The ROTY/Rookie Discussion Thread, Part III

[APettyJ]

When I think about a player’s scoring, I usually think about the player scoring the basketball. A free throw, that scores. A three pointer? That scores. A pass? That does not score.

Maybe I’m crazy, but that’s just how I see it.

When I think of "scorer", I think of someone who manages to get the ball in hoop, whether by shooting it, driving or setting up other scores, WITHOUT primarily needing others to set up such opportunities for him, i.e. a "creator". I didn't say Ben was a better passer, he's better at assists, i.e. a scoring basket. Yes, it is a score.

Free throws and 3PP shots are key components of SHOOTERS. Not all those who shoot high FT% and 3PP are great scorers, although many are good scorers. That's where Mitchell is right about now. He may even been a good scorer, but he doesn't create like Ben.


Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[KqWIN]

I just don’t understand how you can argue that one player is another scorer by removing several aspects of scoring, and then including things that are not scoring.

The bash one player to prop up the other is more logical than that. I don’t understand how scoring excludes FT’s, 3’s, and Usage...but at the same time includes passing and assists.

[APettyJ]

Firstly, let’s make something VERY clear. When judging a player offensively, it means so much more than just putting the ball in the basket. Their ability to facilitate, make others better, giving up good shots for great shots, finishing around the basket, efficiency, getting to the free throw line, the variety of ways in which they can score etc etc etc is all apart of it. It’s much much more than just putting the ball through the net.

http://www.opencourt-basketball.com/the-difference-between-a-shooter-and-scorer-in-the-nba/

And getting to the line is not exactly the same thing as making them. Simmons gets to the line more than Mitchell, so that even with the significantly worse FT% they actually average about the same number of made FT, 2.7 for Mitchell vs 2.5 for Ben. Combine this with the fact that Mitchell's eFG% is less than Simmons, despite the fact that Simmons literally doesn't have a three point game and eFG% accounts for the added efficiency of making a three over a two and it appears to me that difference in ppg between the two is Mitchell's 7.3 attempts to Ben's 7.0, with 2.3 of those being from three, vs none from Ben. Type of shot taken, or being a shooter.

Mitchell is a good shooter and scorer. He's not a better scorer, which means so much more than shooting threes or FT, than Simmons, and saying that is not trying to tear down Mitchell in any way. Just pointing out Simmons is that much more a superior player.

[knuckles862]

Is it me or is this like Carmelo vs Lebron all over again

[Duke4life831]

I just don’t understand how you can argue that one player is another scorer by removing several aspects of scoring, and then including things that are not scoring.

The bash one player to prop up the other is more logical than that. I don’t understand how scoring excludes FT’s, 3’s, and Usage...but at the same time includes passing and assists.

Ya Im not getting this one either. I get there is a difference between a shooter and a scorer, but Mitchell is both. Hes a scorer that can also shoot. Taking away FTs and 3s is taking away 2 major components of scoring.

I get the argument 100% if it is Ben is the more complete overall offensive player, since he is the better facilitator while still only scoring 3 less points on the same efficiency. But ya I think the numbers show Mitchell being the better scorer with a wider variety of ways to score. While I think Ben is a good scorer, not as good or as versatile as Mitchell when it comes to scoring, but Ben has a more complete offensive package when you include his facilitating.

[clyde21]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

[michaelm]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

Please detail the NBA games he played prior to this season.

[clyde21]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

Please detail the NBA games he played prior to this season.

Didn't need to. He's already spent an entire year in his system, under NBA-level tutelage, getting acquainted to an 82-game schedule and travel, practice habits, etc.

These things matter. Listen to Fox's interview earlier in the season. The hardest part for him wasn't playing ball, but getting used to the schedule and travel. Simmons is a year ahead of everyone else on that, and it makes a huge difference.

[Stanford]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

The tie breaker goes to Simmons. Mitchell had a whole season of competitive basketball before he got drafted, followed by summer league and preseason to get him ready for the regular season. Simmons had to sit on the bench and watch. He had to work through rust.

(This **** is easy)

[clyde21]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

The tie breaker goes to Simmons. Mitchell had a whole season of competitive basketball before he got drafted, followed by summer league and preseason to get him ready for the regular season. Simmons had to sit on the bench and watch. He had to work through rust.

(This **** is easy)

Competitive basketball playing in the tourney against kids that'll never sniff the NBA, while Simmons was learning his system and offense, fine-tuning his practice habits at the NBA level, getting NBA-level coaching and training, getting acquainted with the league's long schedule and travel.

Sure, whatever you say.

[APettyJ]

I just don’t understand how you can argue that one player is another scorer by removing several aspects of scoring, and then including things that are not scoring.

The bash one player to prop up the other is more logical than that. I don’t understand how scoring excludes FT’s, 3’s, and Usage...but at the same time includes passing and assists.

Ya Im not getting this one either. I get there is a difference between a shooter and a scorer, but Mitchell is both. Hes a scorer that can also shoot. Taking away FTs and 3s is taking away 2 major components of scoring.

I get the argument 100% if it is Ben is the more complete overall offensive player, since he is the better facilitator while still only scoring 3 less points on the same efficiency. But ya I think the numbers show Mitchell being the better scorer with a wider variety of ways to score. While I think Ben is a good scorer, not as good or as versatile as Mitchell when it comes to scoring, but Ben has a more complete offensive package when you include his facilitating.

Offense is scoring, so Ben being the all around better offensive player means he is the better scorer. Shooting, specifically talking about shooting percentages which other than TOV is all Mitchell has over Simmons, is but a part of scoring. Again, they pretty much score the same, with Simmons being the better facilitator meaning he probably exceeds the six point difference created by Mitchell attempting and making two more threes a game, which is why Simmons ORTG is 106 to Mitchell's 103.

[Stanford]

I would say the tie breaker goes to the guy who is playing elite level defense, not some anecdotal stuff about NBA preparedness.

[APettyJ]

Is it me or is this like Carmelo vs Lebron all over again

The article suggests Klay Thompson, a great shooter who is a good scorer, vs James Harden, known for the variety of ways he scores ala Simmons but also is a very good shooter, which Simmons is not.

[Duke4life831]

I just don’t understand how you can argue that one player is another scorer by removing several aspects of scoring, and then including things that are not scoring.

The bash one player to prop up the other is more logical than that. I don’t understand how scoring excludes FT’s, 3’s, and Usage...but at the same time includes passing and assists.

Ya Im not getting this one either. I get there is a difference between a shooter and a scorer, but Mitchell is both. Hes a scorer that can also shoot. Taking away FTs and 3s is taking away 2 major components of scoring.

I get the argument 100% if it is Ben is the more complete overall offensive player, since he is the better facilitator while still only scoring 3 less points on the same efficiency. But ya I think the numbers show Mitchell being the better scorer with a wider variety of ways to score. While I think Ben is a good scorer, not as good or as versatile as Mitchell when it comes to scoring, but Ben has a more complete offensive package when you include his facilitating.

Offense is scoring, so Ben being the all around better offensive player means he is the better scorer. Shooting, specifically talking about shooting percentages which other than TOV is all Mitchell has over Simmons, is but a part of scoring. Again, they pretty much have the score the same, with Simmons being the better facilitator meaning he probably exceeds the six point difference created by Mitchell attempting and making two more threes a game, which is why Simmons ORTG is 106 to Mitchell's 103.

John Stockton is the all time leading assists leader. No one calls John Stockton an all time great scorer. Hes an all time great offensive player (player overall), but no he was not known for his scoring (even though he was very efficient).

I get this entire thing is all semantics, but when the majority of people talk about who were the best all time scorers, you rarely if ever hear about how many assists and TOVs they had. Again I give Simmons the edge as the overall offensive player, but I give Mitchell the edge in the scoring department.

[APettyJ]

So you disagree with the definition above, which says nothing about shooting percentages, and everything about how one gets baskets, vs just being a good shooter, which is all Mitchell has on Ben offensively? Again, guys are equal in fgm and ftm. That ppg difference is about the three, about being a better. Ben being the better facilitator negates that.

[Duke4life831]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

The tie breaker goes to Simmons. Mitchell had a whole season of competitive basketball before he got drafted, followed by summer league and preseason to get him ready for the regular season. Simmons had to sit on the bench and watch. He had to work through rust.

(This **** is easy)

Competitive basketball playing in the tourney against kids that'll never sniff the NBA, while Simmons was learning his system and offense, fine-tuning his practice habits at the NBA level, getting NBA-level coaching and training, getting acquainted with the league's long schedule and travel.

Sure, whatever you say.

Im all for calling Simmons a rookie this year, doesnt really make much difference to me since the ROTY award holds pretty low value in the grand scheme of things in my opinion. So I dont agree with clyde on that part, but ya I agree with Clyde on the 2nd part. Even if he was rehabbing for the majority of the year, he was still spending probably 8 hours a day working out, rehabbing, training, learning to scout and being taught by the elite of the elite for basketball. And I believe he was doing 5 on 5 drills around all star weekend or so his rookie year but just never came back, so that means he still got plenty of training against NBA quality opponents.

There are pretty strict rules on how much time a college player can train with the coaching staff per week, even then the level of training isnt even close to what someone would get in the NBA. Ya he was playing actual games, but ya give me a year of being a full time NBA player over the limits they set on college players any day of the week when it comes to bettering your game.

[clyde21]

The tie breaker goes to Simmons. Mitchell had a whole season of competitive basketball before he got drafted, followed by summer league and preseason to get him ready for the regular season. Simmons had to sit on the bench and watch. He had to work through rust.

(This **** is easy)

Competitive basketball playing in the tourney against kids that'll never sniff the NBA, while Simmons was learning his system and offense, fine-tuning his practice habits at the NBA level, getting NBA-level coaching and training, getting acquainted with the league's long schedule and travel.

Sure, whatever you say.

Im all for calling Simmons a rookie this year, doesnt really make much difference to me since the ROTY award holds pretty low value in the grand scheme of things in my opinion. So I dont agree with clyde on that part, but ya I agree with Clyde on the 2nd part. Even if he was rehabbing for the majority of the year, he was still spending probably 8 hours a day working out, rehabbing, training, learning to scout and being taught by the elite of the elite for basketball. And I believe he was doing 5 on 5 drills around all star weekend or so his rookie year but just never came back, so that means he still got plenty of training against NBA quality opponents.

There are pretty strict rules on how much time a college player can train with the coaching staff per week, even then the level of training isnt even close to what someone would get in the NBA. Ya he was playing actual games, but ya give me a year of being a full time NBA player over the limits they set on college players any day of the week when it comes to bettering your game.

Agreed, but you missed the most important part: getting used to the schedule. Going from playing ~30 odd games to 82 games cross country is a HUGE change and spending an extra year prepping for that is a big advantage.

This is what a rookie wall exists. After a certain amount of games, rookies tend to stop playing well because they're just not used to the load or the travelling.

[KqWIN]

Firstly, let’s make something VERY clear. When judging a player offensively, it means so much more than just putting the ball in the basket. Their ability to facilitate, make others better, giving up good shots for great shots, finishing around the basket, efficiency, getting to the free throw line, the variety of ways in which they can score etc etc etc is all apart of it. It’s much much more than just putting the ball through the net.

http://www.opencourt-basketball.com/the-difference-between-a-shooter-and-scorer-in-the-nba/

And getting to the line is not exactly the same thing as making them. Simmons gets to the line more than Mitchell, so that even with the significantly worse FT% they actually average about the same number of made FT, 2.7 for Mitchell vs 2.5 for Ben. Combine this with the fact that Mitchell's eFG% is less than Simmons, despite the fact that Simmons literally doesn't have a three point game and eFG% accounts for the added efficiency of making a three over a two and it appears to me that difference in ppg between the two is Mitchell's 7.3 attempts to Ben's 7.0, with 2.3 of those being from three, vs none from Ben. Type of shot taken, or being a shooter.

Mitchell is a good shooter and scorer. He's not a better scorer, which means so much more than shooting threes or FT, than Simmons, and saying that is not trying to tear down Mitchell in any way. Just pointing out Simmons is that much more a superior player.

Read the definition, and then realize it's not for "scorer". It's for offensive player. Seriously, I'm not getting this at all. Scoring is a subset of offense. That doesn't mean you get to include things that are not scoring into scoring for the sake of an argument. Ditto for disregarding things that are included in scoring.

What if I excluded all 2 point baskets from scoring and said, "scoring is much more than 2 point baskets". That's ridiculous, and it's exactly what you're doing here. Scoring is inclusive of all things scoring, which should be obvious. It also does not include things that are not scoring, which is even more obvious.

I seriously cannot tell if I'm being trolled at this point. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen on this forum. What comes next? Rudy Gobert is a better scorer than Mitchell because he has a higher FG% and sets better screens, which lead to baskets?

[michaelm]

The tie breaker here should be the fact that Simmons ain't even a rookie.

Please detail the NBA games he played prior to this season.

Didn't need to. He's already spent an entire year in his system, under NBA-level tutelage, getting acquainted to an 82-game schedule and travel, practice habits, etc.

These things matter. Listen to Fox's interview earlier in the season. The hardest part for him wasn't playing ball, but getting used to the schedule and travel. Simmons is a year ahead of everyone else on that, and it makes a huge difference.

Unfortunately for your argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the rules for eligibility for the award which have been in place for many years before either player was under any consideration to be ROTY, and it can be (and has been) equally argued that not being able to play or practice for many months disadvantaged him in any case. Even veteran players are frequently reported/considered to be "rusty" for some time on returning from a long break. Added to this Simmons didn't play his NBA position in college, the last year he did play and practice before breaking his foot, so he has had to go straight to being the PG and chief playmaker for his NBA team, something not required of Mitchell.

I btw dispute neither that Mitchell is already a fanatastic player with considerable prospects for further improvement nor that he would be a worthy winner if he is ROTY, just the Simmons "not a rookie" red herring.

[michaelm]

Competitive basketball playing in the tourney against kids that'll never sniff the NBA, while Simmons was learning his system and offense, fine-tuning his practice habits at the NBA level, getting NBA-level coaching and training, getting acquainted with the league's long schedule and travel.

Sure, whatever you say.

Im all for calling Simmons a rookie this year, doesnt really make much difference to me since the ROTY award holds pretty low value in the grand scheme of things in my opinion. So I dont agree with clyde on that part, but ya I agree with Clyde on the 2nd part. Even if he was rehabbing for the majority of the year, he was still spending probably 8 hours a day working out, rehabbing, training, learning to scout and being taught by the elite of the elite for basketball. And I believe he was doing 5 on 5 drills around all star weekend or so his rookie year but just never came back, so that means he still got plenty of training against NBA quality opponents.

There are pretty strict rules on how much time a college player can train with the coaching staff per week, even then the level of training isnt even close to what someone would get in the NBA. Ya he was playing actual games, but ya give me a year of being a full time NBA player over the limits they set on college players any day of the week when it comes to bettering your game.

Agreed, but you missed the most important part: getting used to the schedule. Going from playing ~30 odd games to 82 games cross country is a HUGE change and spending an extra year prepping for that is a big advantage.

This is what a rookie wall exists. After a certain amount of games, rookies tend to stop playing well because they're just not used to the load or the travelling.

The load more significantly includes practicing and playing 82 games which Simmons wasn't doing/didn't do.