Texas Chuck wrote:pillwenney wrote:All I can say is there are some lying numbers here then--or rather decontextualized numbers. Our bench over all was pretty weak this season outside of him, which I'd think would explain a lot of that. He was so, so obviously a lot better than Huerter this season, and did indeed operate as a third star at times.
It's also worth noting that it's kind of inaccurate to say his primary role was scoring, when he was around the top 20 in both assist percentage and assists/minute. He absolutely was a difference-maker. The team relied on him heavily and missed him a lot when he was hurt.
I'm willing to accept the numbers don't tell the whole story. But I'm not trying to lie with them I promise.
Like Colbini I think other players fit better with the two stars and I have that as more significant. I get sometimes someone has to carry a bench unit and suffers for it. But I also think the league is littered with guards who can put up numbers given the keys to a 2nd unit. Like how much worse are the Kings with say Jordan Clarkson or D. Russell in the same role?
And yes I am aware he is a tertiary playmaker for the Kings. But he's still a scorer first.
Lol, I'm aware that's not your intent.
I think the specific thing that makes Monk valuable to the Kings is that normally two players like him and Fox wouldn't fit together offensively (quick primarily score first guards). I think specifically because of their relationship and experience with each other, it really works in a way it normally wouldn't, and allows the Kings to stack a player type in a way that normally wouldn't work. This allows the Kings to basically stack a player type, and makes for a more dynamic attack that creates more mismatches.
Anyway, I'm rambling. My point is that no, I don't think Monk is necessarily all that much better than those guards you listed--not in a vacuum at least. But I do think he specifically works with Fox in a way other guards of his ilk would not, which makes him very valuable to the Kings.