2016/17 Player of the Year discussion thread

[lorak]

A player isn't useful if they don't come close to playing a full season.

That is simply not true. It's possible that someone would play just 15 games and contributed 10 wins, while someone else 82 but gave his team just 4 wins. The only issue here is, that we don't have good method to find out how many wins particular player creates, so we are left with rather philosophical question: is 31 games from star/superstar like Embiid worth more than 80 from role player/starter like Brogdon. Or from different perspective: how much easier is to replace production of Malcolm than Joel?

[mtron929]

[

The goal of these awards is to throw spotlight on to the player most worthy of spotlight. .

No it isn't. That might be want you want this award to mean, but that's definitely not the intention of the award. It's to recognize the best rookie that season.

And we know this by going back and looking at historical winners of the award. We would definitively have had a number of different winners if the NBA was using it primarily for marketing.

It is confusing on what it means by the best rookie season. Why? Because if we are talking about MVPs, typically the type of players that win the MVPs are players who both put up monster stats as well as help their team win. On the other hand, for rookies, it is most often the case that they are net negatives to their team regardless of whether they put up good numbers or not (mostly because they play such bad defense and commit a lot of stupid mental mistakes/errors). So then, there is a conumdrum. Should rookie of the years be rewarded to players who help their win (e.g. role player types who do the dirty work) or be rewarded to players who don't really help their win but put up nice stats (17 PPG, 5-6 rebounds, for example)?

[eminence]

[

The goal of these awards is to throw spotlight on to the player most worthy of spotlight. .

No it isn't. That might be want you want this award to mean, but that's definitely not the intention of the award. It's to recognize the best rookie that season.

And we know this by going back and looking at historical winners of the award. We would definitively have had a number of different winners if the NBA was using it primarily for marketing.

Really? Cause the award seems to skew heavily towards high picks expected to be future offensive superstars over anything else. Wiggins crushing the '15 voting over Mirotic seems like a bit of a travesty if the goal is to recognize the best rookie that season. Rose's decisive victory over Lopez in '09 seems like a similar story. Durant over Horford in '08, the list goes on and on.

I'm not going to say they use it primarily for marketing, but it's certainly a factor.

[Texas Chuck]

[

The goal of these awards is to throw spotlight on to the player most worthy of spotlight. .

No it isn't. That might be want you want this award to mean, but that's definitely not the intention of the award. It's to recognize the best rookie that season.

And we know this by going back and looking at historical winners of the award. We would definitively have had a number of different winners if the NBA was using it primarily for marketing.

It is confusing on what it means by the best rookie season. Why? Because if we are talking about MVPs, typically the type of players that win the MVPs are players who both put up monster stats as well as help their team win. On the other hand, for rookies, it is most often the case that they are net negatives to their team regardless of whether they put up good numbers or not (mostly because they play such bad defense and commit a lot of stupid mental mistakes/errors). So then, there is a conumdrum. Should rookie of the years be rewarded to players who help their win (e.g. role player types who do the dirty work) or be rewarded to players who don't really help their win but put up nice stats (17 PPG, 5-6 rebounds, for example)?

I'm not advocating that we give the award to worse players who get the chance for better stats. MCW should not have have been rookie of the year a few years ago for instance. I also think its very tough many years to identify a rookie who both has enough statistical footprint for the voters to hang their hats on--plus has a positive impact on a team trying to compete. As you say, most rookies aren't positive contributors period.

I'm just saying I disagree that voters are picking a guy they want to hype rather than trying to pick the guy who was the best rookie. Obviously some voters fall into the trap you (and Doc earlier) are talking about here. Maybe that is what they should do, I don't think so, but I can follow Doc's logic. It does make sense when you consider the NBA is in the entertainment business first and basketball business in a secondary fashion.

[Texas Chuck]

Really? Cause the award seems to skew heavily towards high picks expected to be future offensive superstars over anything else. Wiggins crushing the '15 voting over Mirotic seems like a bit of a travesty if the goal is to recognize the best rookie that season. Rose's decisive victory over Lopez in '09 seems like a similar story. Durant over Horford in '08, the list goes on and on.

I'm not going to say they use it primarily for marketing, but it's certainly a factor.

I think this is much more about voters falling for box score stuffing more than some sort of marketing decision, right? I mean why is the Detroit beat writer caring about promoting Derrick Rose?

But its becoming more and more clear that I'm somehow in the minority about what this award means so I need to start considering that I am incorrect.

[Doctor MJ]

I agree with you on the purpose of the ROY award which is why I can't give it to Joel. The award is to hype up a young player rather than identify who had the best single season. It is one of the reasons I don't care nearly as much about the stats for the award.

Based on the number of missed games through his first 3 years I don't think the NBA can risk wasting it on Joel.

Can you tell me who among the rookies I should care about?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

[

The goal of these awards is to throw spotlight on to the player most worthy of spotlight. .

No it isn't. That might be want you want this award to mean, but that's definitely not the intention of the award. It's to recognize the best rookie that season.

And we know this by going back and looking at historical winners of the award. We would definitively have had a number of different winners if the NBA was using it primarily for marketing.

What I'm talking about is the reason why newcomer awards exist and nth year player of the year awards don't, despite those guys on average being better players.

I don't deny at all that voters get lost in the details as they try to make their role out to be something more grandiose than mere publicists.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[E-Balla]

Can you tell me who among the rookies I should care about?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

If Embiid never gets healthy how will they talk about his ROY?

[sp6r=underrated]

Can you tell me who among the rookies I should care about?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I guess the issue comes down to how low I am on Embiid for why I would toss it to Saric. He has played .07 of available minutes through the first 3 seasons of his career. There are very few examples in NBA history of a guy that fragile for 3 seasons going on to accomplishing anything of importance.

I played around with play index and looked at players who had career win shares above 50. Scanning the list, these are the ones I found who went on to accomplish anything after missing so much time:
Grant Hill: Became an above average player from 07-10 after the prior 6 year nightmare.
Alonzo: became a decent 20 mpg player after the kidney tragedy.


Since I have such little confidence in Embiid making it I can't waste the ROY on him. As someone who defends the Wolves signing of Roy, I see your point if you're just convinced none of these other guys can become prominent.

[clyde21]

Can you tell me who among the rookies I should care about?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

They'll probably just talk about how bad of a rookie class this is.

But I just can't see myself giving the award to a player that barely played 1/3 of the season and on minutes restriction at that.

And Embiid is not even a rookie anyways.

[Dr Positivity]

I would probably give ROY to Brogdon cause he's had a most consistent year, Saric's stats pre ASB were pretty horrible (he was in the lower than -4 BPM range for a while I believe).

[Doctor MJ]

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

If Embiid never gets healthy how will they talk about his ROY?

As one of the great what-might-have-been stories in history. An athletic tragedy.

[Doctor MJ]

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

They'll probably just talk about how bad of a rookie class this is.

But I just can't see myself giving the award to a player that barely played 1/3 of the season and on minutes restriction at that.

And Embiid is not even a rookie anyways.

Right, we can remember this in terms of how pathetic all the non-Embiid rookies looked, or we can use it to honor someone with skyscraping talent who might at worst be doomed to physical debilitation caused by the game of basketball.

The idea of a set quantitative rule on what constitutes "Rookie of the Year" is an illusion. The award is what people make of it. If they choose the former rather than the latter, I think they do a disservice.

[eminence]

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

They'll probably just talk about how bad of a rookie class this is.

But I just can't see myself giving the award to a player that barely played 1/3 of the season and on minutes restriction at that.

And Embiid is not even a rookie anyways.

Right, we can remember this in terms of how pathetic all the non-Embiid rookies looked, or we can use it to honor someone with skyscraping talent who might at worst be doomed to physical debilitation caused by the game of basketball.

The idea of a set quantitative rule on what constitutes "Rookie of the Year" is an illusion. The award is what people make of it. If they choose the former rather than the latter, I think they do a disservice.

Ehh, I think you're too harsh on the rest of the class. Brogdon is plenty worthy of the award in the era of 1-and-done players.

[Doctor MJ]

They'll probably just talk about how bad of a rookie class this is.

But I just can't see myself giving the award to a player that barely played 1/3 of the season and on minutes restriction at that.

And Embiid is not even a rookie anyways.

Right, we can remember this in terms of how pathetic all the non-Embiid rookies looked, or we can use it to honor someone with skyscraping talent who might at worst be doomed to physical debilitation caused by the game of basketball.

The idea of a set quantitative rule on what constitutes "Rookie of the Year" is an illusion. The award is what people make of it. If they choose the former rather than the latter, I think they do a disservice.

Ehh, I think you're too harsh on the rest of the class. Brogdon is plenty worthy of the award in the era of 1-and-done players.

2 things:

1) If that's how you feel about Brogdon, then I think you're absolutely right to vote for him over Embiid.
2) I will say though that Brogdon's stats are WAY less gaudy than any rookie in the 1&done era. Everyone else has had at least 16 PPG while Brogdon doesn't have 11. Doesn't mean you can't be extremely impressed with him, but superficially he's not what a 1&done era ROY looks like at all.

[clyde21]

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

They'll probably just talk about how bad of a rookie class this is.

But I just can't see myself giving the award to a player that barely played 1/3 of the season and on minutes restriction at that.

And Embiid is not even a rookie anyways.

Right, we can remember this in terms of how pathetic all the non-Embiid rookies looked, or we can use it to honor someone with skyscraping talent who might at worst be doomed to physical debilitation caused by the game of basketball.

The idea of a set quantitative rule on what constitutes "Rookie of the Year" is an illusion. The award is what people make of it. If they choose the former rather than the latter, I think they do a disservice.

That makes sense considering how underwhelming this class is. I guess if there's a year where a guy that's played a 3rd of the season wins this award, it'll probably be this one.

[HeartBreakKid]

For an American not many but the NBA is hell bent on going globa as the premier sports league. That makes Saric a decent choice for the hype train

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

If Embiid never gets healthy how will they talk about his ROY?

A player who could have dominated if he had been healthy.

Joel Embiid was one of the biggest draws in the NBA for a decent while this season, if we're arbitrary talking about commercial appeal, then it's still Embiid who's ahead of the other rookies.

[Texas Chuck]

Thank you for responding, but I gotta say:

This is a guy about to turn 23
With a below average PER
On anunsuccessful team
That did better when he was off the floor

It seems to me that giving him the ROY just makes the award not worth talking about. In 10 years there's a good chance no one will ever talk about other than to think about the worst ROYs in history. What's the point?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

If Embiid never gets healthy how will they talk about his ROY?

A player who could have dominated if he had been healthy.

Joel Embiid was one of the biggest draws in the NBA for a decent while this season, if we're arbitrary talking about commercial appeal, then it's still Embiid who's ahead of the other rookies.

I think the danger here is how far should we take this? I mean the NBA can't be counting on Embiid. Hoping like crazy, but not counting on him--because they can't. So why not give it to Ben Simmons? He's the other rookie the league should be desperate to hype. Okay, so he didn't play and that makes an even bigger mockery of it than Embiid would. Give it to Ingram. He plays for a premier franchise the league desperately wants to be relevant again. He's shown some flash that is worth marketing far more than Brogdon or Saric.

I guess this just bothers me as a philosophy. It smacks of all-D teams for Kobe and MVP's for Derrick Rose over Lebron, Dwight, and Dirk or Nash over any number of guys. The league can sell entertainment without using its basketball awards to do so.

[HeartBreakKid]

If Embiid never gets healthy how will they talk about his ROY?

A player who could have dominated if he had been healthy.

Joel Embiid was one of the biggest draws in the NBA for a decent while this season, if we're arbitrary talking about commercial appeal, then it's still Embiid who's ahead of the other rookies.

I think the danger here is how far should we take this? I mean the NBA can't be counting on Embiid. Hoping like crazy, but not counting on him--because they can't. So why not give it to Ben Simmons? He's the other rookie the league should be desperate to hype. Okay, so he didn't play and that makes an even bigger mockery of it than Embiid would. Give it to Ingram. He plays for a premier franchise the league desperately wants to be relevant again. He's shown some flash that is worth marketing far more than Brogdon or Saric.

I guess this just bothers me as a philosophy. It smacks of all-D teams for Kobe and MVP's for Derrick Rose over Lebron, Dwight, and Dirk or Nash over any number of guys. The league can sell entertainment without using its basketball awards to do so.

Embiid was a much bigger deal than Ingram, the common NBA fan has pretty much forgotten Brandon Ingram. Embiid was more famous as an amateur and a professional up to this point.

I don't think awards should be given for marketing reasons, I'm just saying if they were, then it would still go to Joel Embiid over projected roleplayers. If Joel Embiid ends up becoming the Bill Walton of rookies, then oh well. At least the guy proved he wasn't all hype.

[Texas Chuck]

. Embiid was more famous as an amateur and a professional up to this point.

I really doubt this. Embiid was a good college player(and great prospect) but Ingram was a higher profile recruit and of course he played at Duke which is as high profile and over-exposed as it gets.

I think hard-core NBA fans like as post itt viewed Embiid on a different level than Ingram and rightfully so. I think most basketball fans, collegiate and NBA knew a lot more about Ingram coming into the Association.

And if Embiid wasn't a social media darling with his jokes and his "Embrace the Process" I'm not sure the casual fan would have much remembered him until he got on the court this year.