50 games in - who is your rookie of the year?

[daeve]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

What are his shooting percentages? To say that another rookie is averaging 7/7 is somehow a knock against Simmons without considering any context is absolutely ridiculous.

Seriously, how many guys in the NBA are averaging 16/7/7/2/1 this season? Let alone a rookie

Clint Capela's .658 is the best FG% in the league, is he a better Shooter/Scorer than Harden? That's such a worthless argument. Please stop using it.

Yes, Simmons is the only one averaging 16/7/7, Mitchell is the better scorer and will likely finish above 20ppg or right around it. Lonzo is a worse scorer and is averaging 10/7/7. All three are pretty interesting, with Mitchell and Simmons being better.

So it'll boil down to: is 16/7/7 unique/historic enough, or is Mitchell carrying a Jazz team while Gobert was out more unique? [Especially if they're a good playoff team and he leads them in PPG while racking up some impressive scoring accolades] - it's gonna be close. If Mitchell adds a 50-pt game or a Dunk title to his resume I think it gets close to 50-50 odds.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by daeve

Clint Capela's .658 is the best FG% in the league, is he a better Shooter/Scorer than Harden? That's such a worthless argument. Please stop using it.

Yes, Simmons is the only one averaging 16/7/7, Mitchell is the better scorer and will likely finish above 20ppg or right around it. Lonzo is a worse scorer and is averaging 10/7/7. All three are pretty interesting, with Mitchell and Simmons being better.

So it'll boil down to: is 16/7/7 unique/historic enough, or is Mitchell carrying a Jazz team while Gobert was out more unique? [Especially if they're a good playoff team and he leads them in PPG while racking up some impressive scoring accolades] - it's gonna be close. If Mitchell adds a 50-pt game or a Dunk title to his resume I think it gets close to 50-50 odds.

So the Jazz are 7-2 since Gobert came back and were 4-11 when he was out but Mitchell was "carrying" the team?

Gaudy scoring numbers that didn't lead to wins. So was he really "carrying" the team or just scoring a lot with no other scoring threats on the roster?

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

So the Jazz are 7-2 since Gobert came back and were 4-11 when he was out but Mitchell was "carrying" the team?

Gaudy scoring numbers that didn't lead to wins. So was he really "carrying" the team or just scoring a lot with no other scoring threats on the roster?

Just curious... does anyone know what the sixers record without Embiid is? How big a difference does he make to their winning? It's not everything but a data point in this discussion certainly.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Just curious... does anyone know what the sixers record without Embiid is? How big a difference does he make to their winning? It's not everything but a data point in this discussion certainly.

They're 2-8 without him this season I'm pretty sure they mentioned it in last nights game but I don't exactly remember. I'll double check that.

Edit: they are 2-8 without Embiid

Embiid is definitely the force that drives the 76ers. Simmons lack of a refined offensive game is definitely accentuated with Embiid out because the defense can just sag off Simmons knowing he wont shoot.

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

They're 2-8 without him this season I'm pretty sure they mentioned it in last nights game but I don't exactly remember. I'll double check that.

Embiid is definitely the force that drives the 76ers. Simmons lack of a refined offensive game is definitely accentuated with Embiid out because the defense can just sag off Simmons knowing he wont shoot.

It's interesting isn't it? The two candidates for rookie of the year definitely need their bigs to be successful. But the team success is disproportionately ascribed to the flashy scorers.

Bottom line, I guess, is that both Gobert and Embiid are two of the most valuable players in the league. And that TEAM SUCCESS can only be taken so far in individual player accolades.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by the27guy

It's interesting isn't it? The two candidates for rookie of the year definitely need their bigs to be successful. But the team success is disproportionately ascribed to the flashy scorers.

Bottom line, I guess, is that both Gobert and Embiid are two of the most valuable players in the league. And that TEAM SUCCESS can only be taken so far in individual player accolades.

Yea, don't get me wrong, Mitchell is a fantastic player but the flashy scoring numbers aren't really translating to wins. Without the right players surrounding guys like that (I'm thinking of the Beal/Klay/Booker/Mitchell etc.. type) big time scoring just doesn't lead to wins. Even Kobe never won a title without a dominant big man.

There are plenty of players like Mitchell and he could be a really important 2nd/3rd guy on a title contender but he only offers so much. Simmons can do everything on the court except shoot he's such a unique talent there really isn't anyone like him. I think he's far and away the better player and should win ROY

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Yea, don't get me wrong, Mitchell is a fantastic player but the flashy scoring numbers aren't really translating to wins. Without the right players surrounding guys like that (I'm thinking of the Beal/Klay/Booker/Mitchell etc.. type) big time scoring just doesn't lead to wins. Even Kobe never won a title without a dominant big man.

There are plenty of players like Mitchell and he could be a really important 2nd/3rd guy on a title contender but he only offers so much. Simmons can do everything on the court except shoot he's such a unique talent there really isn't anyone like him. I think he's far and away the better player and should win ROY

Let me make sure I'm understanding you.

You agree that neither Mitchell nor Simmons talent at this moment leads to wins given their current teams (unless their big is also present). You also feel that since Simmons can do everything except shoot, he's a more rare type player than Mitchell, so he deserves the award. True?

The part that I do not yet understand is why you think he's a far better player. I agree that he's rarer. Guys his size don't play the way he does. I agree that he's likely to be the more transcendent player because of that rare skill set. I don't agree that he's clearly had a better season to this point. I think he has the lead (by a nose). But isn't the award about who is better as a rookie? And isn't that race pretty darn close right now?

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

What are his shooting percentages? To say that another rookie is averaging 7/7 is somehow a knock against Simmons without considering any context is absolutely ridiculous.

Seriously, how many guys in the NBA are averaging 16/7/7/2/1 this season? Let alone a rookie

lebron and westbrook are only two that even match just the pts/reb/ast...nobody has his line...but you can spin it rather quickly and say "how many guys have 25/8/8" and then its still lebron/russ so simmons goes away immediately...but still...dropping all the way to his 16ppg and you still dont add in anyone else...its impressive...

on flip side Mitchell is currently 29th in the league in scoring and without checking everyone i would guess that about 25 of them have the same number of reb/ast...so lets say 20-25 guys are doing what mitchell is doing right now in the league

and 3 people are doing what simmons is doing....lebron/russ and him

i get that that is comparing them to non-rookies...but it does go to show the uniqueness of simmons year...

mitchell is scoring 19.3/gm and not a lot else going on with it...as a couple dozen can match his stat line...

simmons is putting up 16/7/7 and only 2 of the best in the league can say that..

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Good points again. I think you'd be surprised about how many guys have averaged 20 as a rookie though. How many guys in the league today have done it? Off the top of my head, I think the answer is KD, Lebron, Tyreke, Carmelo, Blake....

anybody else? I think that's it.

couldnt find a site that just shows the highest rookie avg seasons...wiki showed like top 25 but only blake as current made that cuz it cut off at like 22.4ppg...lol

i searched some and found others that are around the Mitchell number now but didnt get to 20ppg...kyrie/lillard couple others

and i know was a shortened season...but im fairly confident that if he played more he would have stayed above 20ppg

Embiid last year was over 20...

so yea active there is 5-6 it seems...but all time prob like 40ish or so...with many being the older generation that was much more ready to produce out of college...

idk where to even look to figure out how many rookies went 16/7/7...prob a handful of older gen guys as well...idk...magic and oscar did it...lol...outside of that i dont know of any

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by the27guy

Let me make sure I'm understanding you.

You agree that neither Mitchell nor Simmons talent at this moment leads to wins given their current teams (unless their big is also present). You also feel that since Simmons can do everything except shoot, he's a more rare type player than Mitchell, so he deserves the award. True?

The part that I do not yet understand is why you think he's a far better player. I agree that he's rarer. Guys his size don't play the way he does. I agree that he's likely to be the more transcendent player because of that rare skill set. I don't agree that he's clearly had a better season to this point. I think he has the lead (by a nose). But isn't the award about who is better as a rookie? And isn't that race pretty darn close right now?

I think he's a better basketball player by far. The passing/rebounding aren't even close. He's got great court vision and is just fluid out there on the court. He makes the right decisions when they need to be made and generally has a great feel for the game.

These things can't really be measured by stats, I watch all the 76ers games (I'm really just sick of watching the Cavs) and he's just incredible to watch, his natural basketball talent is something that is once in a generation imo.

Mitchell is a prototypical volume scorer who's skill set is readily available in the NBA today, it's just not that special. I will say that I've watched maybe like 6-7 Jazz games this year so I haven't watched Mitchell as much as I watched Simmons but he just doesn't seem special to me. I just don't put much stock in PPG, it's a useless stat IMO and that's the only reason Mitchell is in this discussion right now.

Mitchell will definitely be a multiple time all-star, maybe make an all-nba team but Simmons seems to be all nba first team, MVP type, alpha dog talent.

Do I think the race is close right now if voting happened today? Yes but only because everyone is enamored with PPG and flashy scoring guards. If you asked my opinion it's Simmons by a mile.

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

I think he's a better basketball player by far. The passing/rebounding aren't even close. He's got great court vision and is just fluid out there on the court. He makes the right decisions when they need to be made and generally has a great feel for the game.

These things can't really be measured by stats, I watch all the 76ers games (I'm really just sick of watching the Cavs) and he's just incredible to watch, his natural basketball talent is something that is once in a generation imo.

Mitchell is a prototypical volume scorer who's skill set is readily available in the NBA today, it's just not that special. I will say that I've watched maybe like 6-7 Jazz games this year so I haven't watched Mitchell as much as I watched Simmons but he just doesn't seem special to me. I just don't put much stock in PPG, it's a useless stat IMO and that's the only reason Mitchell is in this discussion right now.

Mitchell will definitely be a multiple time all-star, maybe make an all-nba team but Simmons seems to be all nba first team, MVP type, alpha dog talent.

Do I think the race is close right now if voting happened today? Yes but only because everyone is enamored with PPG and flashy scoring guards. If you asked my opinion it's Simmons by a mile.

My friend, I'm afraid our opinions are drifting apart quite quickly. Let me just highlight a few points of contention and then show myself out.

Originally Posted by jcardstore

He's got great court vision and is just fluid out there on the court. He makes the right decisions when they need to be made and generally has a great feel for the game.

I don't agree that Simmons is a far superior playmaker/passer.

There are several reasons why a guy might average more assists than another, but assist numbers don't always tell you who the better passer is. The Jazz play a motion type offense where one guy doesn't get a huge amount of assists. It's the design of the offense. I've actually been floored by how Mitchell's passing has improved.

Originally Posted by jcardstore

He makes the right decisions when they need to be made and generally has a great feel for the game.

Yet Simmons is averaging nearly 4 turnovers per game. He can do some improving on this front.

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Mitchell is a prototypical volume scorer who's skill set is readily available in the NBA today, it's just not that special.
.

Oooof. I'm going to take serious umbrage with this statement. "volume scorer" implies lack of efficiency. Check out this tweet that I saw earlier.

https://twitter.com/Lockedonsports/s...07753477222400

Basically, the graph attached shows every player since 1983 who are scoring over 19 points per game on over 51% efg. Just two qualifiers for all players. Only 8 guys have done it in 35 years. 7 Hall of Famers and Donovan Mitchell. The only other guard to have done it? MJ.

Meaning Donovan is in a class with just MJ in terms of usage/efficiency as a rookie guard.

That is not what a "volume shooter" is.

Again, I think the answer is Simmons today. I do. I'm not even disagreeing with that. But I do think that some of you aren't fully appreciating what Mitchell is doing. That doesn't take anything away from Simmons. Simmons is awesome. But "volume scorer"? I just have to correct that.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

I think he's a better basketball player by far. The passing/rebounding aren't even close. He's got great court vision and is just fluid out there on the court. He makes the right decisions when they need to be made and generally has a great feel for the game.

These things can't really be measured by stats, I watch all the 76ers games (I'm really just sick of watching the Cavs) and he's just incredible to watch, his natural basketball talent is something that is once in a generation imo.

I'm a 76ers fan, and the Jazz don't get a lot of national media love, so my exposure to Mitchell has been very limited, but the way you summed it up is exactly how I see it. I don't know about advanced metrics or how many guys have done what historically, and I can't quantify Simmons's value to the team, but Simmons passes the eye test for a rookie by a country mile. Dude just gets the game.

[Andy5]

Has there ever been co-ROY? I'm not sure how the voting works but is it possible?

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by the27guy

My friend, I'm afraid our opinions are drifting apart quite quickly. Let me just highlight a few points of contention and then show myself out.



I don't agree that Simmons is a far superior playmaker/passer.

There are several reasons why a guy might average more assists than another, but assist numbers don't always tell you who the better passer is. The Jazz play a motion type offense where one guy doesn't get a huge amount of assists. It's the design of the offense. I've actually been floored by how Mitchell's passing has improved.



Yet Simmons is averaging nearly 4 turnovers per game. He can do some improving on this front.



Oooof. I'm going to take serious umbrage with this statement. "volume scorer" implies lack of efficiency. Check out this tweet that I saw earlier.

https://twitter.com/Lockedonsports/s...07753477222400

Basically, the graph attached shows every player since 1983 who are scoring over 19 points per game on over 51% efg. Just two qualifiers for all players. Only 8 guys have done it in 35 years. 7 Hall of Famers and Donovan Mitchell. The only other guard to have done it? MJ.

Meaning Donovan is in a class with just MJ in terms of usage/efficiency as a rookie guard.

That is not what a "volume shooter" is.

Again, I think the answer is Simmons today. I do. I'm not even disagreeing with that. But I do think that some of you aren't fully appreciating what Mitchell is doing. That doesn't take anything away from Simmons. Simmons is awesome. But "volume scorer"? I just have to correct that.

one thing bothers me about that stat/graph for mitchell...is that everyone else is over 20ppg...so usually if anyone was to bring that type of stat up they would just use 20ppg as the baseline and go from there...but you have to dip to 19 to include mitchell...i mean either way...just a small detail that is more of a "me problem"...haha

but i think your post as a whole is kind of the reason i have Simmons winning and dont think it will be that close


look at the explaining you have to do to clarify all this eFG% or True shooting or what not...cuz it is not just accepted/known or obviously doesnt just pass eye test when it comes to stats...

Simmons you dont really have to explain anything to know that 16.6/7.8/7.2 is awesome for a rookie

Mitchell you have to break down to a random person how his 19.3/3.3/3.5 is actually way better than it seems...

cuz the next logical stuff a random person would look at is FG% and 3pt%

Simmons is way ahead in FG% and doesnt shoot 3s...so that doesnt get held against him...Shaq didnt shoot 3s either...so to me you cant hold this against him as a negative...it would be a negative if he shot like 4-3s per game at a 20% clip

Mitchell is at 45% FG and isnt great at 35% for 3s...not awful but actually this went up a few points lately...he was hot for a few games before being sick going like 13/21 on 3s which brought him up from one of the worst volume 3pt shooters in the league to respectable...

Simmons is 20th in the league for FG%
Mitchell is 79th in the league for FG%

so now you have to introduce a mostly foreign stat to this random person you are trying to convince and show how actually his lower FG% is balanced out by his ability to make 3s and shoot FTs at much better rate makes him more efficient as a shooter than the guy who has a much better shooting percentage...

i think this is where Mitchell falls back...like i said from beginning...you have to dig into the stats to show his pluses...and for Simmons you just need to see pts/reb/ast to know he is killing it

[jstasyk1121]

Originally Posted by Andy5

Has there ever been co-ROY? I'm not sure how the voting works but is it possible?

j-kidd and grant hill split the award...not sure if others and not sure if the voting was way diff back in 94...but deff remember that one as a pistons fan

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by the27guy

My friend, I'm afraid our opinions are drifting apart quite quickly. Let me just highlight a few points of contention and then show myself out.



I don't agree that Simmons is a far superior playmaker/passer.

There are several reasons why a guy might average more assists than another, but assist numbers don't always tell you who the better passer is. The Jazz play a motion type offense where one guy doesn't get a huge amount of assists. It's the design of the offense. I've actually been floored by how Mitchell's passing has improved.

I agree, raw assist numbers can be deceiving, if you watch the actual passes themselves it gives you a much better picture. I'm going to defer to the eye test here but Simmons makes some fantastic passes, full court, thread the needle through 2 defenders, etc... I don't see Mitchell making these types of passes consistently but again I don't watch him enough to really make that call.

Yet Simmons is averaging nearly 4 turnovers per game. He can do some improving on this front.

Turnovers is another one without context is pretty useless. Simmons is the primary ball handler most of the time when he's on the court. That and Simmons has nearly double the time of possession and number of touches as Mitchell. More touches leads to more turnovers.


Oooof. I'm going to take serious umbrage with this statement. "volume scorer" implies lack of efficiency. Check out this tweet that I saw earlier.

https://twitter.com/Lockedonsports/s...07753477222400

Basically, the graph attached shows every player since 1983 who are scoring over 19 points per game on over 51% efg. Just two qualifiers for all players. Only 8 guys have done it in 35 years. 7 Hall of Famers and Donovan Mitchell. The only other guard to have done it? MJ.

Meaning Donovan is in a class with just MJ in terms of usage/efficiency as a rookie guard.

That is not what a "volume shooter" is.

Mitchell takes about 25 shots per 100 poss, the other guys in that group (Westbrook, Harden, Booker, Porzingis, Embiid, Oladipo, Evans, Derozan, Giannis and a few more) all of those guys are volume scorers. Volume does not imply inefficient, you can score efficiently with volume. It's not even like he's ultra efficient either

Again, I think the answer is Simmons today. I do. I'm not even disagreeing with that. But I do think that some of you aren't fully appreciating what Mitchell is doing. That doesn't take anything away from Simmons. Simmons is awesome. But "volume scorer"? I just have to correct that.

Responses in bold

[the27guy]

jstasyk1121, I think we're entering a period of time where no one is looking at FG% anymore. The basketball community as a whole has become a lot more intelligent, and true showing percentage, points per possession and effective field goal percentage are the winning indicators. Most people aren't just looking at FG%,,, otherwise Gobert and Capela would be winning offensive awards. I actually think it's only a matter of time before you see the metric completely go away.

Jcardstore, thanks for the back and forth. It was fun. It's given me some stuff to watch on Simmons, and I'm excited to watch more Sixers games. The ones I have watched I have left feeling like Embiid is the soul of the team, and the unquestionable MVP.... but Simmons is only a rookie. Maybe he can become an A-class team leader. For me, it will be fun to see if he can reach that potential. Let's all hope he shoots 500 free throws, 500 mid range J's, and 500 threes every day of the offseason, and come back better next year.

Should be fun to see how this race develops.

[rookies]

Originally Posted by the27guy

jstasyk1121, I think we're entering a period of time where no one is looking at FG% anymore. The basketball community as a whole has become a lot more intelligent, and true showing percentage, points per possession and effective field goal percentage are the winning indicators. Most people aren't just looking at FG%,,, otherwise Gobert and Capela would be winning offensive awards. I actually think it's only a matter of time before you see the metric completely go away.

Jcardstore, thanks for the back and forth. It was fun. It's given me some stuff to watch on Simmons, and I'm excited to watch more Sixers games. The ones I have watched I have left feeling like Embiid is the soul of the team, and the unquestionable MVP.... but Simmons is only a rookie. Maybe he can become an A-class team leader. For me, it will be fun to see if he can reach that potential. Let's all hope he shoots 500 free throws, 500 mid range J's, and 500 threes every day of the offseason, and come back better next year.

Should be fun to see how this race develops.

So a big missing point in all this debate.... Simmons would be best and put up larger numbers if he had a team around him that was built for him. Same with embiid. While I think they can co-exist they need shooters and scorers. The offense without embiid is not good. They need a lou williams type and they need better shooters. Simmons potential is being with a team that fits him. Picture simmons on the rockets. Those who think simmons wont be totally amazing are crazy. This all said Embiid is the best player and hes on a team that doesnt play with his strengths. They need pieces this offseason because Embiid is no joke a top 6 player in the league with what he does to an offense on D.

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by rookies

So a big missing point in all this debate.... Simmons would be best and put up larger numbers if he had a team around him that was built for him. Same with embiid. While I think they can co-exist they need shooters and scorers. The offense without embiid is not good. They need a lou williams type and they need better shooters. Simmons potential is being with a team that fits him. Picture simmons on the rockets. Those who think simmons wont be totally amazing are crazy. This all said Embiid is the best player and hes on a team that doesnt play with his strengths. They need pieces this offseason because Embiid is no joke a top 6 player in the league with what he does to an offense on D.

Embiid is such a difficult guy in all of this. If you tell me he's going to play 65-82 games a year for the next decade, I stop whatever I'm doing and build EVERYTHING around him. He's that good. He could absolutely be the MVP next season. Not joking, at all. But he could also go all Greg Oden on us with injuries. Sigh.

[drobfan8]

For me I need to keep it simple.

Who is the best rookie?

Team success doesn't mean a whole lot. Both need savvy vets and talent around them to win games, no surprises there.

Simmons controls things for Philly, literally everything, his turnovers are low for a rookie guard. That's impressive.

Mitchell, damn is scoring and athleticism is impressive.

I totally agree with someone that says if Mitchell gets 50, or even multiple big games from here on out, same with Simmons, a couple of triple doubles etc could break the tie.

I'm also a believer that the betting side of the NBA is so dodgy, a lot of money went down on Simmons, I would not be surprised to see him miss out so Vegas can get a win, the Warriors are already gonna take enough on the championship.

[WillC]

Originally Posted by drobfan8

I'm also a believer that the betting side of the NBA is so dodgy, a lot of money went down on Simmons, I would not be surprised to see him miss out so Vegas can get a win, the Warriors are already gonna take enough on the championship.

I hope you're right. I win £250 (about $350) off a £5 bet if Mitchell wins ROTY. I put it on after his impressive Summer League showings.

[the27guy]

Originally Posted by WillC

I hope you're right. I win £250 (about $350) off a £5 bet if Mitchell wins ROTY. I put it on after his impressive Summer League showings.

Rooting for you.

[ThoseBackPages]

https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/sta...80810640297984

[imb4]

I just appreciate the fact that there is a discussion on this, unlike my preseason assumption that it would be Simmons running away with it.

[exoticprince]

Can we crown Donavan Mitchell yet ?