Author Topic: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year  (Read 2274 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2017, 12:48:07 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16998
  • Tommy Points: 807
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists).  Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.

I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other.  I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz.  If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well.  It is only natural for that to happen.  A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st.  In a close race, those points matter.  Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did). 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2017, 12:50:30 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7827
  • Tommy Points: 894
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists).  Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.

I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other.  I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz.  If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well.  It is only natural for that to happen.  A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st.  In a close race, those points matter.  Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).

Fair enough. TP for our most pleasant discussion ever!

Re: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2017, 03:13:10 PM »

Online Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3475
  • Tommy Points: 306
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists).  Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.

I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other.  I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz.  If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well.  It is only natural for that to happen.  A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st.  In a close race, those points matter.  Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?

To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?

Re: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2017, 03:20:43 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16998
  • Tommy Points: 807
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists).  Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.

I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other.  I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz.  If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well.  It is only natural for that to happen.  A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st.  In a close race, those points matter.  Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?

To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
No one disputes that Embiid was the best rookie last year, but Embiid didn't play enough.  However, I firmly believe that Embiid being on the Sixers significantly harmed Saric's shot at winning the award because everyone knew he wasn't the best rookie on his team let alone the league.  Saric's numbers were also significantly better after Embiid got hurt. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2017, 05:39:16 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7827
  • Tommy Points: 894
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists).  Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.

I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other.  I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz.  If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well.  It is only natural for that to happen.  A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st.  In a close race, those points matter.  Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?

To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
No one disputes that Embiid was the best rookie last year, but Embiid didn't play enough.  However, I firmly believe that Embiid being on the Sixers significantly harmed Saric's shot at winning the award because everyone knew he wasn't the best rookie on his team let alone the league.Saric's numbers were also significantly better after Embiid got hurt.
 

I think a much bigger factor was Illysova getting traded. He was starting. Once Dario started starting he averaged 15 and 7. When he was off the bench it was 11 and 6. He also did shoot 41% from the field and 31% from 3 for the year which is not exactly incredible efficiency.
I think Saric is a solid player but he got way too much hype for throwing up 15 shots a game the second half of the season on poor efficiency for a team that was playing some of the worst basketball in the league.

Re: ESPN Panel predicts rookie of the year
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2017, 06:01:03 PM »

Online Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3475
  • Tommy Points: 306
Embiid and Saric combined had more points than Brogdon did (you obviously can't just combine them as voters likely had both of them of their lists).  Brogdon did have the most 1st place votes, so voters obviously liked him better overall, but I do wonder if there was a rule that made Embiid ineligible, how the voting might have gone between Brogdon and Saric overall.

I do actually think there should be a rule of minimum eligibility for these awards like they have with statistics in a lot of sports. It is kind of insulting to the other players that are playing 50 more games over the course of 4 months. I think if Brodgon and Saric were similar at stats overall for the whole year the award was going to go to Brodgon for two reasons. One, with the selection of Westbrook over Harden being a notable exception, the people that vote for these things seem to place a huge intangible award on players playing for better teams and contribute to the nebulous concept of "winning basketball." I do think this was a significant factor that the Bucks still made the playoffs despite missing Parker and Middletown (not to mention Delladova that allowed Brodgen to get in the starting lineup). Two, and this is maybe more of a conspiracy theory, but 76ers fans believe that journalists, sportswriters and some involved in the NBA are against acknowledging some good things from the process until they are absolutely forced to because they believe "the process" was bad for the NBA and don't want to reward it in any shape or form. I have no idea whether there is truth to that at all, but I could see a few of these old timey guys saying "well Brogden and Saric are a wash but lets give it to Brodgen in a tiebreaker cause that process really rubbed me the wrong way."
All fair points, and Brogdon probably wins anyway, but I just overall disagree with the notion that Embiid and Saric weren't taking votes from each other.  I expect the same thing to happen with Simmons and Fultz.  If Zizic comes in and is a monster, he and Tatum will split votes as well.  It is only natural for that to happen.  A writer falls in love with a certain player on a team and then just ignores the other guy completely or even if he doesn't, that other guy is now no better than 2nd instead of being 1st.  In a close race, those points matter.  Saric wasn't close enough to Brogdon for it to matter last year, but I have no doubt Saric lost points because of Embiid (Embiid had like 10 more first place votes than Saric did).
But where is the evidence that it would've been different had they been on different teams?

To me, it seems clear that if Embiid had played more games, he would've run away with the MVP. Saric's presence on the team wouldn't have matter. Had Embiid not played at all, what is the evidence that those votes wouldn't have just gone to Brogdon?
No one disputes that Embiid was the best rookie last year, but Embiid didn't play enough.  However, I firmly believe that Embiid being on the Sixers significantly harmed Saric's shot at winning the award because everyone knew he wasn't the best rookie on his team let alone the league.  Saric's numbers were also significantly better after Embiid got hurt.
I guess I just don't understand why you believe this. Brogdon's numbers were comparable to Saric's (less points and rebounds, but more assists and way more efficient, same minutes) on a better team. It's not like someone totally undeserving snuck in. It looks to me like more voters thought Brogdon deserved it. Not much else to it.