers of all: length/height. Kobe is 6’7”, the ideal size for the position, perfect for locking down opposing 1s and 2s, a la MJ and Pippen. Monta is 6’3” ... not ideal. The chances of a guy that small who isn’t a point guard becoming a franchise player are close to nil. Iverson probably came the closest, and I’m not even sure he was ever a franchise player.
I love Monta to pieces, but let’s not kill the guy with impossible expectations.
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 20, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not getting in this, but
Kobe is 6’6
Monta has grown to 6’4 since coming in to the league(heard it on one of the national broadcasts)
They don’t have the same length, but their height is only about 2 inches apart.
by superk1ng on Apr 20, 2008 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why I said "length/height"
Kobe is significantly longer—long enough to get his shot up over most 1s and 2s, to disrupt passing lanes and, when he puts his mind to it, to lock down and trap guards off the dribble the way MJ and Pippen could. Monta just isn’t quite long enough to do those things consistently.
Are we really suggesting that Monta has a chance to be as good as Kobe? Come now.
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 20, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Check your facts...
...before you start thowing around words like ‘dishonest’. Monta was 19 when he was drafted and 19 during his first NBA season. Kobe was 18.
Further, Monta is 6’4” and Kobe is 6’6”. Your argument is sound enough, you don’t need to exagerrate or call others dishonest to make your point. It only undermines what you’re trying to say.
by Hul10 on Apr 20, 2008 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
..your the one who needs to check your facts too as Monta was 20 years old when the 05/06 season started. Kobe was 17 when drafted and was 18 when the season started. So you need to correct yourself before you correct someone else wrongfully. And to really compare Monta to Kobe is ridiculous, if you say this in a non-Golden State Warrior site then I would want to see how well you would do arguing with the general population in determining that Monta is indeed “no where close to Kobe”.
by ejdacanay on Apr 20, 2008 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wrong
Monta was 19 when drafted and signed and turned 20 during his first season.
And how can you say it’s ‘ridiculous’ to compare Monta to Kobe? Look at the stats. Monta was BETTER than Kobe during his first three years.
Again, I’m not saying that Monta of today is equal to Kobe of today. I’m saying that judging by a comparison of each players’ first three years in the League out of HS (using, you know, STATISTICS), it is entirely possible that Monta could continue to follow the statistical arc of Kobe’s career.
I’m not saying it’s probable, I’m saying it’s possible. If you disagree, I’d suggest you use something other than put-downs to back up your point.
Like facts, for example.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fact check
Kobe was born on 8/23/78 - he had just turned 18 at the start of his rookie season (‘96/97).
Monta was born on 10/26/85 - he just turned 20 at the start of his rookie season (‘05/’06)
That’s two years’ difference in their debuts, minus two months and three days. Pretty significant. So yes, it is an unfair/dishonest comparison to look at their “first three seasons” rather than their seasons at comparable ages. No need to get all huffy about it.
On heights: You’re right that Kobe is only 6’6”, though he looks lik a pretty long 6’6”. Meanwhile, I’ve yet to find any source that lists Monta as 6’4” (I’d love to see one if you have it); and, just based on the eyeball test, it’s pretty clear he’s not that close to Kobe in length.
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 21, 2008 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kobe Bryant
is 6’9”
when he puts on his wife’s stilletos at home.
by misterjennings on Apr 21, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
source...
Monta is listed at 6’4” at the following sites, among others…
USA Basketball
Rivals
USA Today
Scout
His personal myspace page
and a bunch of other spots…
Bob Fitzgerald talked about Monta’s physical growth several times on air this season as well.
Google Monta Ellis 6’4” if you want to see all the places he is listed at this height.
Kind of a stupid thing to debate, but you asked for sourcing…
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and...
Monta was measured at 6’3” 1/4 and 176.6lbs at the 2005 NBA pre-draft camp. These explain the 6’3/177 we see listed at many places.
Obviously, it is not unusal to grow in height and weight between the ages of 19 and 22.
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the source
I guess it’s only a “stupid thing” if you think the difference in size between the two players is basically negligible. As I’ve said, I don’t think it is. MIchael Jordan wouldn’t have been Michael Jordan had he been 6’3.5” with shortish arms.
For the record, Googling “Kobe Bryant 6-7” yields quite a few hits too, including this: http://www.answers.com/topic/kobe-bryant. Thanks for the tip.
Do you actually think the size difference between the two is negligible, or are you just playing devil’s advocate?
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 21, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the key. Kobe and Monta are very different players, especially on the defensive end of the court. Regardless of whatever numbers get assigned to Monta’s height and weight, he’s a smaller guy. Kobe plays like a combo guard/forward. Monta doesn’t.
It should be noted that some of the stats similarities go away when you control for game pace. Their rebounds per game look artificially more similar in part because the fast pace the Warriors play at creates more rebound opportunities. Their rebound rates, as percentages of available rebounds, are rather different. Kobe grabs a greater percentage, as one would expect from the bigger player.
by jae on Apr 21, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not Negligible...
...I agree that size matters. And the purpose of this post was never to compare Monta physically or directly to Kobe. The purpose was to consider the monetary value of Monta on the FA market considering the fact that his statistical production is very simliar to Kobe’s at a simliar age/experience level.
The conclusion that I draw from looking at the stats is that if Monta has progressed similiarly to Kobe, then it is at least possible that he could continue to progress towards the averages that Kobe produced. Not likely, but possible.
As far as size limitations, I only wanted to point out that we are talking about a very small amount of difference here. It’s not like Monta is 5’11 like Iverson. Six-four is a perfectly acceptable height for a two-guard, especially as he continues to add strength, which he obviously has done over his first three years. The point being that his height doesn’t really place too many limits on what his potential production could be.
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does anyone know...
why Monta didn’t graduate high school until he was 19? Does this explain his seemingly low IQ?
by triplesix on Apr 21, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering the same thing...
...when I posted this.
I don’t think that Monta has a seemingly low IQ, though.
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you...
ever heard him speak?
John 8:44 -Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
by triplesix on Apr 25, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Physical maturity varies from individual to individual. I’m not sure that it’s any more fair to use chronological age for the comparison than years of basketball experience at a particular level. Some individuals will be further along physically at 18 than others at 20. Some individuals will get more (or less) out of being surrounded by the NBA environment for 3 years than others. It is not necessarily more appropriate to compare Kobe’s years 3-5 with Monta’s years 1-3 unless you believe that chronological age is closer to a fixed variable and is more important than experience. It’s no more dishonest to compare their first 3 years in the league than it is to compare Kobe with 3 years of NBA experience to Monta a year removed from high school UNLESS you consider the physical maturity curve of both to be more important than experience and similarly to progress at the same rate matched with chronological age. Neither comparison account for all variables, so I’d be rather hesitant to disparage someone’s post as “dishonest” without some strong qualifiers about these factors that you’re taking as implicit.
Monta and Kobe are very different players. What is clear about both is that they had a rather steep curve of improvement over their first few seasons and by year 3 were highly productive players. In terms of position potential, Monta is more likely to fit comparisons to Iverson, indeed. The difference is that Monta is already more valuable than Iverson, who, despite the popular accolades, has done far, far, far less to improve the clubs he’s been on than most give him credit for.
by jae on Apr 21, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
I believe we had the same discussion a few months ago re: Monta v. Wade, in which I was the one defending Monta using his “physical age” rather than “NBA age.” I imagine the “true” age for the purposes of comparison is probably some composite of the two; and it that varies pretty wildly from player to player. In both cases my point is that “first X number of years” is not a very complete or reliable way to compare or project players.
Re: Iverson’s overratedness: I’m mostly convinced by you (and Dave Berri), though I have to say the dude has always been an absolute joy to watch play, which, in the sports/entertainment business, does have some intrinsic value.
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 21, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An entirely subjective assessment: Monta’s first year is more or less analogous to Kobe’s first. Monta was older, but Kobe was taller, bigger, more suited for the position he was going to play. Kobe was regarded as more “NBA ready” as I recall. That their improvement curve looks reasonably similar over their first three years does make me think that the comparison is at least somewhat valid. Whether or not this will project into similar trajectories for the rest of Monta’s career is an unknown. Kobe is very, very good (albeit I do not think he is the most valuable or most productive player in the league as some do). Monta has not achieved that level, but if he remains as productive for the rest of his career, he’s going to help win games.
Iverson has been a good player, especially this year. He’s just not great, not elite. And he is amazingly fun to watch, though one of the things I liked about watching him when he played for Philly is that when he came to town, he could light up the scoreboard for 40, put some dazzling moves on, look positively electric, but, because of his faults (the turnovers and errant shooting), he could do that and still lose. Best of both worlds. Now that he’s surrounded by a better team and has started to play somewhat more within himself, he’s winning.
by jae on Apr 21, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is
that the “taller and longer” part is a constant; and Kobe will always have that advantage. That was the crux of my argument. If Monta were 6’6” with long arms, and showed the slightest signs of being a lockdown defender, I’d be more on board with the comparison.
Kobe’s also been a practice and workout freak, which I’m not sure Monta is, at least to the same degree.
Monta’s numbers this year are truly sick, though. I’d love to see a list of 22-year olds in the NBA who had averaged 20/5/4 and shot 53% from the field. I suspect it’d be pretty short.
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 21, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Monta more valuable than iverson? We’ll hafta wait till monta is near the end of his career to know won’t we? Stick to verifiable facts, he’s a 3rd year player not a hall of famer. He plays in a system that’s perfect for his skill, and that coach might not be around more than one year. why lock ourselves into another contract we’ll regret? Jeez this thread coulda been written by monta’s agent, do y’all get a cut of his new contract? talk him down for christssake to keep our cost low.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 21, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know many regard Iverson as a future Hall of Famer. I don’t actually think he’s in that elite class of player in terms of what matters most: improving his team’s chances of winning. I know I take a minority position here. I know many sportswriters and many NBA GMs would disagree with me, but as point of fact (you asked me to stick to the facts) Iverson’s personal performance hasn’t had a whole lot to do with his team’s success. The 6ers were good when they also had dynamite defenders and stunk when they didn’t. They spent years looking for the “2nd scoring option” to complement him, but reality was that so long as he was committed to hoisting up 20something shots a night at a rather low rate. The supporting cast never got credit when Philly was good. They should have. They’d have been more successful without Iverson than Iverson was without them. Many were surprised when Philly lost AI and didn’t go in the tank, but actually played better. Many called it a one year fluke, but it wasn’t. They played better despite the absence of their star. Point of fact: Philly without him is as good or better as they were with him for the last few years he was there. If a team doesn’t suffer when he’s gone, I can’t really see that regarded as Hall of Fame worthy.
Yeah, an unpopular argument, but I’d like to hear a counter to explain why it’s not a valid argument. I’d really be interested in such an argument that didn’t stay centered around his ridiculously high PPG, made possible almost entirely by ridiculously high FGA.
People voting for all-star games don’t tend to look at shooting percentage (though it is critical to team success) and prefer to make decisions based on points per game. Hence Iverson is “great” and will be a “Hall of Famer” despite some sometimes good, often not so good ability to improve the fate of his team. He’s good, but not as good as people give him credit for.
by jae on Apr 21, 2008 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and as far as D...
Kobe didn’t become dominant onn defense until he filled out. Remember, Monta has grown to over 6’4” since he was drafted, and has added 20 pounds of muscle. Where will he be in three years?
Also, if you look at the D stats above, while Kobe had more blocks, Monta has more steals through three years.
by Hul10 on Apr 20, 2008 6:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
WOW
nice post. when i first read the title I thought “lets not get carried away,” but those stats are pretty amazing. I would not be upset if Monta received a max deal, though I think we can get him back for cheaper as long as the Griz dont make a big play for him.
by sam23 on Apr 20, 2008 6:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nice topic...
Although I do agree Monta is not the next Kobe (apples and oranges), but his offensive stats early on are pretty darn impressive. The FG% jumps out the most to me. We know his lack of size hurts him on the defensive end, but later down the road he should be better.
Just make it happen!!!
by vicious1 on Apr 20, 2008 6:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
interesting
these stats are very interesting, first off i dont care how much we pay him, just get him back he improves everyday! He is a different style than kobe and a little smaller height and wingspan wise but monta is quicker, i hope monta could fill out more but still maintain his quickness which is tough to do but it can be done. And ya i always think if monta can get that pull up jumper range out to the three line ….very very scary. One thing is for sure he is not the cocky pile that kobe is, monta is humble and after all the times i saw him get hammered this year with no foul call i never saw him complain or talk trash. When i first saw this i thought it was crazy but reading the stats and thinkin about how much he has improved…. only time will tell!
by FeartheBeard4 on Apr 20, 2008 7:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hmm
and they both wear # 8 (well kobe did during his first years) coincidence? i think not. hahaha
by lowchi on Apr 20, 2008 7:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
quickest guard in the nba
no one finishes better than Monta, but we gave a lot to keep him, JRich had an NBA high 243 3 pt shots@ 41% 21.8 pts/game, not bad for a shooting guard, and Monta will probably get a contract as much as or more than JRich. We can’t break the bank on him but definitely will be worth 10/year similar to JRich.
by shootda3 on Apr 20, 2008 8:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I've been calling him Kobe Jr. all season
Monta’s stats are slightly worse than Kobe’s the first three years, which ain’t bad at all. ;)
Bruin in LA.
by Yoyo on Apr 20, 2008 8:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
please
The only people I call Kobe jr. are idiot ball hogs with huge egos. Kobe is talented but I’m glad he plays for the lakers and I would not renew my season tickets if the warriors traded for him.
As for the comparison they have very different games. Monta’s game is more like Iverson’s or a healthy Wade.
by StackJac on Apr 20, 2008 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s sort of like how the people I call Stephen Jackson Jr. are great players but are one of the league’s biggest d-bags, right? Get over the ego thing. Everybody in the NBA has one. Everybody in high school ball has one, even the water boy.
by CatchAndShoot on Apr 21, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MJ had an ego too.
I would certainly rewnew my tickets, if I had any, if were to get Kobe.
Kobe has more Assists then Ellis btw.
by ejdacanay on Apr 20, 2008 9:07 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
This is the reason you can’t go only by stats. Kobe had shaq so he din’t need to put tup the numbers that monta does. Monta cherry picks and goes to the rim most of the time so his percentage is inflated. If monta ever scores 81 points in a game then you can say he’s equal !
Monta is worth keeping but not worth a maximum long term contract. He’ll never be a shooter or a handler so he is what he is, iverson light without the creativity or style, kobe jr. without the outside shot or swagger. I don’t think monta has the attitude to be a leader and inspire his team mates so he’s not worth super star dollars.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 20, 2008 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You act like taking it to the rim is a downfall. Newsflash – Kobe drives all the time too. Further, Kobe didn’t score 81 during his first three years, and nobody is suggesting Monta is ‘Kobe of today’s’ equal. His stats show that he is equal to Kobe of 96-99. And that’s what is so intriguing.
However, I am suggesting that if someone produced at a Kobe Bryant level during the first three years of their career at a similiar age, then it is entirely possible that this person could continue to follow a statistical parallel to Kobe career. We have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
by Hul10 on Apr 20, 2008 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
woah buddy
Saying he goes to the rim is an excuse for his numbers is just wrong. Don’t blame Monta for getting to the rim. I’d rather a player get an easy shot and make it 55% of the time, than make a crazy fade-away step back with 5 hands in his face 40% of the time.
Saying Monta’s percentage is inflated because he gets to the rim easily is like saying Dwight howard’s rebounding numbers are inflated because he’s better at boxing out than other centers.
by bradyk2 on Apr 21, 2008 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good job
Putting those stats together.
I agree that Monta is the most important player to keep. He is our future for the next 15 years. In 5 years he will be the face of our franchise. He has a chacne to be something special.
by bradyk2 on Apr 20, 2008 10:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All I know
is that people have to stop saying Barbosa is the fastest player in the NBA. They haven’t seen Ellis obviously.
by belilaugh on Apr 20, 2008 11:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
True that.
Fastet player in the league, with or without the ball. One, if not the, best finishers in the association. league leader in fast break points. Gotta respect that.
by bradyk2 on Apr 21, 2008 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BARBOSA TO THE RIM!!!
No, wait.
that’s BARBOSA BEING POSTERIZED!!!
I think I’ll call it “Barbosarized.”
by bradyk2 on Apr 21, 2008 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Size
Here’s a stat that might be something to look into as well
Monta: 6’3, 180 soaking wet
Kobe: 6’6, 205
I’m not saying Monta can’t get bigger, but it’s not on his frame. That’s actually kind of a big deal when it comes to the style of play Monta wants to play.
A better comparitive hope would be with AI. Monta has the finishing ability, quickness, and mid-range j that has made Iverson a Hall-of-Famer. Rather than breaking his opponents down with the dribble, Monta blows by them.
If Monta could develop the ability to pass at the weird angles he creates and increase the assist figures, he’s an Iverson clone, no? Gotta improve the three-ball, too.
by pree on Apr 21, 2008 4:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He'll also have to work on
His technical fouls, turnovers, and usage of the word “practice.” :)
by bradyk2 on Apr 21, 2008 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would compare
Monta’s game to Iverson’s.
Both are undersized SGs relying on quickness to get to the basket and midrange J’s.
Only difference is right now, Monta doesn’t have a 3 point shot in his arsenal and Iverson has developed his to a servicable degree.
For Monta to take his game to Iverson’s level, he would need to have defender’s respect his 3 pointer so he would have an easier time getting by them. Also, to be able to draw fouls and go to the line would help increase his scoring to the mid 20’s easily.
by misterjennings on Apr 21, 2008 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’ll say something controversial. Monta’s played better than Iverson already. Iverson has the glory number: points per game, but much of it is because he shoots whenever he touches the damn ball. This looks impressive, but it doesn’t help produce wins as much as most people suggest. Iverson had probably the best year of his career, but for most of his career, he’s been a below average shooter who can shoot his teams to losses as often as to victories. He does have an uncanny ability to get to the FT line. This is really the dangerous part of his offensive arsenal. It’s the only part that I’d suggest Monta try to emulate.
Before anyone jumps on the “Iverson led a team to the finals” line, note that he did that only when playing on a team that played elite level defense and rotated in above average rebounders at every other position, thus minimizing the cost of the many, many misses that Iverson produced. When the defenders and rebounders left, Iverson’s game didn’t change and the team started losing.
by jae on Apr 21, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe...
...you’re just right.
Bill Simmons supports an argument comparing Ellis to McGrady and Wade.
Stats support an argument that Monta’s first three years are similiar to Kobe’s.
And Jae certainly supports an argument that Ellis is similiar or better than a young Iverson.
Maybe we are looking at a max deal…
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
... and if he does get a max deal
We’ll have you and JAE to thank. Actually we’ll have me to thank too, since I was among the first on this site to tout Monta as a budding Dwyane Wade, early this season.
C’mon men, shhhh. Loose lips sink ships!
Sign ^^^^ !!!
by Sleepy Freud on Apr 21, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I’m not writing any checks! And Mullin and Nellie have said that they only use stats to support positions that they already believe.
I wouldn’t give Monta a max contract. I certainly wouldn’t give one to Iverson. I don’t know what I’d do if someone else offered as much, because losing him for nothing might be a bigger loss.
by jae on Apr 21, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are Philly and Memphis...
...reading this? Damn.
Pay no attention to what us homers say about our boy. He’s too short to ever be any good. You should really try to trade for Marco Jaric. He’s got good length.
Totally on board with the D-Wade comparison BTW. The Kobe things was statistical only. Nice to know that Monta has way less miles than Wade at the three-year mark as well.
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 21, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait for Monta to develop a 3
As soon as he gets that, I think he’ll be offensively just as much of a threat as Kobe. I’m not saying as good him. Don’t know if that makes sense or not.
by Golden Boy on Apr 21, 2008 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
almost but
remember, Kobe can also operate out of the post up on smaller defenders.
That is probably something that Monta will never be able to develop a post up game.
by misterjennings on Apr 21, 2008 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
comparing players sucks
you cant really compare guys because everyoen is so different in at least one facet of their game.
Salary wise, I say yes, pay the man and lock him up for 5-6 years. With the shot percentage he is shooting he could easily become the game ending monster guys like Kobe and Ginobili are which is just as important as anything else he does.
I would definitely not go over 6 years with anyone though based on the rate of injury we see. Who wants to carry his contract forever after he is done playing!
by warriorsvictim on Apr 21, 2008 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
uhh, no
ugh, a max deal? Kobe comparisons? Really? I would say Monta is among the worst defensive players in the league who get regular burn time. I wouldn’t mind a sign and trade to teams that do think of him as that good. But really, his defense is worse than Nash’s.
by dhp318 on Apr 21, 2008 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the comparison to AI is better
although these stats are definitely interesting and reaffirm what most people here think, which is that Monta is vital to the future of the GSW and should be resigned.
I think it’s important to note with AI that he is really short. Like, really short. They list him as 6’0” on nba.com but that is completely not true. I have second hand info (friend met him at a Philly track tournament he attended – granted I wouldn’t bet the family house on this data) that he is no more than 5’10”, and that’s generous. I suppose Monta’s height could be a little inflated, but the extra 4-5 inches that Monta has on AI could def make him a more effective scorer in the long run.
by tvargs on Apr 21, 2008 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Max deal?
If ME gets a MAX deal it won’t be here. I totally think he ought to be resigned because once he’s under contract he’s tradeable. If nellie comes back next season he’s vital, if not, well…not so much.
He’s bigger than AI, smaller the DWade, his body type looks more like AI’s to me. My guesstimate is that he signs a 5 year deal that starts out about $8mil and totals around $50 mil. If he’s all that you guys think/hope he’s going to be then he’s still going to be young enough to get his max deal. Why do you think the NBA is considering making it 2 years out of high school before a prospect can sign a pro NBA contract?
AI and Kobaby would bitch slap you, knee you in the b*s, knife you in the guts, kick you to the curb and not think a thing about it. I don’t see Monta having that kind of drive and fire. He seems like a nice kid…....not that there is anything wrong with that.
His stats are impressive, no doubt, going to get better, no doubt. He may end up an elite player, he may not. The worst thing that could happen to the dub’s would be to sign him to a max contract now. They would be mortgaging their future for one young ‘tweener guard.
I admire his game and anticipate that he is going to help create a lot of wonderful memories for warrior’s fans for years to come. In my view you guys are way ahead of yourselves, he is nowhere near ready for induction into the Hall of Fame yet.
by Bluejohn on Apr 21, 2008 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think what you're trying to say is
We should keep Monta Ellis. He’s not going to be the next Kobe, just like Kobe is not going to be the next Jordan. That’s coming from a Lakers fan. But let me just keep this short since everybody posted something long already. We should keep Monta Ellis. Agreed?
by CatchAndShoot on Apr 21, 2008 9:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
?
whos we? i thought u said u are a laker fan
by saintdee on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should keep Monta Ellis. Agreed?
Not if we can trade him for the real Kobe, or the real AI, or the real ??
by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 21, 2008 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d trade Ellis for Kobe. It would improve the team. I would NOT trade Ellis for Iverson. I wouldn’t even consider it. It wouldn’t make the team better and well could make us worse.
by jae on Apr 22, 2008 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is getting ridiculous
Don’t compare first 3 seasons of 2 players and make assumptions. Using this method Jermaine O’Neal= Patrick O’Bryant. There is just too many variables to consider(playing time, age entering the league etc.)Compare the stats for a certain age, where most of the players(especially true for the high schoolers) start being physically mature and get a stable playing time. In our case, for the sake of this argument the age is 22(Monta 07-08). Very rarely you would see a high school pick who doesn’t produce at 22, with 3-4 seasons under the belt, turning into a great player at 27.
Both Kobe and DWade were the All-Second NBA Team players at 22(00-01 and 04-05 respectively) with Kobe going for 28.5 ppg, 6 reb , 5 assists and DWade going for 24 ppg , 5rb, 7 assists. Did they get much better as NBA players ? Not by what I see, just became more well-rounded and experienced in some aspects of the game they weren’t as good at 22( shooting and passing for Kobe, Defence for DWade).,
Will Ellis get much better as his career goes that he is now at 22? I’m not so sure. I still see a very suspect handles that will be exploited by upper echelon teams, lack of a 3 point shot, absolutely atrocious defender. Totally agreeing with dhp318 “Monta is among the worst defensive players in the league who get regular burn time”. Small guards take him of the dribble, big guards post up(that will always be a problem), shooters have him go under the screen, or double team on a wrong guy leaving them wide open. Unlike DWade and Kobe at 22, who needed a slight improvement to few areas of their game, Ellis needs a quantum leap in ball-handling, long range shooting and especially defence to be considered an elite player.
By now you probably think that I hate the guy, but I don’t. His midrange jumper is a thing of beauty( top 3 in NBA), and he is the fastest guy in the NBA in the open court. He is not as bad of a rebounder as some would like to think, I’m getting accustomed to him pulling 7-9 rodmans a game lately, and his desicion making got much better too. But this guy is not worth mega-bucks yet. Ok say we give him a 5/$60 mil, based on potential, and end up paying $15mil in year 5, would you be comfortable paying him that money , considering that Richardson was shipped out for being overpaid at 6/70mil and will never get paid more than $14.44mil a year? I won’t, we already got burnt once, why do it again? If Ellis agrees to 5/$45mil, we are good, if not look elsewhere.
by JustAnotherWarrior on Apr 21, 2008 11:46 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
A little off...
Wade was 23 when he made second team all-NBA in 2005. Monta could possibly achieve this next year as well.
Further, the Patrick O’Bryan/Jemaine O’Neal comment is inane. Comparing two guys who do nothing for three years, (one after playing a few years in college and the other straight out of high school) is a lot different than comparing two straight-to-the-league off guards with very similar career paths to stardom (thus far).
Further, Monta and Kobe’s playing time statistics are very similiar through the first three years, contrary to what you suggest.
Again, this is not to say that Monta is the next Kobe. This only proves that an NBA GM who wants to fork over major bucks to steal Monta from the Dubs would be correct in telling his fan base that Monta’s first three years are very simliar and possibly better than Kobe’s first three years.
Kevin Martin is three years older than Monta and not as good. He got $11 million/year. I think we are probably looking at a minimum of 6 years/$72 million for Monta. Best case.
Don't play a dangerous game.
by Hul10 on Apr 22, 2008 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“This only proves that an NBA GM who wants to fork over major bucks to steal Monta from the Dubs would be correct in telling his fan base that Monta’s first three years are very simliar and possibly better than Kobe’s first three years.”
Sounds like an agent again? or Monta's mom?by Skeptic con Urquell on Apr 22, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are variables to consider, but there are not “too many” to get some idea about what a player is capable of. Jermaine O’neal’s first couple of years did not project him to be like the POB. He didn’t play much, but when he did, his numbers suggested he could be a reasonably successful player.
It’s very interesting to see people speculate that a player may not progress much from what he is at 22. Once upon a time not long ago, that was the age of your average NBA rookie. Dreadfully few people considered rookies finished products then. While the learning curve may be accelerated today thanks to more advanced competition at younger ages, it still seems unlikely that a player has peaked at an age where their peers are still debating dorm room vs. off campus apartment.
Hell, there’s players who have added successful weapons to their games in their late 20s.
The interesting thing about Monta’s defense is that as a rookie, the thing that stood out about him mroe than anything else to me was that he had a good defensive posture and seemed to have a head for staying with and in front of his man. He wasn’t like Jamison, who looked lost from day one and was purposely hidden in UNC’s defensive scheme when in college. He’s not a player who is a step too slow to keep up with a speedster. His defensive results this year weren’t good and he’s never going to have the size to completely lock down a bigger guard in the half court. I put some of this blame on the system and Nelson’s focus on offense first. Based on his athleticism and what he’s done in the past, I see no reason to believe that poor defense is intrinsic to his game or that he’s incapable of progressing to a more complete player.
I don’t worry at all about the lack of a three point shot. It is one of the areas where players see later career improvement, but even if it didn’t, he’s a more efficient scorer than most guys who do have range. If he can continue to hit more than 50% from the floor, it’s unlikely that a 3 point shot will make him substantially more efficient as a scorer.
Comparing a contract signed a few years ago with one to be signed this year misses the reality of NBA inflation. For starters, the cap threshold is up (as is the tax threshold) from when Richardson signed his deal. $15 at the tail end of a deal with Ellis (which I’m not saying is a good move, but it’s the numbers you tossed out) is not the same as the same at the end of Richardson’s contract. The former will be a smaller percentage of the team budget given that the cap and tax threshold can reasonably be expected to increase over time.
by jae on Apr 22, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting stuff
It’s possible that Nelly’s attention to offense and deflections could be wreaking havoc on Monta’s ability to play defense because it encourages free-lancing… 3pt percentage will come with time. Nobody lines up and jacks up NBA 3s until they’re in the NBA. He’ll grow into it.
Preach on brotha! Thanks for your insights. I’m just scared that Monta’s gonna get paid on potential, instead of what he can do now.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 22, 2008 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. O’Neal & POB comparison is not valid in this context, agreed
2. Wade was 22 when the 2004-05 season was played, he was 23 at the end of the season when the honors were announced. Ellis will be 23 at the beggining of next season
3. Making a 2nd All-NBA team means you are a top 10, worst case scenario top 15 player in NBA, I think you know you got a little carried away with this possibility. With all due respect to Monta I just don’t see him being better than C.Paul, D.Williams, K.Bryant, T.McGrady, G.Arenas, D.Wade to make it to NBA all second or third team as a guard nexy year
4. M.Ellis stats are inflated by playing on the highest scoring team in league. The average scoring for the NBA team is 98pts/game, which is 88% of what GS scores. If Ellis wo0uld play for an average offensive team he would score 20.2ppg*.88= 17.8ppg, a big difference in my book.
5. K.Martin vs Ellis:
Rebounding is about the same
Ellis is two years younger(potential is better), a better playmaker(more assists), a better finisher, a little faster(KMart is no slouch himself though)
K.Martin is a much better shooter(40% 3pt, 85% FT), gets to the line much more, where he converts. One of the most efficient offensive players in the NBA scored 23.7ppg on 15FG vs 20.2ppg on 15.2FG for Monta(Example on how In terms of efficiency Monta’s higher FG , can be negated by other players who get to the line more and hit a high 3pt)
K.Martin is bigger and always gives Monta fits when we play SAC, as he is quick enough to stay with him, and long enough to bother his shot, while Monta can stay with him but is to short to challenge him on D.
IMHO I’d take Martin over Ellis right now, he is as good of a pure scorer as there is in NBA.
Even if his 2 years younger, Ellis should not be paid more than K.Martin
by JustAnotherWarrior on Apr 22, 2008 2:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Spell check to the rescue
1. Would
2. next year
3. High % 3pt
4 he is
by JustAnotherWarrior on Apr 22, 2008 2:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaks the Truth!
I’d definitely take Kevin Martin over Ellis. No question. Why? For the same reasons mentioned above. ME is going to get paid because:
He’s young
He’s good
He’s exciting (which puts butts in the seats and sells jerseys)
He still needs to learn a few things to become worth what he’s going to get paid.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 22, 2008 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly,
i’d take ELLIS over Martin.
Ellis is a better scorer, a better finisher, quicker, and more explosive, and quicker on the defensive end.
i think Monta has the edge over Martin.
by ChrisBeez on Apr 22, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really know much about Martin’s defensive abilities, but on offense, they’re similarly productive. Monta kept his FG% very high and that’s a big plus, but Martin was much more accurate from long range. Monta had a higher effective FG%, but Martin’s ability to get to the line and sink FTs worked well for him. Interestingly, though Martin is several inches taller, he appears to play much shorter than he is.
The two seem pretty comparable at this point. It’s a much a matter of taste and whether you value the long ball vs. an ability to get to the rim.
by jae on Apr 22, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Martin is 6'7"
He’s the focal point of the Kings (without any real support unless you count Ron “Chucker” Artest), which means he ALWAYS draws the best defender and the defensive strategy from their opponents. Martin shoots the 3 much better, shoots 2s a bit worse (but if you give him an extra transition layup every game…), and he gets to the line almost 10 times a game compared to Monta’s 5. Martin scored 23 points on 15 shots, Monta scored 20 points on 15 shots.
There are positives and negatives (Monta’s younger, but can’t possibly be better on D), but if it was just for this upcoming year? I’d definitely take Martin.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Apr 24, 2008 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jumpshot
Monta’s jumpshot is definitely better lookin ….thats for sure
by FeartheBeard4 on Apr 25, 2008 11:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
