Rookie Discussion [19/20] [part I]

[Buzzard]

you're repeating the same stuff over and over again. we know what his efficiency numbers are. I know them. everyone here knows them. you're adding literally nothing to the conversation.

I'm giving you the context why his efficiency numbers are bad, and telling that I, and a lot of people, don't give a **** about them because we can actually contextualize basketball.

You are not providing any context other than to say he is on a bad team. Here is a clue, 75% of all lottery picks are on some form of a bad team but they have been more consistent than Barrett. So yes, those players deserve to be ranked higher.

no, I'm providing context to let you know his role is completely different than a guy like PJ or Hunter or Rui -- he has wayyyy more responsibilities with the rock and is on a team that takes away his best skill set to boot...and DESPITE THAT he's still averaging more points, rebounds and assists than both of your boys Hunter and Cam.

He is 3rd on the team in shots per game; he is 4th on the team in 3 PT attempts per game. His role on the offensive end is to shoot/score and he is trying. But like a lot of rookies, 1st years are tough. I am sorry this hurts your feelings, but Barrett is not 1st team all rookie material right now. He is just not playing well enough to beat out other scorers like Nunn, Herro, Ja, and then the bigs/forwards like Zion, Clarke, Rui, and Washington.

His is 2nd team material right now but not first. Those players above really deserve it. They are playing better and it would be a shame for a hype machine to steal it away from them.

[Jstock12]

Please tell me Zion isn't actually considered for ROY after missing the first half of the season.

[clyde21]

You are not providing any context other than to say he is on a bad team. Here is a clue, 75% of all lottery picks are on some form of a bad team but they have been more consistent than Barrett. So yes, those players deserve to be ranked higher.

no, I'm providing context to let you know his role is completely different than a guy like PJ or Hunter or Rui -- he has wayyyy more responsibilities with the rock and is on a team that takes away his best skill set to boot...and DESPITE THAT he's still averaging more points, rebounds and assists than both of your boys Hunter and Cam.

He is 3rd on the team in shots per game; he is 4th on the team in 3 PT attempts per game. His role on the offensive end is to shoot/score and he is trying. But like a lot of rookies, 1st years are tough. I am sorry this hurts your feelings, but Barrett is not 1st team all rookie material right now. He is just not playing well enough to beat out other scorers like Nunn, Herro, Ja, and then the bigs/forwards like Zion, Clarke, Rui, and Washington.

His is 2nd team material right now but not first. Those players above really deserve it. They are playing better and it would be a shame for a hype machine to steal it away from them.

no, almost none of those guys would be producing the way Barrett is if they were on the Knicks instead, that's why context matters. and I never even argued he should be first team, you're just throwing strawmans everywhere. I was talking about your nonsense assertion that he shouldn't even be top10.

[Buzzard]

Please tell me Zion isn't actually considered for ROY after missing the first half of the season.

He will be in the minds of the voters; but I still think he ends up 2nd after missing so many games.

[clyde21]

Please tell me Zion isn't actually considered for ROY after missing the first half of the season.

27.6 ppg / 11.2rpg / 2.6apg on 62% from the field per 36 so far...of course he should be in the conversation

[nikster]

Please tell me Zion isn't actually considered for ROY after missing the first half of the season.

27.6 ppg / 11.2rpg / 2.6apg on 62% from the field per 36 so far...of course he should be in the conversation

in like 125 total minutes. Hes playing great but theres just no way hes winning with his limited sample

[Jstock12]

Please tell me Zion isn't actually considered for ROY after missing the first half of the season.

27.6 ppg / 11.2rpg / 2.6apg on 62% from the field per 36 so far...of course he should be in the conversation

Ja Morant should be a lock, imo. Playing great on the current 8th seed in the West. And they were supposed to be the bottom-feeders according to the 'experts'. And much like Zion, Ja is a walking highlight reel.

Unless Morant gets injured and misses the next 30 games this shouldn't even be a debate. Heck, I'd put Clarke ahead of Zion.

[Roddy B for 3]

You are not providing any context other than to say he is on a bad team. Here is a clue, 75% of all lottery picks are on some form of a bad team but they have been more consistent than Barrett. So yes, those players deserve to be ranked higher.

no, I'm providing context to let you know his role is completely different than a guy like PJ or Hunter or Rui -- he has wayyyy more responsibilities with the rock and is on a team that takes away his best skill set to boot...and DESPITE THAT he's still averaging more points, rebounds and assists than both of your boys Hunter and Cam.

He is 3rd on the team in shots per game; he is 4th on the team in 3 PT attempts per game. His role on the offensive end is to shoot/score and he is trying. But like a lot of rookies, 1st years are tough. I am sorry this hurts your feelings, but Barrett is not 1st team all rookie material right now. He is just not playing well enough to beat out other scorers like Nunn, Herro, Ja, and then the bigs/forwards like Zion, Clarke, Rui, and Washington.

His is 2nd team material right now but not first. Those players above really deserve it. They are playing better and it would be a shame for a hype machine to steal it away from them.

I agree with this. I had RJ #2 in that draft (looks wrong right now) I had Hunter #4 and Rui #5.

Ryi isn't first team right now, he's missed to many games.

Morant
Clarke
Herro
Nunn
Washington
Hunter

Are the top roomiers so far is some order imo.

Then obviously Zion can make it if he plays enough games because he plays better than anyone else.

Rui has missed a lot of time otherwise he'd be in the conversation. Reddish is close to the 2nd team imo. Culver is trying to work his way on to second team as are Garland and others.

Is Barrett really playing better than even Elfrid Payton?

Because from the games I've seen Elf and RJ play similar (head down, north south drives, looking to playmake or get to the rim with no threat of a three point shot) but Elf looks to simply be the better of the two therefore is givin the better opportunities for that shared skill set to shine.

[clyde21]

Please tell me Zion isn't actually considered for ROY after missing the first half of the season.

27.6 ppg / 11.2rpg / 2.6apg on 62% from the field per 36 so far...of course he should be in the conversation

Ja Morant should be a lock, imo. Playing great on the current 8th seed in the West. And they were supposed to be the bottom-feeders according to the 'experts'. And much like Zion, Ja is a walking highlight reel.

Unless Morant gets injured and misses the next 30 games this shouldn't even be a debate. Heck, I'd put Clarke ahead of Zion.

what's the threshold for amount of games someone should play? we're not talking about the MVP award here

[Jstock12]

27.6 ppg / 11.2rpg / 2.6apg on 62% from the field per 36 so far...of course he should be in the conversation

Ja Morant should be a lock, imo. Playing great on the current 8th seed in the West. And they were supposed to be the bottom-feeders according to the 'experts'. And much like Zion, Ja is a walking highlight reel.

Unless Morant gets injured and misses the next 30 games this shouldn't even be a debate. Heck, I'd put Clarke ahead of Zion.

what's the threshold for amount of games someone should play? we're not talking about the MVP award here

I don't know about the exact treshold, but i think it should be significantly more than 10.2% of your team's total games before we start putting you into the conversation.

And if Morant ends up playing in 90% of his teams games while keeping up his level of play (which is on par with Zion if not better) then he's a lock.

[NO-KG-AI]

keeping up his level of play (which is on par with Zion if not better).

False. It’s a small sample size, so who knows what happens, but not from this play he’s not better.

[BugginOut]

Ja Morant should be a lock, imo. Playing great on the current 8th seed in the West. And they were supposed to be the bottom-feeders according to the 'experts'. And much like Zion, Ja is a walking highlight reel.

Unless Morant gets injured and misses the next 30 games this shouldn't even be a debate. Heck, I'd put Clarke ahead of Zion.

what's the threshold for amount of games someone should play? we're not talking about the MVP award here

I don't know about the exact treshold, but i think it should be significantly more than 10.2% of your team's total games before we start putting you into the conversation.

And if Morant ends up playing in 90% of his teams games while keeping up his level of play (which is on par with Zion if not better) then he's a lock.

If Zion plays the rest of the way, keeps up the production and the Pelicans make the playoff, then I think you have to give it to him, regardless of how good Ja has been.

[MemphisX]

I tried to tell people that Zion still had a chance to win ROY. It is not a slight on Ja, Zion is just a freak and the NBA loves a narrative. He is their next cash cow. Might as well get used to it.

[Fat]

I tried to tell people that Zion still had a chance to win ROY. It is not a slight on Ja, Zion is just a freak and the NBA loves a narrative. He is their next cash cow. Might as well get used to it.

nah morant will win

[Fat]

Put some of these rookies in RJ's shoes and i dont see them carrying the same weight in production on this poorly constructed knicks roster minus zion, morant, porter and nunn. *(maybe herro). Anyone i didnt name would probably look twice as worst than rj and would look nothing like a #3 pick if they were on the knicks (an assumption i know) . Watch more knicks games and convince me otherwise

RJ was actually trending upward before injury btw. Last 3 games 17 pts, 5 rebs, 58% from 3, 45%fg, 75% FT, 1steal, 2.7 assits in 28 minutes.

[Young gun 6]

27.6 ppg / 11.2rpg / 2.6apg on 62% from the field per 36 so far...of course he should be in the conversation

Ja Morant should be a lock, imo. Playing great on the current 8th seed in the West. And they were supposed to be the bottom-feeders according to the 'experts'. And much like Zion, Ja is a walking highlight reel.

Unless Morant gets injured and misses the next 30 games this shouldn't even be a debate. Heck, I'd put Clarke ahead of Zion.

what's the threshold for amount of games someone should play? we're not talking about the MVP award here

It would be the overall context in the whole picture of things, as has been shown from precedence.

Brogdon was arguably the weakest ROTY winner ever and he still won comfortable with 75 games compared to 31 from Embiid.

I think in that weak of a year if Embiid got to 40 games he potentially would’ve tipped the scales.

If you said Zion and Embiid were the equivalent (which would obviously have to ignore defense at this moment), Ja is that far ahead of Brogdon’s season that in my opinion Zion would need to be playing at least 55 or so games to really be in the convo.

Zion’s per 36: 28/11/3 on 64% TS
Embiid per 36: 29/11/5/3 on 59% TS

Then you look at Brogdon vs Ja

Brogdon: 10/3/4/1 on 56% TS
Ja: 18/3/7/1 on 57% TS


If Embiid couldn’t do it in such a weak year, Zion would need to either get those per 36 numbers up to something even a lot more impressive than Embiid could do, say 35/12/5 (if he is only playing 35 games) or otherwise it really is done, having played under that 50-60 range that would get him in the convo...Unless Ja significantly drops down to Brogdon type numbers then there may be a convo similar to 2017.

[clyde21]

Ja Morant should be a lock, imo. Playing great on the current 8th seed in the West. And they were supposed to be the bottom-feeders according to the 'experts'. And much like Zion, Ja is a walking highlight reel.

Unless Morant gets injured and misses the next 30 games this shouldn't even be a debate. Heck, I'd put Clarke ahead of Zion.

what's the threshold for amount of games someone should play? we're not talking about the MVP award here

It would be the overall context in the whole picture of things, as has been shown from precedence.

Brogdon was arguably the weakest ROTY winner ever and he still won comfortable with 75 games compared to 31 from Embiid.

I think in that weak of a year if Embiid got to 40 games he potentially would’ve tipped the scales.

If you said Zion and Embiid were the equivalent (which would obviously have to ignore defense at this moment), Ja is that far ahead of Brogdon’s season that in my opinion Zion would need to be playing at least 55 or so games to really be in the convo.

Zion’s per 36: 28/11/3 on 64% TS
Embiid per 36: 29/11/5/3 on 59% TS

Then you look at Brogdon vs Ja

Brogdon: 10/3/4/1 on 56% TS
Ja: 18/3/7/1 on 57% TS


If Embiid couldn’t do it in such a weak year, Zion would need to either get those per 36 numbers up to something even a lot more impressive than Embiid could do, say 35/12/5 (if he is only playing 35 games) or otherwise it really is done, having played under that 50-60 range that would get him in the convo...Unless Ja significantly drops down to Brogdon type numbers then there may be a convo similar to 2017.

meh, not really applicable, Embiid was actually like a 3rd year player anyways...and just because 1 bad decision was made a few years doesn't mean we have to do it again

not saying that Ja winning ROTY would be bad, he's been awesome he deserves it, but I wouldn't count Zion out just yet.

[Young gun 6]

what's the threshold for amount of games someone should play? we're not talking about the MVP award here

It would be the overall context in the whole picture of things, as has been shown from precedence.

Brogdon was arguably the weakest ROTY winner ever and he still won comfortable with 75 games compared to 31 from Embiid.

I think in that weak of a year if Embiid got to 40 games he potentially would’ve tipped the scales.

If you said Zion and Embiid were the equivalent (which would obviously have to ignore defense at this moment), Ja is that far ahead of Brogdon’s season that in my opinion Zion would need to be playing at least 55 or so games to really be in the convo.

Zion’s per 36: 28/11/3 on 64% TS
Embiid per 36: 29/11/5/3 on 59% TS

Then you look at Brogdon vs Ja

Brogdon: 10/3/4/1 on 56% TS
Ja: 18/3/7/1 on 57% TS


If Embiid couldn’t do it in such a weak year, Zion would need to either get those per 36 numbers up to something even a lot more impressive than Embiid could do, say 35/12/5 (if he is only playing 35 games) or otherwise it really is done, having played under that 50-60 range that would get him in the convo...Unless Ja significantly drops down to Brogdon type numbers then there may be a convo similar to 2017.

meh, not really applicable, Embiid was actually like a 3rd year player anyways...and just because 1 bad decision was made a few years doesn't mean we have to do it again

not saying that Ja winning ROTY would be bad, he's been awesome he deserves it, but I wouldn't count Zion out just yet.

How likely do you think the winner would be under estimates of the below:

Ja:
73 games played
18/4/7/1 on 48/37/80 (55% TS)
Memphis finish 8-10th l

Zion:
37 games played
20/9/2/1 on 60/35/60 (63% TS)
Pels finish 8-11th

[clyde21]

It would be the overall context in the whole picture of things, as has been shown from precedence.

Brogdon was arguably the weakest ROTY winner ever and he still won comfortable with 75 games compared to 31 from Embiid.

I think in that weak of a year if Embiid got to 40 games he potentially would’ve tipped the scales.

If you said Zion and Embiid were the equivalent (which would obviously have to ignore defense at this moment), Ja is that far ahead of Brogdon’s season that in my opinion Zion would need to be playing at least 55 or so games to really be in the convo.

Zion’s per 36: 28/11/3 on 64% TS
Embiid per 36: 29/11/5/3 on 59% TS

Then you look at Brogdon vs Ja

Brogdon: 10/3/4/1 on 56% TS
Ja: 18/3/7/1 on 57% TS


If Embiid couldn’t do it in such a weak year, Zion would need to either get those per 36 numbers up to something even a lot more impressive than Embiid could do, say 35/12/5 (if he is only playing 35 games) or otherwise it really is done, having played under that 50-60 range that would get him in the convo...Unless Ja significantly drops down to Brogdon type numbers then there may be a convo similar to 2017.

meh, not really applicable, Embiid was actually like a 3rd year player anyways...and just because 1 bad decision was made a few years doesn't mean we have to do it again

not saying that Ja winning ROTY would be bad, he's been awesome he deserves it, but I wouldn't count Zion out just yet.

How likely do you think the winner would be under estimates of the below:

Ja:
73 games played
18/4/7/1 on 48/37/80 (55% TS)
Memphis finish 8-10th l

Zion:
37 games played
20/9/2/1 on 60/35/60 (63% TS)
Pels finish 8-11th

likely? Ja. who would I think should take it? Zion

again, this isn't the MVP race where amount of games actually matters, as long as it's a legit sample size and one is clearly better, I'm going him.

[Young gun 6]

meh, not really applicable, Embiid was actually like a 3rd year player anyways...and just because 1 bad decision was made a few years doesn't mean we have to do it again

not saying that Ja winning ROTY would be bad, he's been awesome he deserves it, but I wouldn't count Zion out just yet.

How likely do you think the winner would be under estimates of the below:

Ja:
73 games played
18/4/7/1 on 48/37/80 (55% TS)
Memphis finish 8-10th l

Zion:
37 games played
20/9/2/1 on 60/35/60 (63% TS)
Pels finish 8-11th

likely? Ja. who would I think should take it? Zion

again, this isn't the MVP race where amount of games actually matters, as long as it's a legit sample size and one is clearly better, I'm going him.

Fair enough, most people would disagree I would think though.

Only 2 players have ever won in less than 60 games played (let alone 35) and they were Roy (Bargnani 2nd) and Ewing (20/9/2/1/2) (McDaniel 2nd)

If there was a most impressive looking rookie award then sure that would be different altogether but rookie of the year is rightly awarded to the rookie who has the best season.