Who will have the best nba career - Tatum, Mitchell or Simmons?

[One_and_Done]

Well this is an embarrassing result. It was 2017 though.

[mikejames23]

Tatum won a title, Mitchell had some impressive playoff games, but Simmons' career suddenly died... crazy how the tides turn. Simmons was supposed to be the best of the 3.

[Doctor MJ]

Tatum won a title, Mitchell had some impressive playoff games, but Simmons' career suddenly died... crazy how the tides turn. Simmons was supposed to be the best of the 3.

I'll never cease to find stuff like this fascinating.

I should be clear up front that while I didn't participate in this thread when it was initially made, it roughly matches my perspective of the time.

Most interesting thing about that year was just how good the top 3 rookies were. We were just coming off a year when Malcolm Brogdon had won the MVP and all of 3 of these guys weren't just better than rookie Brogdon, but were literally better as rookies than peak Brogdon would ever be. (Mind you, everyone knew the previous year that only rookie Joel Embiid really mattered and many just convinced themselves that Embiid missing enough games meant you had to give the award to someone it didn't make sense to hype.)

Back at this time I would have said Simmons, then Tatum, then Mitchell, but this career assessment would also match how I saw them as rookies. To this day I'd still say Simmons was the most valuable rookie, followed by Tatum, followed by Mitchell, and while there's a bit more to it than that when I consider ROY, with rookies of this caliber it's a close proxy.

So then, where did I go wrong in my Simmons assessment? and what signs were there this might happen?

Well, it's actually pretty straight forward. We know shooting was a weakness and while we didn't know how much better he could get, his rookie campaign gave us a false confidence pertaining to his "floor". Simply maintaining that floor wouldn't have been enough to keep pace with Tatum & Mitchell, but if you use that as a baseline for something of a "worst case scenario other than injury", it's going to shift your sense of the likely outcomes way above what's actually taken place.

But it should be noted that Simmons' shooting woes were never far from my mind, or really the mind of everyone else. We know it was a danger point, and we know what the yips were. Simmons going down a yip spiral like this is highly unusual, but it's not an utterly unknown phenomenon for athletes.

Additionally, what Simmons did to make things worse for himself in his behavior - lashing out at those who wanted to help him get back into his basketball groove - was foreshadowed with the attitude concerns that came with him out of LSU and the odd persona he used with the media even being celebrated. This was someone putting on a hard shell of protection to get through even the best of times.

All this to say that these are things that people should specifically be on the look out for with young players, and should really make sure that a player can't avoid dealing with things he needs to deal with just because he's a superstar talent. Great that Simmons earned generational wealth, but he knows he self-destructed at the one thing that ever made him special, and he's going to struggle to deal with that the rest of his life. If some coach could have helped instill in him a different mindset toward responding to his weaknesses, I believe he really could have been HOFer.

Over to Tatum & Mitchell, not sure if there's anything to say other than that they were great rookies that made the further leap as veterans that we certainly would hope for, but only get with a fraction of promising rookies.

[Joao Saraiva]

Well this is an embarrassing result. It was 2017 though.

It's people talking about prospects only. And Simmons seemed a crazy prospect. His defense was very solid for his age. His driving was superb, his playmaking too. It was just assumed if he could somehow shoot the ball he would be a crazy good player - or more than he already was.

He just lost it all mentally. And mental strenght is one of the most needed aspects to succeed at such level. The ability to deal with criticism, to build on it, the ability to work every day even if you don't see immediate results. The top players in the world all have the ability to work even the little details and they are able to be coached and learn. Even Shaq was able to get into some good habbits under PJ. Simmmons... was never able to do any of that.

But we're not inside the locker room. Not inside the players' heads. So prospects are just that... prospects.

Of course forums are gonna fail. If GMs let Jokic go on the 2nd round with a team full of scouts, if GMs can't predict Simmons will be a bust, if GMs can't pick Giannis any higher... imagine common people who can't even talk to the players or see them training. We can only evaluate the on court product. And if another Simmons apppears, I think everyone will still be excited, cause we'll never know how soft his mentality is until we see the meltdown and inhability to get over it.

[EmpireFalls]

Simmons was an All-NBA guy with a legit case for best/most versatile defender in the league in 2020. It was a real conversation between him and Embiid as the best player on the Sixers.

Let’s not act like he was some bust.

[AEnigma]

It was not a real conversation, no, and he was third-team all-NBA once. He was absolutely a bust; just not a historically bad one, because yes, he managed to provide four legitimately useful years. But it is never a good sign when you arguably peak as a rookie.

[One_and_Done]

Well this is an embarrassing result. It was 2017 though.

It's people talking about prospects only. And Simmons seemed a crazy prospect. His defense was very solid for his age. His driving was superb, his playmaking too. It was just assumed if he could somehow shoot the ball he would be a crazy good player - or more than he already was.

He just lost it all mentally. And mental strenght is one of the most needed aspects to succeed at such level. The ability to deal with criticism, to build on it, the ability to work every day even if you don't see immediate results. The top players in the world all have the ability to work even the little details and they are able to be coached and learn. Even Shaq was able to get into some good habbits under PJ. Simmmons... was never able to do any of that.

But we're not inside the locker room. Not inside the players' heads. So prospects are just that... prospects.

Of course forums are gonna fail. If GMs let Jokic go on the 2nd round with a team full of scouts, if GMs can't predict Simmons will be a bust, if GMs can't pick Giannis any higher... imagine common people who can't even talk to the players or see them training. We can only evaluate the on court product. And if another Simmons apppears, I think everyone will still be excited, cause we'll never know how soft his mentality is until we see the meltdown and inhability to get over it.

I remember listening to a pretty compelling scouting podcast by Mike Schmidt (now a Blazers scout) where he had Ingram over Simmons waaay in advance of the draft for the sort of reasons you'd expect; can't shoot, troubling attitude, etc. Some people do have a good record of getting this right, though obviously this isn't perfect or guys wouldn't slide.

[parsnips33]

People always compare him and Draymond - I wonder if things go differently if he was a 2nd rounder and not the #1 pick. Weight of expectations can be a lot, especially if you have to make your impact through defense/connecting on offense/etc. as opposed to volume scoring

[KembaWalker]

Simmons had more potential than Tatum, he just wasted most of it and lost the rest to injury. But he was physically more talented and had more non scoring gifts as well

Tatum maxed out his potential. Good for him

[Doctor MJ]

People always compare him and Draymond - I wonder if things go differently if he was a 2nd rounder and not the #1 pick. Weight of expectations can be a lot, especially if you have to make your impact through defense/connecting on offense/etc. as opposed to volume scoring

I don't think this is about weight of expectations so much as the privilege of being a mega prospect.

If Simmons had been seen only as a prospect like Green was coming into college, he'd either have developed a more effective attitude or he'd have never gotten to the NBA.

[AEnigma]

People always compare him and Draymond - I wonder if things go differently if he was a 2nd rounder and not the #1 pick. Weight of expectations can be a lot, especially if you have to make your impact through defense/connecting on offense/etc. as opposed to volume scoring

I don't think this is about weight of expectations so much as the privilege of being a mega prospect.

If Simmons had been seen only as a prospect like Green was coming into college, he'd either have developed a more effective attitude or he'd have never gotten to the NBA.

Agree with Doc. Draymond is much more motivated and dedicated. Cannot verify here because I was not around in 2017, but I was always low on Simmons primarily for that reason. People talked about what if he improves his shot; I was saying, why assume he will put in the time and effort to do so? He was lazy at LSU and then never made any real improvements after his rookie season.

I was highest on Mitchell because I felt he had that mentality, and I was mildly skeptical Tatum did (primarily because of anti-Duke bias in the wake of Jabari Parker). I was wrong about Tatum, and mostly right about Mitchell (he never committed to becoming a strong NBA defensive guard the way I thought he would, but every year he seems to develop a bit offensively).

If anything, Simmons was better than I thought he would be because of how immediately useful he was on defence. But people who compared him to Lebron or Magic or any other big point guard were not factoring in his comparatively lackadaisical approach to the game.

[Cavsfansince84]

Agree with Doc. Draymond is much more motivated and dedicated. Cannot verify here because I was not around in 2017, but I was always low on Simmons primarily for that reason. People talked about what if he improves his shot; I was saying, why assume he will put in the time and effort to do so? He was lazy at LSU and then never made any real improvements after his rookie season.

I was highest on Mitchell because I felt he had that mentality, and I was mildly skeptical Tatum did (primarily because of anti-Duke bias in the wake of Jabari Parker). I was wrong about Tatum, and mostly right about Mitchell (he never committed to becoming a strong NBA defensive guard the way I thought he would, but every year he seems to develop a bit offensively).

If anything, Simmons was better than I thought he would be because of how immediately useful he was on defence. But people who compared him to Lebron or Magic or any other big point guard were not factoring in his comparatively lackadaisical approach to the game.

Agree with most of what you are saying here and I had similar doubts about Simmons. He just didn't strike me as a guy who was going to put in the work to become a legit shooter and mvp type of player. His numbers kept going down after his 2nd or 3rd season but people just sort of swept it under the rug and kept assuming that this would be the offseason he'd learn how to shoot. Anyhow, re Mitchell I was also high on him but I didn't think he'd ever really become good on def simply because guards who are top 15 offensively are already putting out a ton of energy on that end and then being under 6-3 usually means they work even harder to get shots and won't have a length adv on defense even though hypothetically people thought he'd be good to great on def I just don't think its possible for a guard to be great on off and strong on defense(especially if they lack great size).

[AEnigma]

Yeah the tradeoff was probably worth it but at the time I had hopes he could be a strong offensive guard who also offered defensive value in the vein of Kyle Lowry, Mike Conley, Avery Bradley, etc. He is short but I was all in on his wingspan and status as a strong collegiate guard defender. Oh well.

[Special_Puppy]

Fascinating Time Capsule. Simmons>Mitchell>Tatum in terms of how good they were their rookie seasons, but Tatum was quite a bit younger than Simmons and Mitchell

[Alatan]

Never liked Simmons. People now focus on his shooting witch is rightfully the main reason of his failure but that is not the full story. He was and still is one of the softest players relative to his size and athletic ability i have ever seen. And his touch around the rim is putrid. There was no chance for a player that is both a bad shooter from everywhere on the floor and also a bad finisher that is afraid of contact.

[mikejames23]

Tatum won a title, Mitchell had some impressive playoff games, but Simmons' career suddenly died... crazy how the tides turn. Simmons was supposed to be the best of the 3.

I'll never cease to find stuff like this fascinating.

I should be clear up front that while I didn't participate in this thread when it was initially made, it roughly matches my perspective of the time.

Most interesting thing about that year was just how good the top 3 rookies were. We were just coming off a year when Malcolm Brogdon had won the MVP and all of 3 of these guys weren't just better than rookie Brogdon, but were literally better as rookies than peak Brogdon would ever be. (Mind you, everyone knew the previous year that only rookie Joel Embiid really mattered and many just convinced themselves that Embiid missing enough games meant you had to give the award to someone it didn't make sense to hype.)

Back at this time I would have said Simmons, then Tatum, then Mitchell, but this career assessment would also match how I saw them as rookies. To this day I'd still say Simmons was the most valuable rookie, followed by Tatum, followed by Mitchell, and while there's a bit more to it than that when I consider ROY, with rookies of this caliber it's a close proxy.

So then, where did I go wrong in my Simmons assessment? and what signs were there this might happen?

Well, it's actually pretty straight forward. We know shooting was a weakness and while we didn't know how much better he could get, his rookie campaign gave us a false confidence pertaining to his "floor". Simply maintaining that floor wouldn't have been enough to keep pace with Tatum & Mitchell, but if you use that as a baseline for something of a "worst case scenario other than injury", it's going to shift your sense of the likely outcomes way above what's actually taken place.

But it should be noted that Simmons' shooting woes were never far from my mind, or really the mind of everyone else. We know it was a danger point, and we know what the yips were. Simmons going down a yip spiral like this is highly unusual, but it's not an utterly unknown phenomenon for athletes.

Additionally, what Simmons did to make things worse for himself in his behavior - lashing out at those who wanted to help him get back into his basketball groove - was foreshadowed with the attitude concerns that came with him out of LSU and the odd persona he used with the media even being celebrated. This was someone putting on a hard shell of protection to get through even the best of times.

All this to say that these are things that people should specifically be on the look out for with young players, and should really make sure that a player can't avoid dealing with things he needs to deal with just because he's a superstar talent. Great that Simmons earned generational wealth, but he knows he self-destructed at the one thing that ever made him special, and he's going to struggle to deal with that the rest of his life. If some coach could have helped instill in him a different mindset toward responding to his weaknesses, I believe he really could have been HOFer.

Over to Tatum & Mitchell, not sure if there's anything to say other than that they were great rookies that made the further leap as veterans that we certainly would hope for, but only get with a fraction of promising rookies.

''
'
It's always funny betting on athletes like that. Sure, there are players with weaknesses that emerge from time to time, but it's always difficult to bet on. Tatum had a different mental makeup... very elite, but the media criticized Simmons for being on the opposite end of a strong mentality. Mitchell turned into a good scorer, and looked good to go in playoff competition. Simmons needed to have pulled something similar off, with all the star talent he had.

So you need that kind of skill like to survive in the league... Tatum and Mitchell did that, and got way ahead. Now obviously, Tatum's dev. system with Boston looked way better... there was some luck on his side.

Joel Embiid likely deserves some of the blame. He could have helped mold Simmons into a better player... him, and the coaching staff at the time.

Simmons wasn't an actual bust, not some guy like Markelle Fultz who never made things happen. He delivered for some time, became a star... 4 seasons in Top 20 BPM, 3 seasons in top VORP, 4 seasons in top 20 DWS, All defensive honors, 3 seasons with Top 20 STL %, 3 time all star... his numbers looked good, so he could've become a star, but it didn't pan out. A triple double guy, and a top defender, you can certainly turn that into a game.

Eventually his shooting problems caught up, and became embarrassing in the playoffs. That weakness was bound to catch up, but he couldn't figure out a passable game for the playoffs. After that he went on a semi drunken mentality spiral that led him straight to nowhere. HIs mentality was weak, and that wasn't about to help either.

His personality was obviously not good. I think that's ok for some Australian guy. They're funny like that. There's also Andrew Bogut and Kyrie Irving. Bogut had a stable career and turned into a good defensive big. Kyrie obviously had a great career... an all timer.

So done after 4 seasons... embarrassing. Things can turn out that way. I still find that storyline fascinating. It feels like Simmons dropped what could've easily been a good career.