Texas Chuck wrote:eminence wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:But minutes seems really arbitrary when comparing rookies. Using this logic, only rookies on trash teams can win ROY. That might be good for the actual media award, but isn't this board supposed to be better than that?
Rookies should be looked at more carefully, because minutes is not indicative of talent for rookies.
Plus, is that extra 900 minutes even more impactful? It certainly doesn't show in the W-L column.
But I'm not interested in evaluating their talent. I'm trying to decide who had the better season, and minutes absolutely matters for that. These are minutes in a very similar context for Towns/Jokic, if Jokic had had that impact in those minutes for the Warriors, then yeah, he's the runaway ROY, but he didn't, he played for the Nuggets(who were marginally better than the Wolves).
Agreed. IF you are going to chide people for being lazy and going on draft status(more than a little insulting btw) then I don't see how you can come back and just wave away a massive minutes difference. Because if the award is about talent--then its Towns and Porzingis in that order--something HBK claims to hate and believes "lazy". But they are clearly the two most talented players at this point.
But I agree it should be about their actual season, and playing that many fewer minutes is an issue. I did have Jokic over Zingis on my ballot, but couldn't justify him over Towns. Sometimes the best prospect also has the best year.
What does playing more minutes actually prove? More minutes to do what? They're rookies, they are not supposed to play more minutes, nor is 30 more minutes from a negative player more valuable than 20 more minutes from a positive player. It doesn't make any sense, they're bound by different strategies and their minutes fluctuate greatly as a result. 900 minutes isn't even that many games, it is 18.75. If we were to conclude that Jokic was a better player than Towns, then why would Towns playing more minutes matter to that extent - it's not as if that equated to Town's team getting a better record, so wouldn't that alone make you question the impact of those extra 900 minutes? There are people here who not only claim that Towns is the best player on the Wolves, but he is a top 20 player, if that is the case, why are his results not there?
I don't get the talent point at all, but to make things easier, replace the word talent with impact then. "Rookies should be looked at more carefully, because minutes is not indicative of IMPACTfor rookies." What is your rebuttal to that? Picking on the word talent is just semantic. Where is the proof that 30 minutes of rookie Andrew Wiggins is better than 25 minutes of rookie Nerlen Noels etc? What do you mean by "who is having the better season" - better at what?. And it is not like Jokic was injured either....you're punishing his superior play because of coaching tactics.
Using this minute argument, than Karl Malone has a more positive career than Michael Jordan's...I mean the minutes aren't even close, and the gap between a high tier superstar and...another high tier superstar is pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. For ROY this matters, for POY and other all time comparisons, doesn't seem to add up that much even among people who favor longevity.
My statement about people being lazy was supposed to be insulting, it really does seem like that outside of POY most categories don't have much thought put into them. COY and EOY are the only other ones where I see any discussion. ROY and 6MOY is just cut and dry, pretty much copied and pasted. Porzingis over Jokic and people saying Barton was the 2nd best bench player this year are literally narratives that derived from late december - early January.
