queridiculo wrote:payitforward wrote:A lot of folks here do exhibit some desire for Simmons not to be good. Not you exclusively or even you especially, Zards, not by any means. But, you among them I do think. I don't get that, unless it's to avoid someone being on a list of guards better than Brad or John.
Ben Simmons is a very unusual NBA player, no doubt. But, how incredibly good he is just jumps out at you when you watch him -- & when you look at the numbers it's there too.
This is a guy who basically averaged a triple double per 40 minutes last year! 20 points (@ a 58.6 TS%), 10 rebounds, & 9 assists.
Au contraire, there seems to be agreement over Simmons being a good player, it's just that some, with you being the foremost cheerleader, are elevating him to great status as if it is a given that he will ever overcome his most glaring weakness.
Simmons advanced stats look great on the surface (they look even better when you use per 40 stats to inflate his impact.
Do they inflate everyone's stats, my friend? Or just Ben Simmons' stats? Or, rather, do you have a substantive critique of the practice, or is
the best you can do?
Or, are you suggesting that averaging 20+ points, 10+ rebounds, & 9 assists per 40 minutes is some kind of sham? Anybody can do it? For example... well... do you have one?
I didn't think so.
I compare everyone to everyone using per 40 minute stats. OF COURSE I DO. So does every sensible analyst of every level of basketball. It falls under the useful category of comparing apples to apples. I'm sure you know the phrase. I mean the reason for it. If I say the Wizards have 17 wins, I need to know 17 wins in how many games. Otherwise the number has no meaning.
Now, if you compare two guys one of whom doesn't play much, then it's not useful -- the sample size for that low-minute guy is too small for his numbers to tell you anything. But, I wasn't doing that, as you know. I compared Simmons to other players, working with large sample sizes for all the players under consideration. Or are you hah hah hah accusing me of fudging something?
As to "au contraire," si vous preferez, nous pouvons continuer en francais. C'est une langue que vous parlez, n'est ce pas? Mois, j'ai habité la France pendant quelques annees, et c'est pour ca que je peux vous offrir cette choix.
Forgive me my tone, will you. It's just that you called me a "cheerleader." You often post with great good sense.
queridiculo wrote:but do... (his numbers) stand up to scrutiny?
If you watch the 76ers play you will notice that teams have a tendency to play drop coverage on Simmons a lot.
Teams don't mind that they play to his strengths by giving him the space he needs to operate and are willing to surrender the occasional layup, because chances are, more often than not he won't be a factor on offense for a sustained amount of time.
To that point, Simmons averaged 8.5 field goal attempts in the series against the Raptors, because that's what happens in the playoffs, one dimensional players are found out and neutralized with the quickness.
Simmons will be 24 this year, still a few years away from his prime, but there's a really good chance that what we're seeing now is as good as it gets offensively.
There's no way that I bet the farm on Simmons and flush two all-time great Wizards down the toilet just because he looks like the next sexy thing.
The question whether his numbers stand up to scrutiny is inane, obviously. You want to give his rebounds to someone else? His team doesn't get a possession when he gets one those unscrutinized boards?
The fact that opponents will give him an open jumper in order to adopt a defensive position that is more effective against other things he might do (e.g. by putting the ball on the floor) is sensible on their part, obviously, but has no other meaning since in fact Simmons scores anyway & posts a high TS% to boot. It's not wise for you to mention it, however, as it detracts from, rather than supports, your point. We don't differentiate in game scores among different ways of putting the ball in the bucket; we just give the win to the team with more points.
Speaking of "the win," as I write the Sizers are 31-20 -- which projects to 50 wins, more than produced in 11 seasons by the "two all-time great Wizards" you think I want to "flush down the toilet."
Both Brad & John are wonderful players. I'm a fan. But Ben Simmons isn't "the next sexy thing" (who do you think you're talking to, son?). He's just a better player than either of them. Much better. Not to mention that, as you mention, he
"will be 24 this year, still a few years away from his prime."
...but here's some players I'd probably take over Simmons (other than those you mentioned): AD, Steph, Jokic, Lillard, Harden...and probably Paul George, Kyrie and Siakim.
) but do they stand up to scrutiny?
