HotelVitale wrote:Got to watch a full half of both Simmons and Mitchell last night, since the Sixers blew out the Magic (and my UM Wolverines were annihilating A&M too). Simmons runs around and creates great opportunities for his teammates, and he also doesn't hold the ball, keeps that thing moving like a hot potato. And Mitchell's an awesome driver with a perfect NBA wing's body, effortless shot creator with a lot of Wade to him. Jealous.
Anyway long story short is that it seems really stupid to split hairs about who's better, and I'm hanging up my laces in that argument. I love the advanced #s and the rhetoric as much as anyone else but at this point it's tired and leading us into some of the worst debates about great players I've ever seen. If you don't think either of them is really really good, you're missing the obvious, as are all these weak lines about how one little advantage one has over the other means everything.
At the risk of being a bit cheeky, perhaps Mitchell's "effortless shot creation" is partly because he has never met a shot he didn't like.
Speaking as a Simmons supporter, I fully respect what Mitchell has done, and appreciate his role in the Jazz's efforts to get into the playoffs. He is a great young player, and has All-Star potential, no doubt. I would just push back somewhat on the "splitting hairs" narrative though, as the statistical gap between what Simmons has done this season and what Mitchell is not "splitting hairs". The gap is real and it is substantial.
It is not denigrating Mitchell's accomplishments and potential to say that Simmons has been the better player. Whether you appreciate statistics or not, the numbers (both "counting" stats and advanced analytics) are pretty one-sided. My problem is, while I have written several posts going into great detail about the statistical differences between the two players, the response from Mitchell's supporters contains very little in the way of concrete statistical support for their position.
I am not talking about "Mitchell has more 25-point games for any rookie since whatever season" type stuff (I can respond with the "most triple doubles" or the "only the third player other than Magic or Big O in the 1000/500/500 club as a rookie stuff). I simply want an argument for Mitchell over Simmons that contains more than POINTZ!!! or OMG WHAT A DUNK...because I could come up with a pretty dope mixtape of what Simmons has done this season as well. Anybody that has watched Simmons play knows that if he wanted to score 4-5 more points a game he could...but that is not who he is. He is the POINT GUARD - not the volume-shooting wing scorer - so it is not surprising that he has scored less than Mitchell.
Simmons has an arguably more important role on his team (point guard). His statistical advantage over Mitchell is real and it is substantial. He will likely get All-Defensive Team votes - which speaks to what he does on the other side of the ball (in addition to what the analytics say). His team will win 20+ more games this season than last season, and is likely a top-4 team in the East.
Mitchell has had a great season, and he is a great player...but to me, this call is not "splitting hairs". And - again - if Mitchell supporters have a non-subjective, statistically/analytically-based argument on why Mitchell deserves to be Rookie of the Year over Simmons, I would love to read it.
Thanks.