The ROTY/Rookie Discussion Thread, Part III

[cl2117]

Tatum is really helping to assuage some fears I had about his game. I knew he had the tools, but with him being a relatively reserved guy normally and playing to his role as 3rd/4th option I was worried he might not have the aggressiveness or scoring mentality he'd need to reach his potential.

I caught bit of the Piston/Suns game as well as I wanted to check out Josh Jackson who was really solid, but Luke Kennard stuck out to me. That kid can shoot the 3 ball. I think he has an outside shot of being a really good sharpshooter a la another Duke product JJ Redick.

Tatum is proving what us Celtics fans have always said - his stats may look pedestrian due to the sheer amount of good teammates he has had to play with the whole season, but his actual skill level is way higher. Now that he's got the same opportunity as guys like Mitchell, he shows what he can do. Homer knee-jerk reaction, but (while being aware of his slump the months earlier) just based on these few games I am ready to claim again that Tatum is still the most talented player drafted in 2017.

I've always liked Tatum and thought he was as good a prospect as anyone this year, and he's been better than I expected. Would be perfect fit on my Sixers too, not easy to keep from crying every time I think about that trade.

That said, the opportunity thing goes both ways and I don't think Tatum getting 18-20 shots per game this year would be pretty. As a rookie who shoots a lot of difficult jumpers, he'd have a ton of games where he went like 4/19, and he also doesn't have the ease getting shots that Mitchell has. Think there'd be a lot of pivots and fadeaways, and while his counting stats would be better he'd be a worse player by a good measure.

How would he be a worse player? That makes no sense. He'd be the same player, but with a different role (increased counting stats, decreased efficiency).

I get that with additional shots he's going to lose efficiency most likely, but that'd put him closer to on par with Mitchell who is scoring more, but with worse splits because he's carrying the load and getting more defensive attention. Tatum would see the same effect. He takes a lot of difficult jumpers, but those also happen to be his bread and butter, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that he doesn't have the ease of getting the shots Mitchell has. His dribble stepback is deadly. I think Mitchell is a more versatile scorer, but Tatum shouldn't have a problem getting to his spots on the floor.

Watch the game from last night against the Thunder.

Watch on YouTube

One of the first times he's been the primary scorer he goes for 23 on 8/12 against solid defense. Sure there'd be nights where he goes 4/19, but I also think he'd have games where he's 14/19 like Mitchell.

[Mr Waternoose]

I just ran a list for your stat among players with 1000 minutes. and the top five in the league are

1) Demarcus Cousins
2) Russell Westbrook
3) Joel Embiid
4) James Harden
5) Lebron James
6 John Wall
7 Devin Booker
8 Ben Simmons

And you think on/off stats are useless?

[Mr Waternoose]

I just ran a list for your stat among players with 1000 minutes. and league leaders are

1) Demarcus Cousins
2) Russell Westbrook
3) Joel Embiid
4) James Harden
5) Lebron James
6 John Wall
7 Devin Booker
8 Ben Simmons

And you think on/off stats are useless?

[kuclas]

ROY was never complicated. The player who put up the most impressive offensive stats has won the award since forever. Never had to do with winning (guys like Kevin Durant had very bad advanced stats his rookie year). Never had to do with defense (KAT was a horrible defender his rookie year, but no one cared). Just who put up the most impressive offensive stats.

How does that explain Malcolm Brogdon winning last year rookie of the year. Sure. Embiid would have won it going away if he had played more games.

So Dario Saric played full season. Averaged more points but they still gave it to Brogdon.

[bebopdeluxe]

ROY was never complicated. The player who put up the most impressive offensive stats has won the award since forever. Never had to do with winning (guys like Kevin Durant had very bad advanced stats his rookie year). Never had to do with defense (KAT was a horrible defender his rookie year, but no one cared). Just who put up the most impressive offensive stats.

How does that explain Malcolm Brogdon winning last year rookie of the year. Sure. Embiid would have won it going away if he had played more games.

So Dario Saric played full season. Averaged more points but they still gave it to Brogdon.

Most of the advanced stats skewed towards Brogdon, and the Bucks went to the playoffs.

[kuclas]

ROY was never complicated. The player who put up the most impressive offensive stats has won the award since forever. Never had to do with winning (guys like Kevin Durant had very bad advanced stats his rookie year). Never had to do with defense (KAT was a horrible defender his rookie year, but no one cared). Just who put up the most impressive offensive stats.

How does that explain Malcolm Brogdon winning last year rookie of the year. Sure. Embiid would have won it going away if he had played more games.

So Dario Saric played full season. Averaged more points but they still gave it to Brogdon.

Most of the advanced stats skewed towards Brogdon, and the Bucks went to the playoffs.

So are we using advanced stats? Or are we using who has the flashy numbers for rookie of the year? What’s it gonna to be.

If we are using advanced stats. Than Simmons is rookie of the year. By a landslide. Of course Jazz fans will cry foul and say Mitchell has more clutch it factors.

So what are we basing rookie of the year on?

[bebopdeluxe]

How does that explain Malcolm Brogdon winning last year rookie of the year. Sure. Embiid would have won it going away if he had played more games.

So Dario Saric played full season. Averaged more points but they still gave it to Brogdon.

Most of the advanced stats skewed towards Brogdon, and the Bucks went to the playoffs.

So are we using advanced stats? Or are we using who has the flashy numbers for rookie of the year? What’s it gonna to be.

If we are using advanced stats. Than Simmons is rookie of the year. By a landslide. Of course Jazz fans will cry foul and say Mitchell has more clutch it factors.

So what are we basing rookie of the year on?

We are basing it on who is having the better season. POINTZ!!! aside, it is Simmons - by virtually every possible metric.

All that I am saying is that, from both a statistical perspective as well as a "team success" perspective, it wasn't too surprising that Brogdon won it last year.

[Hipster Doofus]

The Aussie got this on lock

[APettyJ]

ROY was never complicated. The player who put up the most impressive offensive stats has won the award since forever. Never had to do with winning (guys like Kevin Durant had very bad advanced stats his rookie year). Never had to do with defense (KAT was a horrible defender his rookie year, but no one cared). Just who put up the most impressive offensive stats.

How does that explain Malcolm Brogdon winning last year rookie of the year. Sure. Embiid would have won it going away if he had played more games.

So Dario Saric played full season. Averaged more points but they still gave it to Brogdon.

It was an egregious atrocity that made absolutely no sense, going by the historical trend that had been established over the previous 29 seasons. The rookie who leads in the sum total of ppg + rpg + apg ended up winning rookie of the year. It's a rough way of recognizing a player with a somewhat rounded game. The ONLY real exceptions since '87-88 was when Ama're Stoudamire won it over Yao Ming in 2003, with a sum total of 23.3 to Ming's 23.4, and Mike Miller in '01, which appears to be another egregious atrocity, but at least the trend was only 13 years long and not almost 30. If Mitchell was up for the award that year he'd have won it; I also note he'd have beaten Wiggins in his year. Also note that Caron Butler won the rookie scoring title that year, and there have been other years where the ROY did not lead in ppg, but they had ALWAYS had the largest sum total of ppg + rpg + apg, until last year. Now, who knows what they are using to base the award on.

Footnote: Jason Kidd won co-ROY honors while not having the largest sum total, but Grant Hill was the leader and he was co-ROY. As to why Kidd was co-ROY, he led the LEAGUE in triple doubles and led the Mavs to the largest jump in wins over the previous season, going from 13 wins in '93-94 to 36 in 94-95. Interestingly, Simmons leads rookies in triple doubles this season, and the Sixers may be the only team with a +20 win jump this season when it is all said and done, largely due to the efforts of Ben Simmons.

[APettyJ]

Fun fact:

With nine triple doubles, Ben Simmons would be the FRANCHISE leader of ten NBA clubs, including the Utah Jazz.

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[APettyJ]

Last note: Simmons has a higher ORTG and OWS than Mitchell, and yet Mitchell is the better offensive player? Higher PER too, which is biased against defensive contributions. None of this puts down what Mitchell has done this season. He has a solidly well-rounded game. I note his total of ppg + rpg + apg is 27.3 , a pretty high number for a rookie guard. He'd have won it in many years, including beating Kevin Durant's 26.8 in 2008.

It's just he happens to be up against a guy who currently has more triple dubs than anyone on Mitchell's FRANCHISE.

[_Joker]

24 minutes for Simmons - 13/7/9 with a positive +/- of 28

Give him another 8 minutes and he would have another triple D

[Black Mage]

24 minutes for Simmons - 13/7/9 with a positive +/- of 28

Give him another 8 minutes and he would have another triple D

He's been a victim of that circumstance a few times now.

[downtownpie]

Tatum with 23 points again without Kyrie and Celtics W.

he is a super young player. in a different environment he'd be putting up no's on a consistent basis.

[downtownpie]

24 minutes for Simmons - 13/7/9 with a positive +/- of 28

Give him another 8 minutes and he would have another triple D

He's been a victim of that circumstance a few times now.

yeh a few times Brown has taken him out when its over and left him a couple short.

[HotelVitale]

How would he be a worse player? That makes no sense. He'd be the same player, but with a different role (increased counting stats, decreased efficiency)... He takes a lot of difficult jumpers, but those also happen to be his bread and butter, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that he doesn't have the ease of getting the shots Mitchell has. His dribble stepback is deadly... Sure there'd be nights where he goes 4/19, but I also think he'd have games where he's 14/19 like Mitchell.

Yes, I understand the obvious counterpoint and I wouldn't have posted what I did if I thought it was the last word. When I watch Mitchell, it looks like he can always take two dribbles, make a move, and get a solid shot. When I watch Tatum, I see that he has a nice side shuffle and solid speed but is mostly a straight line driver who resorts to stepbacks if he needs to get a shot up. I know after 4th quarters like last night you all are fully convinced that 20-foot stepbacks are money for him--but 20-ft stepbacks aren't money for anyone except two or three players in the league. I just don't think that having him take literally 10 or 12 long 2s off the dribble per game is going to be pretty in the long run; I get that you all might think he'll be cold cash from there for his whole career (I would think the same if he was on my team) but to my eyes he doesn't have high-volume feel and skills yet. (Yet.)

EDIT: I also looked at theOKC vid again, it was interesting to see how Tatum scored his pts:
Uncontested drive; wide open spot-up corner 3; iso sidestep 19 footer; fouled in transition; drive after defender fell over (no contest); iso drive past mismatched Steven Adams; lightly contested spot-up 3; fouled on a pretty iso drive; really nice step-back 3. It was a nice display but it didn't look like a regular high volume scorer doing it on his own.

[NPZ]

We are basing it on who is having the better season. POINTZ!!! aside, it is Simmons - by virtually every possible metric.

Like the use of "POINTZ!!!" with a Z and 3 exclamations. I employ the Z and !!!s in response to really dense posters, but I like to add a 1 at the end of my EPs. I would've written, "POINTZ!!!1" aside...

[cl2117]

Simmons could have had another triple double again last night if he wanted to and it wasn't a blowout. I LOVE watching him play. He reminds me of Tim Duncan with how methodical he works, but he's also so explosive. He stand at the elbow and distributes like he's Al Horford one possession and then the next he blows past a defender like he's LBJ. It's such a unique skillset.

Dillon Brooks was aight. I worry he's an empty stats guy on a tanking team, but he's got some tools to potentially be a nice bench piece. 17 points on .45/.40 for the month of March.

Malik Monk and Jarret Allen were the duds of the night. I only watched the highlights, but Allen just got worked by Howard. And Monk continues to shoot at Lonzo level splits. Monk has been disappointing all season, but Allen had shown flashes. Howard dominated everyone out there last night, so trying not to hold it against Allen.

How would he be a worse player? That makes no sense. He'd be the same player, but with a different role (increased counting stats, decreased efficiency)... He takes a lot of difficult jumpers, but those also happen to be his bread and butter, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that he doesn't have the ease of getting the shots Mitchell has. His dribble stepback is deadly... Sure there'd be nights where he goes 4/19, but I also think he'd have games where he's 14/19 like Mitchell.

Yes, I understand the obvious counterpoint and I wouldn't have posted what I did if I thought it was the last word. When I watch Mitchell, it looks like he can always take two dribbles, make a move, and get a solid shot. When I watch Tatum, I see that he has a nice side shuffle and solid speed but is mostly a straight line driver who resorts to stepbacks if he needs to get a shot up. I know after 4th quarters like last night you all are fully convinced that 20-foot stepbacks are money for him--but 20-ft stepbacks aren't money for anyone except two or three players in the league. I just don't think that having him take literally 10 or 12 long 2s off the dribble per game is going to be pretty in the long run; I get that you all might think he'll be cold cash from there for his whole career (I would think the same if he was on my team) but to my eyes he doesn't have high-volume feel and skills yet. (Yet.)

EDIT: I also looked at theOKC vid again, it was interesting to see how Tatum scored his pts:
Uncontested drive; wide open spot-up corner 3; iso sidestep 19 footer; fouled in transition; drive after defender fell over (no contest); iso drive past mismatched Steven Adams; lightly contested spot-up 3; fouled on a pretty iso drive; really nice step-back 3. It was a nice display but it didn't look like a regular high volume scorer doing it on his own.

Mitchell can absolutely get to cleaner shots more easily than Tatum. That's one of the most impressive parts of his game. Tatum can get to his spots, but you're right those are mid-range or long 2's vs. Mitchell who creates open looks beyond the arc MUCH better than Tatum (and that's huge given that those are without a doubt better shots than long 2's).

Tatum is money from those spots though. But lets say Tatum adds 6 shots a game and they're all long 2's and he loses his efficiency and only makes 2 on average. He'd still be averaging 17/18 a game on .42/.42 and that doesn't assume he gets to the line any more. That's relatively close to what Mitchell is producing now.

I'm not trying to say that Tatum would be in contention for ROY had he been the #1 option from day 1, but just that he's been so efficient that if you dilute his efficiency and add volume he still projects to have impressive stats that would be in the realm of Mitchell.

[SmartWentCrazy]

How would he be a worse player? That makes no sense. He'd be the same player, but with a different role (increased counting stats, decreased efficiency)... He takes a lot of difficult jumpers, but those also happen to be his bread and butter, so I don't think it's fair to suggest that he doesn't have the ease of getting the shots Mitchell has. His dribble stepback is deadly... Sure there'd be nights where he goes 4/19, but I also think he'd have games where he's 14/19 like Mitchell.

Yes, I understand the obvious counterpoint and I wouldn't have posted what I did if I thought it was the last word. When I watch Mitchell, it looks like he can always take two dribbles, make a move, and get a solid shot. When I watch Tatum, I see that he has a nice side shuffle and solid speed but is mostly a straight line driver who resorts to stepbacks if he needs to get a shot up. I know after 4th quarters like last night you all are fully convinced that 20-foot stepbacks are money for him--but 20-ft stepbacks aren't money for anyone except two or three players in the league. I just don't think that having him take literally 10 or 12 long 2s off the dribble per game is going to be pretty in the long run; I get that you all might think he'll be cold cash from there for his whole career (I would think the same if he was on my team) but to my eyes he doesn't have high-volume feel and skills yet. (Yet.)

EDIT: I also looked at theOKC vid again, it was interesting to see how Tatum scored his pts:
Uncontested drive; wide open spot-up corner 3; iso sidestep 19 footer; fouled in transition; drive after defender fell over (no contest); iso drive past mismatched Steven Adams; lightly contested spot-up 3; fouled on a pretty iso drive; really nice step-back 3. It was a nice display but it didn't look like a regular high volume scorer doing it on his own.

I think youre underrating his handle and his ability to create space for drives— Tatum is quite adept at this and should only get better as he gains the strength to go up into contact.

One of the more telling traits of a high volume scorer is their ability to generate FTs on drives.

Tatum: .318 FTr
Mitchell: .209 FTr

Its reasonable to conclude that Tatum’s FTr would decline as a result of increased volume. However, it doesn't seem logical to laud Mitchell as a high volume scorer while dismissing Tatum when viewing the above.

I dont think that Tatum would put up pretty %’s if he took enough volume to put up 20 PPG. But I dont think he’d be too far from Mitchell either in this regard, FWIW.

[76ciology]

Simmons and Mitchell are both 21 years old.