Minnesota Sports Forum

kekgeek1 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:I'll bet anyone 10$ that Ball wins ROY. Ball had such a significant lead over everyone. He'll end up playing 57% of the games. Joel Embiid played in 37.8% of the games his rookie year and lost it to a guy in the playoffs in Brogdon and Williamson played in 33.3% of games and lost to Ja who was the best player on a playoff team pre bubble.

I love Ant but he is on the worst team in the NBA what will more then likely finish bottom 3 with terrible advance stats. Haliburton has missed games, doesn't have the crazy media attention and is on a non playoff team. Lamelo has the stats, had his team in the playoffs and has all the media attention.

I'm really confident Lamelo will be the ROY

You may be right, kek, but the momentum for LaMelo Ball could die down significantly in the next couple of months with him sidelined. It's easy to say that he'll still win right now because he hasn't missed many games yet. The image of him is still fresh in our minds. But what if Anthony Edwards' improved play is for real and he averages 20/5/5 for the remainder of the season and doesn't miss any games? What if he has a couple 30 or 40 burgers along the way? Things can change rapidly in the NBA and if nothing else this injury to Ball has at least opened the door for other guys.

Also, Andrew Wiggins won Rookie of the Year on a 16-66 Wolves team primarily because he had the raw stats. As Kevin Garnett once said -- ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

I think it's possible for only Ant beat Lamelo. Ant is the only one with star power. He is capable of big games but I do feel like he won't have as many with Dlo and Beasley coming back eventhough that should lead to more wins. I just think Ant needs to be special to win it. (He is now the betting favorite though)

Yeah, this is my take also. LaMelo's overall stats are so far ahead of Ant, he never would have caught him if Ball were healthy. But now he at least has a chance (as the betting odds indicate). ROY is a "star" vote and you generally need some panache to win it...Ant has it, Ball has it, guys like Halliburton (while effective) don't. Ball will be out of sight, out of mind now, and Ant will continue to have a couple highlight dunks every night. Plus Ant now leads rookies in PPG. So he has a chance. But kek is right that the return of DLO/Beasley will likely suppress his scoring. I would give Ant maybe a 40% chance if he keeps scoring.

I'm obviously biased but there is no way in hell I would give an award to someone who didn't even play in 60% of the games

There is the ROY award and then there is the monitoring of actual on-the-court performance, potential, and team impact. The award I literally care nothing about, just like I care nothing about all-star games, dunk contests, and skills challenges.

As for actual performance, Ball was far and away the more impactful rookie in the first half of the season. We'll see if Ant can change that reality in the second half. Other than the stinker in the second game in Phoenix, he's off to a good start.

LaMello was a lock for ROY honors before his injury and deservedly so given his numbers. I'd say he's still the favorite now, but his injury opens the door for Edwards to overtake him. If Edwards stays at the level he's been at for the rest of the season, then I think he'll overtake Ball. Unlike MVP, I don't think team success has much of an impact on ROY selection. It's still LaMello's to lose, but this injury puts Edwards in the running.

By the way, I was really disappointed to see this news about LaMello. I've been impressed by his play this season and it's a bummer to see his terrific rookie season end like this. Thankfully, it's not an ACL or something like that.

Who cares. It's a meaningless award. Ball is clearly the best rookie.

Edwards has probably surpassed Haliburton recently with his uptick and the Kings guard's mehness. But again... who cares.

If anything, I guess it gives one-day bragging rights to a fanbase during one of the most disappointing seasons in the history of the league's worst franchise?

And it's a nice reward to Edwards, I guess. But is he going to feel like he was the best rookie? Or, would he be better off not getting it and using it as motivation. In a league (and a franchise) that rewards players too quickly over and over again... this seems like another meaningless award.

Bah humbug.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:Who cares. It's a meaningless award. Ball is clearly the best rookie.

Edwards has probably surpassed Haliburton recently with his uptick and the Kings guard's mehness. But again... who cares.

If anything, I guess it gives one-day bragging rights to a fanbase during one of the most disappointing seasons in the history of the league's worst franchise?

And it's a nice reward to Edwards, I guess. But is he going to feel like he was the best rookie? Or, would he be better off not getting it and using it as motivation. In a league (and a franchise) that rewards players too quickly over and over again... this seems like another meaningless award.

Bah humbug.

Lol. That's the Abe we know! Not sure how you can believe it's a meaningless award. You recall that Wiggins won ROY honors, right? And you call the award meaningless! You're so off base on this, Abe.

Looking back at history I'd rather have the ROY winner then not, though it certainly doesn't guarantee anything.

Going back to the first 50 years of winners and 60% are in the HoF. It looks like maybe that percentage will hold about true though some guys I'm not sure on so I'd be speculating too much.

ROY is something, but not important.

WolvesFan21 wrote:Looking back at history I'd rather have the ROY winner then not, though it certainly doesn't guarantee anything.

Going back to the first 50 years of winners and 60% are in the HoF. It looks like maybe that percentage will hold about true though some guys I'm not sure on so I'd be speculating too much.

ROY is something, but not important.

But there is literally no causal link between the two things. It's strictly a correlation only and so far Ball has far and away been the more worthy ROY recipient.

I'm with Abe. It's a nice award for someone to give to their parents or put in their trophy room, but it is otherwise meaningless.

What is more meaningful?

- How do his rookie year stats compare to other past 19-year old rookies that subsequently became perennial all stars?

- How have his stats and overall play evolved throughout the season - month to month, say?

- What kind of work ethic does he have, and more importantly, what kind of practice habits does he exhibit? Does he just jack up shots from random places for two hours or is there a highly disciplined approach to his practice sessions?

- How is he being coached to reinforce good habits and correct bad habits?

If he wins ROY at this point, it's for two reasons: 1) He shoots more than anyone else, and 2) Ball got hurt.

Agree this is a pointless award, but for what it's worth, if anything, I think LaMelo's injury will make it really hard for him NOT to win ROY. He was a key part in orchestrating a team as it improved and moved up into a decent playoff position. His advanced stats were very efficient and at the same time he produced big numbers in points, rebounds, and assists when he started. The flashy passing doesn't hurt. By getting hurt, there's no chance for that either his efficiency or production will tail off (which it might have done), and I highly doubt that Charlotte gets better with him out, which might mitigate the praise he's gotten.

It's too bad. The kid looks really good. We on this board here were basically all wrong on him. And in that case, it's definitely worth asking why. If we understand a bit better why we may have misread a particular player, it might help us avoid making mistakes like that in the future.

The real question is: why did we not see LeMelo would be this good? What can we learn from that?

Personally, I think part of the lesson is to be careful not to let my resentment for how other people view somebody to shape the way I view him. This was also my lesson with Rubio. I hated the Rubio pick at the time and I thought he was totally overrated, and frankly, I think part of it was that when I saw people hyperbolizing about how great he'd be, I overreacted in the opposite direction and figured he'd be a bust. In retrospect, this is probably why my trajectory on Ricky was the opposite of a lot of guys. People who thought he'd be the next Magic were obviously disappointed. But I figured he'd suck, so when he didn't, I've really grown to appreciate him. Now, I really love the guy, as limited as he is as a player. I'm embarrassed to admit, but probably part of my rejection of LaMelo was the same rejection of what seemed to be such an intense embrace by the Dunc'd On guys, Givony, etc. I didn't learn my lesson from Rubio, and now I've needed to learn it again a bit. Just because a lot of guys think a player could be really special and I don't see it, it doesn't mean he's going to suck.

I think the other part of it has to do with not making character assumptions. The thing that has surprised me most has actually been his personality. I think we all saw the attention he'd gotten and, at least in my case, I just figured if somebody was open to having a reality TV show life as a kid or giving up school to chase basketball fame in Lithuania or shooting enough in a high school game to score 100 points, my subconscious assumption may have been that he was just a conceited, spoiled little brat. My stated opposition to him was about his shooting and his poor effort on defense, but I think subconsciously, I probably chalked those up to deeper character flaws than I probably should have. Weirdly, as much as I do judge LaVar negatively (I don't have a lot of patience for narcissistic attention-seekers like him), I think I wasn't as affected by him as I was when I thought Lonzo was overrated. I guess to his credit, he faded into the background much more in recent years. But weirdly, LaMelo has come off to me as having a good sense of humor, relatively humble (which is shocking considering his dad), and just an all-around good guy in interviews. That doesn't at all align with my assumptions about him. I figured he was a totally spoiled Gen Z-er. That more mature personality has been clear not just in his interviews, but on the court. He's been willing to change his shot form which has paid huge dividends, he plays really unselfishly, and he plays with poise under pressure.

This is not to say he was guaranteed to be good. There's always an element of chance and we can't predict the future perfectly. He's outperformed even what some people who ranked him #1 in the draft thought. But to the extent that we screwed this prediction up, what happened? Anybody else have any ideas why we collectively undervalued LaMelo?

What do you guys think?

Sometimes the pre-draft assessment can be spot-on and the player just improves his game significantly or outperforms expectations. This is what I believe happened with LaMelo Ball. He was statistically one of the worst defenders in the entire NBL, especially in defending the pick-and-roll, which is the most executed action in the NBA. He had a broken outside shot (25.0 3P% on 80 attempts) and trouble consistently finishing at the rim, which is a recipe for disaster especially considering he was playing in a league with inferior length and athleticism to the NBA. His effort/motor was inconsistent on both ends of the floor and his maturity was rightfully questioned, especially after reports concerning his pre-draft interviews were leaked. Don't be confused by the results. There were very real red flags based on what he showed in his limited time in Australia and through the shortened pre-draft process.

What I didn't expect and certainly couldn't have predicted was Ball significantly retooling his shot mechanics -- specifically to be more of a set shot than a natural jumper. The early results have been staggering. Raise your hand if you expected Ball to shoot 37.5-percent from three on more than five attempts per game. Okay, now put your hand down because I don't believe you. Who could have expected Ball to become an elite finisher at the rim making more than 60-percent of his attempts within 0-3 feet? These were valid weaknesses in Ball's game that he has transformed into strengths in a short amount of time. And to his credit there haven't been any signs of him having effort or engagement concerns this season.

Add these improvements to his prior strengths of being an above average facilitator, good rebounder for position, and overall size for position and you have a really intriguing player. But make no mistake about it, there were legitimate reasons to be concerned leading up to this.