2017-2018 NBA Season

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Agreed. You ain't a rookie if you got drafted before last season.

Originally posted by StOnEy333:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Agreed. You ain't a rookie if you got drafted before last season.

+1

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Derozan dunk of the year nominee just now

That got me off my couch.. filthy

Rip tolliver.. blake wanted no static either lol

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Yep. I know he didnt play any games, but Simmons was an NBA player last season. He got all the benefits that an NBA player would get (coaching, trainers, state of the art facilities, salary, etc) that a college player would not receive. That is an unfair advantage, even if he didnt play. Blake shouldnt have won his award either.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Yep. I know he didnt play any games, but Simmons was an NBA player last season. He got all the benefits that an NBA player would get (coaching, trainers, state of the art facilities, salary, etc) that a college player would not receive. That is an unfair advantage, even if he didnt play. Blake shouldnt have won his award either.

That's all well and good but the rules are the rules. I've got no problem with the thought Simmons shouldn't be eligible. But under the current rules who should be ROY? In no way, shape or form is Mitchell more deserving than Simmons.

The argument that Mitchell gets a boost because he is Utah's first option is laughable. Simmons creates Phily's offense. That's why he has the assists he does. You can't argue that Mitchell does more and then say he doesn't get assists because of Utah's offense. If it's the motion taking away assist opportunities then it is also the motion getting Mitchell all those 3's. Simmons, meanwhile, drives and dishes and creates most of the offense for Phily.

Originally posted by DaBum:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Yep. I know he didnt play any games, but Simmons was an NBA player last season. He got all the benefits that an NBA player would get (coaching, trainers, state of the art facilities, salary, etc) that a college player would not receive. That is an unfair advantage, even if he didnt play. Blake shouldnt have won his award either.

That's all well and good but the rules are the rules. I've got no problem with the thought Simmons shouldn't be eligible. But under the current rules who should be ROY? In no way, shape or form is Mitchell more deserving than Simmons.

The argument that Mitchell gets a boost because he is Utah's first option is laughable. Simmons creates Phily's offense. That's why he has the assists he does. You can't argue that Mitchell does more and then say he doesn't get assists because of Utah's offense. If it's the motion taking away assist opportunities then it is also the motion getting Mitchell all those 3's. Simmons, meanwhile, drives and dishes and creates most of the offense for Phily.

Meh, who cares (I guess the player might if they have it as a performance clause). Otherwise, it is just an opinion based award. You can always argue these things, regardless of this particular technicality.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

If its not your 1st season collecting and nba pay check then ur not a rookie imo

People saying Simmons shouldn't be considered a rookie probably had no problem with Aaron Judge winning Rookie of the Year in the MLB when he played in games the year before

Originally posted by Knowledge:
People saying Simmons shouldn't be considered a rookie probably had no problem with Aaron Judge winning Rookie of the Year in the MLB when he played in games the year before

Aaron Judge did not have the luxury of Major League coaching all season, did not have access to Major League facilities, did not have access to Major League trainers, and did not earn a Major League salary. For much of the season he was not a New York Yankee. How much of last season was Ben Simmons not a 76er?

Not at all the same thing.

Originally posted by DaBum:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Yep. I know he didnt play any games, but Simmons was an NBA player last season. He got all the benefits that an NBA player would get (coaching, trainers, state of the art facilities, salary, etc) that a college player would not receive. That is an unfair advantage, even if he didnt play. Blake shouldnt have won his award either.

That's all well and good but the rules are the rules. I've got no problem with the thought Simmons shouldn't be eligible. But under the current rules who should be ROY? In no way, shape or form is Mitchell more deserving than Simmons.

The argument that Mitchell gets a boost because he is Utah's first option is laughable. Simmons creates Phily's offense. That's why he has the assists he does. You can't argue that Mitchell does more and then say he doesn't get assists because of Utah's offense. If it's the motion taking away assist opportunities then it is also the motion getting Mitchell all those 3's. Simmons, meanwhile, drives and dishes and creates most of the offense for Phily.

I said that it's not only because he's the first option but also because they're winning in large part to him scoring a lot. If they had 15-20 wins and he was doing it then no he doesn't deserve it but the team went from a mid- high lottery team to a team that's tied for 8th and is 5 games above .500. That's a big deal that the voters need to look at.

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by DaBum:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Yep. I know he didnt play any games, but Simmons was an NBA player last season. He got all the benefits that an NBA player would get (coaching, trainers, state of the art facilities, salary, etc) that a college player would not receive. That is an unfair advantage, even if he didnt play. Blake shouldnt have won his award either.

That's all well and good but the rules are the rules. I've got no problem with the thought Simmons shouldn't be eligible. But under the current rules who should be ROY? In no way, shape or form is Mitchell more deserving than Simmons.

The argument that Mitchell gets a boost because he is Utah's first option is laughable. Simmons creates Phily's offense. That's why he has the assists he does. You can't argue that Mitchell does more and then say he doesn't get assists because of Utah's offense. If it's the motion taking away assist opportunities then it is also the motion getting Mitchell all those 3's. Simmons, meanwhile, drives and dishes and creates most of the offense for Phily.

I said that it's not only because he's the first option but also because they're winning in large part to him scoring a lot. If they had 15-20 wins and he was doing it then no he doesn't deserve it but the team went from a mid- high lottery team to a team that's tied for 8th and is 5 games above .500. That's a big deal that the voters need to look at.

Man, you guys should quit bringing up things for Mitchell while ignoring what Simmons has done. Utah went from mid-lottery to almost in the playoffs? Cool. 76ers won 28 games last year. They've already won 35 games this year. This is with the No. 1 pick doing next to nothing.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Knowledge:
People saying Simmons shouldn't be considered a rookie probably had no problem with Aaron Judge winning Rookie of the Year in the MLB when he played in games the year before

Aaron Judge did not have the luxury of Major League coaching all season, did not have access to Major League facilities, did not have access to Major League trainers, and did not earn a Major League salary. For much of the season he was not a New York Yankee. How much of last season was Ben Simmons not a 76er?

Not at all the same thing.

Yeah he only got to play in 27 MLB games. Face MLB pitching 84 times. Agreed. Not the same thing at all

Originally posted by DaBum:

Originally posted by JustinMT:

Originally posted by DaBum:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

I am still of the belief that Simmons should not be eligible for ROY. Oh well.

I agree. Former players like C-Webb have commented that being around the NBA for a year (even if not playing) is extremely beneficial. Get familiar with the trainers, teammates, having money, traveling, etc.

A real rook like Mitchell, this is all brand new for him. Plus he is their primary offensive player

Yep. I know he didnt play any games, but Simmons was an NBA player last season. He got all the benefits that an NBA player would get (coaching, trainers, state of the art facilities, salary, etc) that a college player would not receive. That is an unfair advantage, even if he didnt play. Blake shouldnt have won his award either.

That's all well and good but the rules are the rules. I've got no problem with the thought Simmons shouldn't be eligible. But under the current rules who should be ROY? In no way, shape or form is Mitchell more deserving than Simmons.

The argument that Mitchell gets a boost because he is Utah's first option is laughable. Simmons creates Phily's offense. That's why he has the assists he does. You can't argue that Mitchell does more and then say he doesn't get assists because of Utah's offense. If it's the motion taking away assist opportunities then it is also the motion getting Mitchell all those 3's. Simmons, meanwhile, drives and dishes and creates most of the offense for Phily.

I said that it's not only because he's the first option but also because they're winning in large part to him scoring a lot. If they had 15-20 wins and he was doing it then no he doesn't deserve it but the team went from a mid- high lottery team to a team that's tied for 8th and is 5 games above .500. That's a big deal that the voters need to look at.

Man, you guys should quit bringing up things for Mitchell while ignoring what Simmons has done. Utah went from mid-lottery to almost in the playoffs? Cool. 76ers won 28 games last year. They've already won 35 games this year. This is with the No. 1 pick doing next to nothing.

When I have discounted anything Simmons has done? I'm saying they should be co rookies of the year and have been arguing for that. Not that Mitchell should have it over Simmons. You f**king moron.

Originally posted by JustinMT:

You know he's worthy. I think they should do a co ROY this year.

Since some moron can't f**king read.