Official #1 pick thread: Simmons or Ingram? Merging topics and a Poll

[Mik317]

fair enough

[Sixerscan]

..which I acknowledged in my earlier post than that.

I was more pointing out on Thorpe's opinion that how special Simmons will be depends on his shooting. Which I think should be the biggest determining factor, since it's the trait that holds the highest value on offense. While we know both guys aren't slouches on defense.

It's something that gets overlooked IMO, with all the potential DPOY talk in the article.

You really are determined to die on that Ingram hill aren't you.

Actually, I'll try to go low key now. I think I have come to aggressive recently and have been spending a lot of time here. I also want to hear other people's opinion, to tell you frankly.

It's just I have learned my lessons with Turner, MCW and Mudiay. Then recently, I've been trying to understand the trend, stats and why Jah is having a hard time improving his ORPM despite having star level skillset on offense compared to KP or KAT.

And that's just what I have notice shooting will determine how special a player will be on offense. The game nowadays is just a contest between rotate+close out defense and shooting. Hawks and Celtics are the moneyball version of this. Players like Hood, Frye, Crowder, Jokic and RoCo are also some examples. They might be inferior to eye test talent but they have really good analytics, something I think Ingram can translate into and more.

One lesson you might learn is that projecting prospects is really difficult and that it's probably a good idea to not be so fanatical about a guy's future over another's because of one (albeit important) aspect of their games? Just a thought.

[phiphan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/HowardBeck/status/734486401119588352[/tweet]

Hmmm. Not jumping to any conclusions, but last week BC was on 97.5 for an interview and spoke on a plethora of topics. When describing Simmons he mentioned he could be "transformational". I see someone else caught it as well.

Listened to the interview and never heard the word "transcendent." He said Simmons could be "transformational," but in the same breath said Ingram could "change the game" due to his length... Also said don't believe any website that says they're leaning one way.

Maybe he just likes the word "Transformational"...but he mentions it again here. Is Simmons the guy?

Yeah interesting. Also sounds like he's willing to basically build around the "transformational guy" "from the ground up," especially after saying he's told our roster to "expect anything."

[tk76]

I think the "only Simmons" crowd is sort of missing the point. We know both Simmons and Ingram are good prospects, but we are unsure if either will be All-NBA type pros. I concede that Simmons has a better shot at it than Ingram... but is Simmons chance a 30% shot or an 80% shot that he hits that ceiling were he is the centerpiece of a contender?

Because if Simmons is not good enough to build a contender around then you will need someone else of that caliber on your team if you want to contend. And if that is the case, it will be a whole lot harder to fit that next to Simmons than it will be next to Ingram, because most All-NBA type stars are ball dominant.

So IMO choosing Simmons requires a higher level of certainly than Ingram. Ingram could miss his ceiling, but still easily be part of a contender because he is not ball dominant. But if the concerns about Simmons shooting or personality result in him just being a top 20-30 player then you are hurting your chances at building a contender.

Hypothetical (I could be way off on the actual percentages, but the logic holds):

Simmons
30% chance of being a to 10 NBA player.
........27% total chance of being a contender, just add the right complementary pieces.
50% Chance of being a top 15-30 player, but with a shaky jumper and not All-NBA level
........7% total chance you still can build a contender adding other superstars that fit alongside a ball dominant Simmons who is not a shooter
20% Chance of being a good starter, nothing more.
.......4% total chance you add other superstars and use Simmons as a solid starter

So a 38% chance of being a contender with Simmons... mostly in scenarios where Simmons is All-NBA.

Ingram
20% chance of being a to 10 NBA player.
........18% total chance of being a contender, just add the right complementary pieces.
55% Chance of being a top 15-30 player, but not All-NBA level
........18% total chance you still can build a contender adding other superstars that fit alongside Ingram projecting as a high level 2 way shooter.
25% Chance of being a good starter, nothing more.
.......7% total chance you add other superstars and use Ingram as a solid starter (quality shooter with length)

So a 43% chance of being a contender with Ingram... but in most cases that contender is reliant on other stars as much or more than Ingram... but takes advantage of how easy it will be to play Ingram along with other stars since he is not ball dominant.

Again, the percentages are just for illustration purposes. The take hone point is that with Ingram you have a better shot of building a contender in situations were he does not hit his ceiling. Meaning Ingram might be the better guy to get you to being a contender even if his chances of being a top 10 player are less than Simmons.

[Ericb5]

I think the "only Simmons" crowd is sort of missing the point. We know both Simmons and Ingram are good prospects, but we are unsure if either will be All-NBA type pros. I concede that Simmons has a better shot at it than Ingram... but is Simmons chance a 30% shot or an 80% shot that he hits that ceiling were he is the centerpiece of a contender?

Because if Simmons is not good enough to build a contender around then you will need someone else of that caliber on your team if you want to contend. And if that is the case, it will be a whole lot harder to fit that next to Simmons than it will be next to Ingram, because most All-NBA type stars are ball dominant.

So IMO choosing Simmons requires a higher level of certainly than Ingram. Ingram could miss his ceiling, but still easily be part of a contender because he is not ball dominant. But if the concerns about Simmons shooting or personality result in him just being a top 20-30 player then you are hurting your chances at building a contender.

Hypothetical (I could be way off on the actual percentages, but the logic holds):

Simmons
30% chance of being a to 10 NBA player.
........27% total chance of being a contender, just add the right complementary pieces.
50% Chance of being a top 15-30 player, but with a shaky jumper and not All-NBA level
........7% total chance you still can build a contender adding other superstars that fit alongside a ball dominant Simmons who is not a shooter
20% Chance of being a good starter, nothing more.
.......4% total chance you add other superstars and use Simmons as a solid starter

So a 38% chance of being a contender with Simmons... mostly in scenarios where Simmons is All-NBA.

Ingram
20% chance of being a to 10 NBA player.
........18% total chance of being a contender, just add the right complementary pieces.
55% Chance of being a top 15-30 player, but not All-NBA level
........18% total chance you still can build a contender adding other superstars that fit alongside Ingram projecting as a high level 2 way shooter.
25% Chance of being a good starter, nothing more.
.......7% total chance you add other superstars and use Ingram as a solid starter (quality shooter with length)

So a 43% chance of being a contender with Ingram... but in most cases that contender is reliant on other stars as much or more than Ingram... but takes advantage of how easy it will be to play Ingram along with other stars since he is not ball dominant.
So a 38% chance of being a contender with Simmons... mostly in scenarios where Simmons is All-NBA.

Again, the percentages are just for illustration purposes. The take hone point is that with Ingram you have a better shot of building a contender in situations were he does not hit his ceiling. Meaning Ingram might be the better guy to get you to being a contender even if his chances of being a top 10 player are less than Simmons.

I think you are over thinking this. You admit that you believe Simmons is more likely to become a franchise player than Ingram, and that is where the calculus should stop.

Simmons won't even be the highest ceiling player on our team as Embiid can be that other dominant piece.

The Sixers haven't had the first pick in 20 years. This is the time to go for it.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Philly Phanatic]

First post here… so I’ll start by answering the topic. I’d take Simmons and not look back. I believe that Ingram may be a better fit right now but I don’t see how you can pass on Simmons’s upside. I am nervous about Simmons’s “drive”. I would have loved to see him carry LSU on his back into the NCAA Tourney but I don’t know enough about what went on there to really hold it against him.

Like most, I concerned about the Sixers making a mistake.
• What if Ingram turns out to be better?
• What if we trade Jah and he turns out to be a true franchise center?
• What if we trade Jah and Embiid never plays?
• What if our three-headed monster (Jah, Embiid and Noel) can’t play together?
What if, What if, What if!!!! It’s great for talk radio but it can drive you nuts.

I believe this is the year we need to go for it.

If I were granted Grand Poohbah powers I would make the following moves:
1. Draft Simmons with # 1
2. Make every effort to move Jah to Chicago for Jimmy Butler. Not sure if we can work it out with them or we would need to bring in another team (Lakers). Trading for Butler (and resigning him) is huge because it allows us to properly use our cap-space. IMO, FA’s will not consider Philly to play with a bunch of kids. Landing an established young star to guide our team makes us a viable option for FA’s to sign with.
3. If we Land Butler I throw big money at Demar DeRozan. Butler (PG) & DeRozan (SG) would be a formidable back-court.
4. If we can’t pull off a trade for Butler I move Jah AND the rights to the Lakers 1st in 2017 to the Lakers for this year’s #2 and D’Angelo Russell. We have a crowed front-court and the Lakers have a crowed back-court. By all accounts the 2017 draft is better and the Lakers won’t want to miss out on the talent. If/when the Lakers counter with Jordan Clarkson I’d offer #24, #26 or both but NOT their 2017 1st round pick back. With the #2 pick I take Ingram
5. I’m only trading Okafor because we can replace him with a young center that is a monster! I would throw a lot of money at Hassan Whiteside. Okafor is a dynamic young Center that, if moved, can help fill deficiencies in other areas. Signing Whiteside allows us to hedge against further delays in Embiid recovery. Also, with the young offensive talent we have, having a defensive stopped is wise. Having Jimmy Butler on the team GREATLY increases our chances of signing a guy like Whiteside.
6. I would offer Dario Saric the same money the # 12 player in this year’s draft will receive. This is more than he is making overseas. I would build in attainable incentives and a contract escalator IF he far exceeds expectations.

We’d look like one of the following:

Butler / DeRozan / Simmons / Saric / Whiteside - OR - Russell / Ingram / Simmons / Saric / Whiteside

[freshie2]

You draft for stars and fill in the gaps with shooters/role players. Which one has the best chance to be a star?? Forget the rest of the analysis...they'll know once the visits/workouts are completed.

[Mik317]

if there is even a 5% chance Simmons reaches build around status over Ingram then you do it.

That is what this whole thing is about. I am more willing to pass on Ingram and have him do well than I am to do so on Simmons. I can spin it to myself that we took the guy with the most potential, circumstances made it not work out. Like I have said, my biggest fear is having Simmons go to LA and ball out. Ingram would NEED to be Durant for it to happen.

I like Ingram as a prospect. Think he has all the tools to be really good. Don't think he has the tools to be all time great. I don't think Simmons does either but I do think there is a chance....and I'm all about that chance. Plus there is this unique factor at play too.

[PhilasFinest]

First post here… so I’ll start by answering the topic. I’d take Simmons and not look back. I believe that Ingram may be a better fit right now but I don’t see how you can pass on Simmons’s upside. I am nervous about Simmons’s “drive”. I would have loved to see him carry LSU on his back into the NCAA Tourney but I don’t know enough about what went on there to really hold it against him.

Like most, I concerned about the Sixers making a mistake.
• What if Ingram turns out to be better?
• What if we trade Jah and he turns out to be a true franchise center?
• What if we trade Jah and Embiid never plays?
• What if our three-headed monster (Jah, Embiid and Noel) can’t play together?
What if, What if, What if!!!! It’s great for talk radio but it can drive you nuts.

I believe this is the year we need to go for it.

If I were granted Grand Poohbah powers I would make the following moves:
1. Draft Simmons with # 1
2. Make every effort to move Jah to Chicago for Jimmy Butler. Not sure if we can work it out with them or we would need to bring in another team (Lakers). Trading for Butler (and resigning him) is huge because it allows us to properly use our cap-space. IMO, FA’s will not consider Philly to play with a bunch of kids. Landing an established young star to guide our team makes us a viable option for FA’s to sign with.
3. If we Land Butler I throw big money at Demar DeRozan. Butler (PG) & DeRozan (SG) would be a formidable back-court.
4. If we can’t pull off a trade for Butler I move Jah AND the rights to the Lakers 1st in 2017 to the Lakers for this year’s #2 and D’Angelo Russell. We have a crowed front-court and the Lakers have a crowed back-court. By all accounts the 2017 draft is better and the Lakers won’t want to miss out on the talent. If/when the Lakers counter with Jordan Clarkson I’d offer #24, #26 or both but NOT their 2017 1st round pick back. With the #2 pick I take Ingram
5. I’m only trading Okafor because we can replace him with a young center that is a monster! I would throw a lot of money at Hassan Whiteside. Okafor is a dynamic young Center that, if moved, can help fill deficiencies in other areas. Signing Whiteside allows us to hedge against further delays in Embiid recovery. Also, with the young offensive talent we have, having a defensive stopped is wise. Having Jimmy Butler on the team GREATLY increases our chances of signing a guy like Whiteside.
6. I would offer Dario Saric the same money the # 12 player in this year’s draft will receive. This is more than he is making overseas. I would build in attainable incentives and a contract escalator IF he far exceeds expectations.

We’d look like one of the following:

Butler / DeRozan / Simmons / Saric / Whiteside - OR - Russell / Ingram / Simmons / Saric / Whiteside

Jimmy Butler is not a point guard.

No way I'm spending MAX money on Whiteside when I have Embiid/Noel/Okafor on the team. Id rather just keep 1 of them to build around.

I don't think many of those deals are realistic, but hey you can dream!

We can't offer Dario Saric anything right now. He'd be on a rookie scaled deal.

Welcome to the board, look forward to seeing you around.

[LongLiveHinkie]

I've come around more to Simmons the last couple days and here is my reason why:

My original argument was Ingram has a higher potential to be a top level scorer, and at #1, that is what you want more than anything. And I still believe that. However...

I think at the absolute most, Ingram will be a much lesser version of Kevin Durant. Much lesser. Kevin Durant IMO will finish ahead of Larry Bird on the all-time SF list, and be a top 10 all-time NBA player. I don't see Ingram being close to that. I think Ingram will make all-star games. But I don't think he'll ever be the #1 scoring option on a title contender. So, technically, he wouldn't qualify as my #1 pick criteria either. When you pick #1, you may not get it, but you at least shoot for a guy who will be "the man" on a title contending team. I think he could be a 20 ppg scorer in the NBA, but I don't think he'll ever be that superstar killer that carries teams to contention. He's not that good. I think you can eventually sign guys of Ingram's caliber in free agency when we eventually become an attractive destination, and I think a guy like Simmons can actually attract scorers to the Sixers because of his multi-faceted game and passing potential.

Now, Simmons may not get there either. I have questions about it. However, I think he can alter the game in so many other ways, that if he goes bunk as a scorer, you can still do so many things with him, and if worst comes to worst, trade him later to a team that thinks they can unlock his potential and get a superstar in return in a package.

So, yeah, I'm split 50/50 now, but I'm 100% fine with Simmons.

[tk76]

Think about it in terms of AI and Monta Ellis. Iverson was a top 5 NBA player at his peak, so you could build around him a have a contender. While Ellis was a similar player, just not as good.

Imagine a prospect entering the league that has a 40% chance of being AI and a 60% chance of being Monta. You really need him to be AI level if you want a contender.

Now Simmons is not a chucker or undersized, so building with him will be easier than AI/Ellis. But Simmons is still harder to plug into most lineups than Ingram. He is a ball dominant player who lacks a great jumper. These are potential fit issues if he does not get close to his ceiling.

Now in contrast, in Ingram, you have a prospect that will be somewhere on the continuum of Durant>George>Batum. No matter where he falls you can plug him in on a contender. The only question is how much elite talent you need to add around him. But you never have to turn away current or future potential impact players in order to fit him in. That frees the hands of the GM and allows for better value moves in building your contender.

[tk76]

I think the biggest risk this time of the year is over-hyping everyone in the draft. Simmons and Ingram are elite prospects, but odds are they will not be the centerpiece of a contender. It is one thing if we are saying Simmons has a 50% shot vs Ingram 30%. In that type of scenario you obviously take Simmons.

But it is quite possible that we are talking a 10% chance for Simmons vs 5% chance for Ingram being the centerpiece of a contender. And as much as I admire swinging for the fences, you also have to look at what the route to being a contender looks like in the probable world that these guys are top 30 players as opposed to top 5 players. And if you look at that reality, then Simmons is far from the obvious choice.

That is not pessimism, that is reality once you get past the hype.

Now even with that jaundiced view you can argue that Simmons should be the pick. Not just for the additional 1 in 20 shot of being a top 5 player, but because if Embiid is you All-NBA player then he really works well with Simmons, even in the top30 level incarnation.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Well, you can never say with true confidence any pick has the chance to be the next all-time great. The chances of that for any player are small. Otherwise, Durant would have never gone 2nd, Jordan would have never gone 3rd, Harden wouldn't have gone 3rd, Wade wouldn't have gone 5th, etc.

You pick the player you think has the best shot at being that and live with it.

[PhilasFinest]

Prior to the lottery I had sold myself on Ingram because I never thought we'd have a shot at #1.

Once we won, I was completely torn, and was even slightly leaning Ingram...but once I started looking at Simmons' overall game, his shot/form, digging into #'s of players who improved to be better shooters, etc It has swayed me heavily in favor of Simmons.

Hell, I bought a LSU Simmon's jersey solely for Draft night.

Despite all that, I still wouldn't be devastated if we flipped the table and took Ingram on draft night. Both have intriguing tools/skills and get me excited thinking about the future.

Can the draft get here already?

[LongLiveHinkie]

Since we know it'll either be Simmons or Ingram, the anticipation isn't killing me. We know we'll get either, it's only a matter of time.

I'm more nervous about the idiot Colangelos dealing away Okafor for slop and dreading draft day because of it.

It's supposed to be a great night for us, but sorry, I don't trust those morons, and they are on a super tight leash for me. I decided to give this franchise another chance out of support for Hinkie posthumously, but one wrong move for the idiot Colangelos(especially since I know Hinkie would never bend over for anyone in a trade) and I'm done.

[phiphan]

I take comfort in the idea (whether it's valid or not) that if Simmons can develop just a bit below average jumper (I know I keep saying it, but think Blake Griffin), he's gonna be a very good player, maybe even an all-star, and a guy you can comfortably slot at PF without moving too many things around. Even if he's not your franchise guy he's still a keeper. A serviceable jumper is a pretty doable improvement for Simmons I think, maybe a floor-level improvement. So I think his floor looks pretty good.

[ExplosionsInDaSky]

My biggest concern with Simmons is that he doesn't want to be here. There seems to be this belief that he really wants to be in LA. How accurate is that? Like i've said before, i'm torn between Simmons and Ingram, but it's more because I fear Simmons doesn't want to play here. He's definitely the most talented player in this draft.

[LongLiveHinkie]

Where Simmons wants to play is the least of my concerns. If I were him I'd rather play in LA too. Nicer weather, better franchise, more winning tradition. If he comes here and we win, he'll learn to love it. Plus Brett Brown knows his family. He'll be fine.

That is no factor to me whatsoever.

[76ciology]

Isn't this like comparing Khris Middleton and Giannis?

Middleton's game is boring. Can shoot notch below 50/40/90. Good length to be good on defense and advantage over defenders.

Giannis. More all around player. Much better in almost every category except for shooting. Freakish length to be good on defense.much athletic

Giannis might be the much better ball handler and rebounder but raw numbers seems to have them even while analytics puts a heavy favor on Middleton specially the RPM.

Middleton and Giannis have almost the same assists number. It also shows how much effectiveness of a perimeter player to drive and draw.

People are comparing Simmons to Giannis. But isnt' Ingram what Giannis is but with Middleton's shooting?

[76ciology]

My biggest concern with Simmons is that he doesn't want to be here. There seems to be this belief that he really wants to be in LA. How accurate is that? Like i've said before, i'm torn between Simmons and Ingram, but it's more because I fear Simmons doesn't want to play here. He's definitely the most talented player in this draft.

Same case with Jah.

Playing elsewhere gives you better chance of winning ROY. Gives you a more favorable headwind. But in the end, sentiment may change once the team refines it's roster.