HeartBreakKid wrote: Doctor MJ wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:ROY - Haliburton. What's Ball's argument over him? Haliburton is a better defender, better AST:TO ratio, better offball, better scorer, and he played more games. He's also doing this while playing with another really good PG in Fox.
So, I'm really glad to see someone argue mostly on just believing Halliburton is better than LaMelo. I'm open to being convinced of that.
When you ask "What's Ball's argument over him?" and then list a stat (AST:TO), it's kind of weird that all I have to do is present basic stats:
Ball's clearly been producing more per game than Halliburton has by a good margin, and traditionally, that would largely end the conversation. You're free to disagree - and I'll add that production isn't impact let alone ROY-ness - but the argument for Ball isn't mysterious.
Beyond that, Ball's been absolutely spectacular and is considered by a large margin to be more likely to be a big star than Halliburton, and that's a thing I think about.
Their counting stats are pretty close per 36, and you're not taking into account efficiency or defense. When you take into account Haliburton was healthy I don't see how LaMelo has added more.
It's seems like to me that LaMelo was simply higher profile, and people like most awards make up their mind about it really early in the season. LaMelo gets a lot of highlights because he is a pretty flashly player, but I also have found out that many people never bothered to see Tyrese play (not necessarily you, just a feeling I get about the general audience) and they would see he is also very unorthodox and unique.
Rookie of the year should be about who is the best rookie not who the best prospect is. This reminds me when I was telling everyone Jokic was ROY and not Towns but because Towns was going to be bigger he should be ROY (and that his counting stats were better). At this point we might as well just give ROY to the top 3 draft picks every year.
It's not that I don't think LaMelo is up there, it's just that I don't really see what makes him better than Haliburton. It almost feels like after the second month or so there is nothing Tyrese can do to change people's minds.
Appreciate the thoughts.
First thing I want to emphasize is that we've got some philosophical disagreements about the ROY as an award that I just want to make sure our recognized and then explicitly tabled in the discussion about LaMelo vs Halliburton. The way I'm looking at ROY is not the "Most Valuable Rookie". You might say it's more like "Most Outstanding Rookie" for me, but specifically to me the reason we have an award for the best 1st year player and not the best Nth year player is that it's not really about now. It's about lighting the way to the future. I see it this way because I see that as how these awards come about. They are not about cataloguing the reality of the NBA in that year with objective detail, they are about generating interest of a particularly positive bent.
I'm not looking to convince you of this - though we can certainly talk further on it - but recognizing this, there's good reason to think our opinions will diverge on this particular vote, but you might teach me a thing or to about Halliburton along the way.
Second thing I want to say is: Man, good for you for naming Jokic ROY. I didn't recall that. Worse, I don't even remember who I voted for, and when I look back at the voting POY voting thread, I don't see my vote. My gut is telling me that I was tempted to pick Jokic but still voted KAT like most, so props again to you.
The thing about Jokic that year was that he played way less than "starter level" minutes. I've learned to be a bit caution before getting too excited about guys before they prove they can do it without constraints against the very best. And in the case of Jokic, well, this meant I was still vastly underrating him even as I marveled at him.
Alright now back to LaMelo & Halliburton.
Close by PER 36. The big production raters (PER, WS, BPM) all seem to give LaMelo the per minute edge. Not enough of an edge that I think Halliburton can't possibly be the better player, but just on that question of production per minute, the indicators are indicating LaMelo from what I see.
I will say that Halliburton looks a bit better by +/- stats, but it's not enough to seem that significant to me. I'd be fine with it being a nudge in Halliburton's direction, but Halliburton's numbers here aren't "Wow" either (like, sigh, Jokic's were).
All this to say that while I want to acknowledge the validity of most of what you're pointing out, I'm still leaning LaMelo so far.
So here's a thing I'll bring up:
I find both of these guys super-intriguing because I'm obsessed with guys that have great basketball minds, and both of these guys seem to qualify.
I'll come right out and say that I have a better understanding of what makes LaMelo stand out than Halliburton. So how would you try to describe what makes Halliburton singularly Halliburton? What should I be looking for when I watch him to really understand what he does out there?
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.