RealGM

I find these two to be very similar. Both are not good on defense only OK, both early on in their careers were known for being very selfish (Monroe joined NYK when he was 27. Arenas is 26). Offensively both have complete games and are combo guards (although Monroe was next to Frazier, so he was primarily a SG).

I'd say Monroe is better, but do you think later on in his career Arenas can be similar to Monroe and join a championship team and be very effective as a role player? I think he can.

Not at his salary he cant. I could easily see Arenas signing his next contract at MLE with a contender and winning a title.

The biggest differance IMHO is that Monroe was considered higher vs his peers. Monroe was the best player in the NCAA and Arenas a 2nd rd pick.

Monroe was a playground legend but never really lived up to his rep in the pros; was more Allen Iverson scoring about 8 less points a game (about the same shooting if you look only at Iverson's 2 pointers) with the same unstoppable in the lane type moves and the later increase in efficiency at a loss of volume. Arenas is better primarily due to his ability to hit the 3, an option not there in Monroe's day but one whose importance in opening up the court is key.

In college, sure . . . I'll give you Monroe was better.

penbeast0 wrote:Monroe was a playground legend but never really lived up to his rep in the pros; was more Allen Iverson scoring about 8 less points a game (about the same shooting if you look only at Iverson's 2 pointers) with the same unstoppable in the lane type moves and the later increase in efficiency at a loss of volume.

I enjoy your perspective on these players because I've never seen Earl Monroe player. However, I'd never heard him being labeled as inefficient, and certainly not in comparison with Iverson, so I thought I'd check out the stats. Monroe scored at a 0.464 clip for his career (all two's); Iverson's FG percentage from inside the arc is 0.449. I'd consider this a marked difference.

Certainly, one can argue that Monroe had the benefit of playing on a loaded team with a balanced offense for much of his career, whereas Iverson must do his one-on-one thing. But on the other hand, Iverson has the benefit of a three-point line that should open things up from inside the arc.

Also, it can be argued that perimeter defense is better today; on the other hand, this isn't reflected in a comparison of the league-wide field goal percentages.

In Baltimore Earl shot about .445 and went to the line 5+ times a game, with the Knicks his FGA went up about .020 but he went to the line about 4 times a game. He was much more efficient from the field than Iverson true, but Iverson makes up a lot of that at the line and there's a discount for volume.