The ROTY/Rookie Discussion Thread, Part III

[Kabookalu]

So the latest poll here shows 38% to 30% advantage Simmons. I highly doubt there are more Jazz fans than Sixer fans here, so that tells me it could go either way. A lot of sportswriters will be voting with their heart and gut, not 1 year unreliable advanced stats. Sixer fans please don't cry us a river if your red shirt rookie loses out.

With all due respect I'll be surprised if Mitchell won it. There are way too many things going in Simmons' favor at the moment. He has the more appealing boxscore stats that are easy to read on tweets, so they're easier to digest for casual fans. He has the hype (Magic comparisons). And he has the down the stretch high profile matchup win in his pocket (when he beat LeBron). Fair or not these things matter with voters, and I wish it weren't that way. When DeMar had that dunk on Detroit he all of a sudden shot up in everyone's MVP ranking, which made no sense to me; nothing major about his role or play changed before or after that game; it's because it's an easy play to share with others and retweet that it had a widespread outreach.

After the Sixers beat the Cavaliers there was a storm of tweets about how Simmons put up a triple double against LeBron's triple double and his team came out with the win. That forked into smaller narratives of how LeBron was passing down the torch and how this was going to be a classic game looked at fondly in the future; a match that bridged two generational greats together. The storyline alone is going to push Simmons into the award (and it helps that his advanced stats justify it too).

This would still be a lot more closer if Embiid didn't get hurt. There were still some rumblings that Simmons' success had to do with Embiid, and that hurt Simmons. When he went down though and they kept on winning with Simmons being the defacto number one option the momentum completely went his way and just kept on getting stronger and stronger with each win.

[bebopdeluxe]

So the latest poll here shows 38% to 30% advantage Simmons. I highly doubt there are more Jazz fans than Sixer fans here, so that tells me it could go either way. A lot of sportswriters will be voting with their heart and gut, not 1 year unreliable advanced stats. Sixer fans please don't cry us a river if your red shirt rookie loses out.

Care to explain to the board the basis for your assertion that advanced stats are "unreliable"?

The numbers are the numbers. Head-to-head, Simmons is ahead in the overwleming majority of categories - both "counting" stats as well as advanced analytics. In terms of "value to team" (in terms of WS, BPM and VORP, for example), Gobert is BY FAR the most valuable member of the Jazz, with Mitchell either 4th or 5th on the Jazz in the these categories (Simmons leads the Sixers in all three categories).

The voters for this award take into account these advanced analytics very seriously. I can understand that a particular statistic may have a degree of variability, but when the aggregation of these stats tell a very clear story - that Simmons has had a better, more impactful season for his team than Mitchell - it is hard to dismiss them with a subjective wave of your hand.

If you have a fact-based. statistical or analytical basis for stating that this data is unreliable, please share it with the board.

Thanks!

[QPR]

*He also said that when he thought it was a tie he was considering the fact that Simmons was a draft class earlier, which I thought was interesting. I know it's obviously not part of the rules for ROTY, but it is also obviously playing a factor in the voters decision making (which also might explain why those same people are saying it's close).

I personally think there is a media bias towards Mitchell, and it comes down to the fact that he is a "true" rookie and that he is American. There's no statistical argument for him to win, and the media should recognise this more than anyone as they have access to all the numbers first hand and should be using them for any analysis.

This is of course no slight on Mitchell at all who has been phenomenal. But there is literally no statistical argument for him to win.

[bebopdeluxe]

So the latest poll here shows 38% to 30% advantage Simmons. I highly doubt there are more Jazz fans than Sixer fans here, so that tells me it could go either way. A lot of sportswriters will be voting with their heart and gut, not 1 year unreliable advanced stats. Sixer fans please don't cry us a river if your red shirt rookie loses out.

With all due respect I'll be surprised if Mitchell won it. There are way too many things going in Simmons' favor at the moment. He has the more appealing boxscore stats that are easy to read on tweets, so they're easier to digest for casual fans. He has the hype (Magic comparisons). And he has the down the stretch high profile matchup win in his pocket (when he beat LeBron). Fair or not these things matter with voters, and I wish it weren't that way. When DeMar had that dunk on Detroit he all of a sudden shot up in everyone's MVP ranking, which made no sense to me; nothing major about his role or play changed before or after that game; it's because it's an easy play to share with others and retweet that it had a widespread outreach.

After the Sixers beat the Cavaliers there was a storm of tweets about how Simmons put up a triple double against LeBron's triple double and his team came out with the win. That forked into smaller narratives of how LeBron was passing down the torch and how this was going to be a classic game looked at fondly in the future; a match that bridged two generational greats together. The storyline alone is going to push Simmons into the award (and it helps that his advanced stats justify it too).

This would still be a lot more closer if Embiid didn't get hurt. There were still some rumblings that Simmons' success had to do with Embiid, and that hurt Simmons. When he went down though and they kept on winning with Simmons being the defacto number one option the momentum completely went his way and just kept on getting stronger and stronger with each win.

All of this is true - but I believe that much of your post refers to the "shiny metal object"-like subjective case for Simmons. However, there is also a statistical/analytical component to this as well. It is what many Bucks fans used as their justification for Brogdon over Saric last spring - at the end of the day, Brogdon was the more efficient player who was contributing more to his team's success than Saric was. Using the standard of last year, from a standpoint of efficiency and "value to team", this really is no contest.

[bebopdeluxe]

This thread turned toxic long ago and has been getting some of the worst posts on the board this season. What a **** show. People seem incapable of appreciating two truly remarkable rookie seasons (and some awesome promise shown by about a dozen more rookies) without throwing shade at players other than their favorites. IMO this will turn out to be one of the best classes of the recent decades...

Mitchell has had a great rookie season, and looks like a future All-Star.

How is it "casting shade" on him to simply state that, IMO, Simmons has had a better season? This has been my position on this thread for WEEKS - and I take the time (over and over again) to support my position with statistical and analytical facts. I welcome Mitchell supporters to respond with their own analytical/statistical case for Mitchell.

But again, just because I believe Simmons is the clear ROY, it does not mean that I do not both respect and appreciate what Mitchell has done this season. I know hat I have occasionally gotten into it with supporters of Mitchell, but I really do respect what Mitchell has done this season. I just think Simmons has been better - and I welcome a non-subjective debate from Mitchell supporters on why Mitchell's season has been better.

[Kolkmania]

It's not close. No one picking Mitchell is doing it based on numbers.

I agree that anyone picking Mitchell is doing so based off of more than numbers. My question is how wrong is that?

Brian Windhorst said that he had it as a toss-up as of last week (I believe he then went on to say that what Simmons has done without Embiid has changed things*), but I've seen this idea that it's been over for the last couple months because of the numbers repeatedly brought up by Sixers/Simmons boosters. Is Windy just totally out of his mind then that he thought that it was a toss-up? He's clearly a guy who would have checked the advanced stats etc. and wouldn't just be talking out of his ass like a lot of former players might have been.

Again I agree with you that on numbers alone Simmons is the winner, I think he started to pull away awhile ago, but the fact that reputable talking heads think there is/was a debate over it suggest to me that the majority of them are adding in some serious subjective analysis as part of their decision making process. I think that's appropriate.

Again I think Simmons is the ROTY even when taking into consideration the subjective factors, but I keep seeing this idea that the numbers alone dictate this while it seems like a lot of the guys who actually vote on it aren't using it as their sole criteria. My question is less about this specific instance, since I think Simmons is the choice regardless of the decision making process, but more about the decision making process as a whole.


*He also said that when he thought it was a tie he was considering the fact that Simmons was a draft class earlier, which I thought was interesting. I know it's obviously not part of the rules for ROTY, but it is also obviously playing a factor in the voters decision making (which also might explain why those same people are saying it's close).

It is and remains a subjective award, so everybody is entitled to vote whatever they want. I personally just love to include stats because media members should vote objectively and not based on stuff like "he has the IT factor". We know that Anthony Davis had/has a All-NBA clause in his contract which could potentially made/make him millions of dollars. Perhaps Ben Simmons or Donovan Mitchell has a similar option, therefore there's a responsibility for media members to take this stuff seriously (or not vote at all).

Regarding Windhorst and the usage of advanced stats by media members in general. I do think that a fair share of the media isn't up to speed, this may sound condescending, but it's not. They're in this business for a long time and have busy schedules throughout the day. I can imagine that the majority isn't spending their free time in the evenings on basketball reference, comparing the numbers and knowing the ins and outs of every advanced stat.

Also, the number of storylines in the NBA is so massive that it's impossible to have enough knowledge on every subject. I can't fault them, but sometimes I wish they do more research. RealGM's own Nate Duncan chimed in on the ROTY award on the last podcast and some of the numbers he uses is questionable to say the least. You can check the tweet below, basically summarizes it.

Read on Twitter

[Kabookalu]

So the latest poll here shows 38% to 30% advantage Simmons. I highly doubt there are more Jazz fans than Sixer fans here, so that tells me it could go either way. A lot of sportswriters will be voting with their heart and gut, not 1 year unreliable advanced stats. Sixer fans please don't cry us a river if your red shirt rookie loses out.

With all due respect I'll be surprised if Mitchell won it. There are way too many things going in Simmons' favor at the moment. He has the more appealing boxscore stats that are easy to read on tweets, so they're easier to digest for casual fans. He has the hype (Magic comparisons). And he has the down the stretch high profile matchup win in his pocket (when he beat LeBron). Fair or not these things matter with voters, and I wish it weren't that way. When DeMar had that dunk on Detroit he all of a sudden shot up in everyone's MVP ranking, which made no sense to me; nothing major about his role or play changed before or after that game; it's because it's an easy play to share with others and retweet that it had a widespread outreach.

After the Sixers beat the Cavaliers there was a storm of tweets about how Simmons put up a triple double against LeBron's triple double and his team came out with the win. That forked into smaller narratives of how LeBron was passing down the torch and how this was going to be a classic game looked at fondly in the future; a match that bridged two generational greats together. The storyline alone is going to push Simmons into the award (and it helps that his advanced stats justify it too).

This would still be a lot more closer if Embiid didn't get hurt. There were still some rumblings that Simmons' success had to do with Embiid, and that hurt Simmons. When he went down though and they kept on winning with Simmons being the defacto number one option the momentum completely went his way and just kept on getting stronger and stronger with each win.

All of this is true - but I believe that much of your post refers to the "shiny metal object"-like subjective case for Simmons. However, there is also a statistical/analytical component to this as well. It is what many Bucks fans used as their justification for Brogdon over Saric last spring - at the end of the day, Brogdon was the more efficient player who was contributing more to his team's success than Saric was. Using the standard of last year, from a standpoint of efficiency and "value to team", this really is no contest.

I know, I'm just saying that since the person I replied to diminished the importance of advanced stats, Simmons is beating Mitchell handedly in things like storyline and narrative. As an outside fan I just don't see a good argument for Mitchell over Simmons; Ben has all his bases covered, and there's no shame in that since Mitchell would have destroyed the ROY voting in most other years.

[bebopdeluxe]

Ben Simmons, he who doesn't shoulder much of the Sixers offensive load, is responsible for a tick under 33% of their scoring output.

Good for 6th in the league behind LeBron, Russ, Harden, Dame and Giannis

QFT

[Sixersftw]

Read on Twitter

I saw this earlier and she just nukes poor Nate. What absolute numeric savagery.

[Sixerscan]

It's not close. No one picking Mitchell is doing it based on numbers.

I agree that anyone picking Mitchell is doing so based off of more than numbers. My question is how wrong is that?

Brian Windhorst said that he had it as a toss-up as of last week (I believe he then went on to say that what Simmons has done without Embiid has changed things*), but I've seen this idea that it's been over for the last couple months because of the numbers repeatedly brought up by Sixers/Simmons boosters. Is Windy just totally out of his mind then that he thought that it was a toss-up? He's clearly a guy who would have checked the advanced stats etc. and wouldn't just be talking out of his ass like a lot of former players might have been.

Again I agree with you that on numbers alone Simmons is the winner, I think he started to pull away awhile ago, but the fact that reputable talking heads think there is/was a debate over it suggest to me that the majority of them are adding in some serious subjective analysis as part of their decision making process. I think that's appropriate.

Again I think Simmons is the ROTY even when taking into consideration the subjective factors, but I keep seeing this idea that the numbers alone dictate this while it seems like a lot of the guys who actually vote on it aren't using it as their sole criteria. My question is less about this specific instance, since I think Simmons is the choice regardless of the decision making process, but more about the decision making process as a whole.


*He also said that when he thought it was a tie he was considering the fact that Simmons was a draft class earlier, which I thought was interesting. I know it's obviously not part of the rules for ROTY, but it is also obviously playing a factor in the voters decision making (which also might explain why those same people are saying it's close).

The fact that he said his decision was flipped based on the Sixers beating the Cavs at home and some lottery teams without Embiid should tell you this whole back and forth was more about chasing a narrative than anything... The voters are writers after all.

I wouldn't even say this recent stretch by Simmons has been the most impressive. That would be the beginning part of the win streak where they were beating teams so bad that he didn't even have to play in a lot of 4th quarters.

[cl2117]

The fact that he said his decision was flipped based on the Sixers beating the Cavs at home and some lottery teams without Embiid should tell you this whole back and forth was more about chasing a narrative than anything... The voters are writers after all.

I wouldn't even say this recent stretch by Simmons has been the most impressive. That would be the beginning part of the win streak where they were beating teams so bad that he didn't even have to play in a lot of 4th quarters.

IDK that really cemented it for me. One of the big question marks with Simmons was always what would he look like without Embiid? And that stretch answered it emphatically.

I don't deny that a lot of it could be chasing a narrative and that these guys want a competitive race even if there isn't one. I guess I'm just saying that clearly there is more to this (at least in the actual voting) than stats and stats alone. I feel like a lot of people in this thread can't get their head around why there even was/is a debate because of the stats they've presented, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's the subjective elements being applied as well (and not just in small doses).

[bebopdeluxe]

The fact that he said his decision was flipped based on the Sixers beating the Cavs at home and some lottery teams without Embiid should tell you this whole back and forth was more about chasing a narrative than anything... The voters are writers after all.

I wouldn't even say this recent stretch by Simmons has been the most impressive. That would be the beginning part of the win streak where they were beating teams so bad that he didn't even have to play in a lot of 4th quarters.

IDK that really cemented it for me. One of the big question marks with Simmons was always what would he look like without Embiid? And that stretch answered it emphatically.

I don't deny that a lot of it could be chasing a narrative and that these guys want a competitive race even if there isn't one. I guess I'm just saying that clearly there is more to this (at least in the actual voting) than stats and stats alone. I feel like a lot of people in this thread can't get their head around why there even was/is a debate because of the stats they've presented, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's the subjective elements being applied as well (and not just in small doses).

An application of subjective elements to this debate does not mean a slam-dunk for Mitchell, IMO. It never did. Based on subjective analysis, Simmons has been arguably as good as Mitchell - although obviously this recent stretch without Embiid has made the subjective case even clearer.

But while the two tribes can make their subjective arguments for each player - "Simmons is AWESOME!"..."well...Mitchell is even MORE awesome!" - the numbers don't lie. I think that is where you and I have battled about recently. You have given me crap in this thread for being a "one note Johnny" on Simmons' analytical/statistical advantage, while discounting Mitchell's more subjectively-based argument for ROY - as if Simmons doesn't have his own subjectively-driven case to be made. It is hard to watch a mixtape of Simmons' play this season and not acknowledge that he has also had his share of jaw-dropping moments...times where he just takes the team and puts them on his back. It is just that, in addition to that, Simmons also has the analytics on his side.

Does that make sense?

[Sixerscan]

The fact that he said his decision was flipped based on the Sixers beating the Cavs at home and some lottery teams without Embiid should tell you this whole back and forth was more about chasing a narrative than anything... The voters are writers after all.

I wouldn't even say this recent stretch by Simmons has been the most impressive. That would be the beginning part of the win streak where they were beating teams so bad that he didn't even have to play in a lot of 4th quarters.

IDK that really cemented it for me. One of the big question marks with Simmons was always what would he look like without Embiid? And that stretch answered it emphatically.

I don't deny that a lot of it could be chasing a narrative and that these guys want a competitive race even if there isn't one. I guess I'm just saying that clearly there is more to this (at least in the actual voting) than stats and stats alone. I feel like a lot of people in this thread can't get their head around why there even was/is a debate because of the stats they've presented, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's the subjective elements being applied as well (and not just in small doses).

But this assumes the narratives are valid. Like I don't get why Simmons had to "prove it without Embiid" when Mitchell's team really struggled with Gobert out. And the idea that Mitchell has a much bigger role on offense ignores that Simmons plays point guard and handles it as much as anyone in the league and Mitchell plays off ball.

I think there are plenty of narratives that support Simmons, if anything I think his numbers underplay his value because he is a point guard and it's not his job to accumulate gaudy stats.

[TheSeeker]

The fact that he said his decision was flipped based on the Sixers beating the Cavs at home and some lottery teams without Embiid should tell you this whole back and forth was more about chasing a narrative than anything... The voters are writers after all.

I wouldn't even say this recent stretch by Simmons has been the most impressive. That would be the beginning part of the win streak where they were beating teams so bad that he didn't even have to play in a lot of 4th quarters.

IDK that really cemented it for me. One of the big question marks with Simmons was always what would he look like without Embiid? And that stretch answered it emphatically.

I don't deny that a lot of it could be chasing a narrative and that these guys want a competitive race even if there isn't one. I guess I'm just saying that clearly there is more to this (at least in the actual voting) than stats and stats alone. I feel like a lot of people in this thread can't get their head around why there even was/is a debate because of the stats they've presented, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's the subjective elements being applied as well (and not just in small doses).

But this assumes the narratives are valid. Like I don't get why Simmons had to "prove it without Embiid" when Mitchell's team really struggled with Gobert out. And the idea that Mitchell has a much bigger role on offense ignores that Simmons plays point guard and handles it as much as anyone in the league and Mitchell plays off ball.

I think there are plenty of narratives that support Simmons, if anything I think his numbers underplay his value because he is a point guard and it's not his job to accumulate gaudy stats.

I've stated that Simmons deserves the award, but I don't agree that Simmons numbers underplay his value because he is a point guard.

He is able to get the stats he does because he is a PG in an offense that gives him the ball for most of the game. As Simmons runs a PG centric offense (lots of passes, focused through PG), he has the second most touches per game in the league behind Westbrook. And this is on of the main reasons that Westbrook is able to get the stats he does on a nightly basis (a very good player with the ball alot). Mitchell is in a more "positionless" offense that relies on passing from every player. I wouldn't expect them to have similar offensive stats. Simmons has 95.4 touches per game, with an average time of possession of 7.1. He has the ball a lot. Mitchell averages 61.2 touches per game, with an average time of possession of 4.4 seconds, also a lot, but a drastic amount less than Simmons. As you can see, on offense, Simmons has a lot more opportunity to create efficient scoring and assist opportunities for himself. I think Simmons would not look nearly as good in Utah's offense, and Mitchell would have a similar drop with Philly. Both have found a good fit.

That said, the fact that a rookie can have that many touches for such high periods of time and have such good stats is a credit to Simmons. As I stated earlier, to me, Simmons rebounding and defense gives him the edge over Mitchell, but I also think the race is closer than many Sixer fans think. I have watched both teams, and Mitchell has an ability to score in bunches that is very rare in this league. Simmons has the ability to completely control the pace of a game.

Both players are very different. I'd pick Simmons to build a team around with good scorers. I'd pick Mitchell in a close game over Simmons any day of the week at this point in their careers. I've seen Mitchell take over 4th quarter games and just be unstoppable. Until Simmons can learn to shoot well, he could be a liability down the stretch. And at approximately 56% from FT, that can be a big liability. And sadly, some players never become good shooters. I'd bet that Simmons will improve enough to be decent, which is all he needs.

I'd love to see these two teams in a final. Don't think either is good enough to get there at this point.

[cl2117]

An application of subjective elements to this debate does not mean a slam-dunk for Mitchell, IMO. It never did. Based on subjective analysis, Simmons has been arguably as good as Mitchell - although obviously this recent stretch without Embiid has made the subjective case even clearer.

But while the two tribes can make their subjective arguments for each player - "Simmons is AWESOME!"..."well...Mitchell is even MORE awesome!" - the numbers don't lie. I think that is where you and I have battled about recently. You have given me crap in this thread for being a "one note Johnny" on Simmons' analytical/statistical advantage, while discounting Mitchell's more subjectively-based argument for ROY - as if Simmons doesn't have his own subjectively-driven case to be made. It is hard to watch a mixtape of Simmons' play this season and not acknowledge that he has also had his share of jaw-dropping moments...times where he just takes the team and puts them on his back. It is just that, in addition to that, Simmons also has the analytics on his side.

Does that make sense?

It does make sense, it's also not what I take umbrage with. My overly long response:

Spoiler:

You've still got me wrong.

I'm not on your for being a "one note Johnny" I'm on you because you try to distill statistical arguments from the other side down to "POINTZ" and subjective arguments to "MITCHELL IS NEXT DWADE". It's disingenuous.

The statistical arguments for Mitchell may be based on points and scoring and you may wholeheartedly disagree with that approach (I agree Simmons is better statistically), but saying things like POINTZ is straight up annoying. You can disagree without talking down to the other person.

Same goes for the subjective analysis. I agree that Simmons has as good if not a better subjective argument as Mitchell, but another person may put more weight into one subjective argument than another etc. and yet you distill it down to "Mitchell is more awesome". Some posters may come off like that, but not all, yet you have repeated calls for a "statistical and fact based argument for Mitchell which you haven't seen yet" even when guys are making solid arguments backed up by stats and subjective arguments that are considerably stronger than "Mitchell is a god".

Its the combination of the statistical and the subjective that should get you to your answer. If you ignore one in favor of the other you're not taking in the full picture. And as a result of that people can have vastly different opinions based on the value they place on various statistics or subjective measures/analysis. I saw some very compelling arguments for Mitchell weeks ago (and yes they were heavier on the subjective than your arguments for Simmons), but you still claimed to not have seen a single reasonable argument for Mitchell (I don't think there is one for him now, but definitely at various stages during the season).

I don't disagree with your analysis, I take umbrage with your unwillingness to even acknowledge the other side and your approach to the debate. I don't think it's close. I can still acknowledge that they made reasonable arguments at various stages because I acknowledge that it is heavily influenced by the subjective (and for that matter statistical analysis can be influenced by the value you place on each one). It's the dismissive tone, disingenuous re-framing of genuine arguments and general approach to the debate that I battle you on. I think Simmons stands on his own, as do your arguments, without any of that unnecessary grandstanding. I get that you try and reserve "POINTZ" for when posters are being unreasonable, but what you're not realizing is that it insults all of the posters who make genuine arguments that may be subjective but also which carries a lot more water than "MITCHELL=WADE". It's collateral damage of painting with a broad brush.

I say this as someone on your side of the debate.

But this assumes the narratives are valid. Like I don't get why Simmons had to "prove it without Embiid" when Mitchell's team really struggled with Gobert out. And the idea that Mitchell has a much bigger role on offense ignores that Simmons plays point guard and handles it as much as anyone in the league and Mitchell plays off ball.

I think there are plenty of narratives that support Simmons, if anything I think his numbers underplay his value because he is a point guard and it's not his job to accumulate gaudy stats.

Yes and no. In some cases it assumes the narratives are valid or invalid in others in may be a case of one narrative holding more weight in the debate than the other. My point is that when you bring the subjective analysis into it, it makes it a lot easier for someone to make an argument that is plausible than when you're looking at stats and stats alone.

[bebopdeluxe]

IDK that really cemented it for me. One of the big question marks with Simmons was always what would he look like without Embiid? And that stretch answered it emphatically.

I don't deny that a lot of it could be chasing a narrative and that these guys want a competitive race even if there isn't one. I guess I'm just saying that clearly there is more to this (at least in the actual voting) than stats and stats alone. I feel like a lot of people in this thread can't get their head around why there even was/is a debate because of the stats they've presented, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's the subjective elements being applied as well (and not just in small doses).

An application of subjective elements to this debate does not mean a slam-dunk for Mitchell, IMO. It never did. Based on subjective analysis, Simmons has been arguably as good as Mitchell - although obviously this recent stretch without Embiid has made the subjective case even clearer.

But while the two tribes can make their subjective arguments for each player - "Simmons is AWESOME!"..."well...Mitchell is even MORE awesome!" - the numbers don't lie. I think that is where you and I have battled about recently. You have given me crap in this thread for being a "one note Johnny" on Simmons' analytical/statistical advantage, while discounting Mitchell's more subjectively-based argument for ROY - as if Simmons doesn't have his own subjectively-driven case to be made. It is hard to watch a mixtape of Simmons' play this season and not acknowledge that he has also had his share of jaw-dropping moments...times where he just takes the team and puts them on his back. It is just that, in addition to that, Simmons also has the analytics on his side.

Does that make sense?

You've still got me wrong.

I'm not on your for being a "one note Johnny" I'm on you because you try to distill statistical arguments from the other side down to "POINTZ" and subjective arguments to "MITCHELL IS NEXT DWADE". It's disingenuous.

The statistical arguments for Mitchell may be based on points and scoring and you may wholeheartedly disagree with that approach (I agree Simmons is better statistically), but saying things like POINTZ is straight up annoying. You can disagree without talking down to the other person.

Same goes for the subjective analysis. I agree that Simmons has as good if not a better subjective argument as Mitchell, but another person may put more weight into one subjective argument than another etc. and yet you distill it down to "Mitchell is more awesome". Some posters may come off like that, but not all, yet you have repeated calls for a "statistical and fact based argument for Mitchell which you haven't seen yet" even when guys are making solid arguments backed up by stats and subjective arguments that are considerably stronger than "Mitchell is a god".

Its the combination of the statistical and the subjective that should get you to your answer. If you ignore one in favor of the other you're not taking in the full picture. And as a result of that people can have vastly different opinions based on the value they place on various statistics or subjective measures/analysis. I saw some very compelling arguments for Mitchell weeks ago (and yes they were heavier on the subjective than your arguments for Simmons), but you still claimed to not have seen a single reasonable argument for Mitchell (I don't think there is one for him now, but definitely at various stages during the season).

I don't disagree with your analysis, I take umbrage with your unwillingness to even acknowledge the other side and your approach to the debate. I don't think it's close. I can still acknowledge that they made reasonable arguments at various stages because I acknowledge that it is heavily influenced by the subjective (and for that matter statistical analysis can be influenced by the value you place on each one). It's the dismissive tone, disingenuous re-framing of genuine arguments and general approach to the debate that I battle you on. I think Simmons stands on his own, as do your arguments, without any of that unnecessary grandstanding. I get that you try and reserve "POINTZ" for when posters are being unreasonable, but what you're not realizing is that it insults all of the posters who make genuine arguments that may be subjective but also which carries a lot more water than "MITCHELL=WADE". It's collateral damage of painting with a broad brush.

I say this as someone on your side of the debate.

But this assumes the narratives are valid. Like I don't get why Simmons had to "prove it without Embiid" when Mitchell's team really struggled with Gobert out. And the idea that Mitchell has a much bigger role on offense ignores that Simmons plays point guard and handles it as much as anyone in the league and Mitchell plays off ball.

I think there are plenty of narratives that support Simmons, if anything I think his numbers underplay his value because he is a point guard and it's not his job to accumulate gaudy stats.

Yes and no. In some cases it assumes the narratives are valid or invalid in others in may be a case of one narrative holding more weight in the debate than the other. My point is that when you bring the subjective analysis into it, it makes it a lot easier for someone to make an argument that is plausible than when you're looking at stats and stats alone.

We have now smashed this into sub-atomic particles.

I do appreciate where you are coming from. I also appreciate how my screaming "POINTZ!!!' will not only go after the unreasonable posters, but the more reasonable ones as well (point taken, and apology sincerely offered).

The only place where we still have issue - no need to respond if you don't want to, as I am moving on after this - is what Mitchell-backers use as their statistical basis for their argument. It is clear that a wing scorer like Mitchell would average more points, while a point guard like Simmons would average more assists. That's easy. There are also some advanced metrics - particularly on the defensive side - where the gap between Simmons and Mitchell may not be as great as others may show. However, I have been on forums like this long enough (over 15 years on RealGM) to know when someone is cherry-picking a particular handful of stats to support a position - when the overwhelming volume of stats would support a different conclusion. It is VERY easy, IMO, to make the analytical case for Simmons - both player-vs-player as well as value-to-team. The number of statistical categories he leads in are plentiful and diverse. I simply have not seen a similar statistical case for Mitchell that is both broad and substantial. This is completely separate from the subjective comparison - where each side can make a strong case for their player.

Again, I do appreciate you viewpoint on "POINTZ!!!". Even after 15 years, I can always improve my posting style.

Peace.

[cl2117]

I simply have not seen a similar statistical case for Mitchell that is both broad and substantial. This is completely separate from the subjective comparison - where each side can make a strong case for their player.

The issue is that the decision for ROTY is based on both sides (subjective and statistical). It's not the award for the rookie with the best stats. I'm not going to argue that you can make a better statistical case for Mitchell, I don't think you can. But just because you can't make a purely statistical argument for a player's case for ROTY doesn't mean you don't have a valid argument in their favor for the award.

I think it's possible to have a ROTY winner who was worse stats, but a much stronger subjective case and therefore be more worthy of the award. I think Simmons is having a better year both statistically and subjectively. However I think at times, while Ben still had better stats, Donavan had a worthy overall case due to the subjective.

Framing it as if having the best statistical case for ROTY means you win ROTY is disingenuous. You are statistically more likely to win (see what I did there), but there are other factors at play that could mean that another player is more deserving.

[cksdayoff]

Read on Twitter

I saw this earlier and she just nukes poor Nate. What absolute numeric savagery.

wifey material

[bebopdeluxe]

I simply have not seen a similar statistical case for Mitchell that is both broad and substantial. This is completely separate from the subjective comparison - where each side can make a strong case for their player.

The issue is that the decision for ROTY is based on both sides (subjective and statistical). It's not the award for the rookie with the best stats. I'm not going to argue that you can make a better statistical case for Mitchell, I don't think you can. But just because you can't make a purely statistical argument for a player's case for ROTY doesn't mean you don't have a valid argument in their favor for the award.

I think it's possible to have a ROTY winner who was worse stats, but a much stronger subjective case and therefore be more worthy of the award. I think Simmons is having a better year both statistically and subjectively. However I think at times, while Ben still had better stats, Donavan had a worthy overall case due to the subjective.

Framing it as if having the best statistical case for ROTY means you win ROTY is disingenuous. You are statistically more likely to win (see what I did there), but there are other factors at play that could mean that another player is more deserving.

I agree with everything in this post. Perhaps my problem at the beginning of this discussion was to 1) acknowledge that subjective assessments for awards like this are completely valid (such as when Kirk Gibson won the MVP for the Dodgers in 1988 over Darryl Strawberry); but 2) say that I believed that Simmons' subjective case was equally as compelling as Mitchell's case...which is why I wanted to focus on the subjective/analytical aspect of the debate.

Good stuff. I hope the Sixers find a way to get the 3 seed and win a round (which is far from a given).

[nurseryc]

let's also ignore that Philadelphia's offense falls to 28th in the NBA without Simmons on the floor while Utah's goes down 3 points per 100 without Mitchell.