Yet I can't tell you how many times I've heard the pundits talking about Simmons absolutely dominating the summer league. It's ridiculous. He definitely looked excellent passing, but he was pretty mediocre elsewhere.
He certainly was not 'dominant', though there is no denying that he was extremely impressive. You can't argue with Per-36 numbers of 15.2 Points, 12.2 Rebounds and 7.6 Assists. That's crazy - a hell of a lot more impressive then what Okafor and KAT averaged in their summer league debuts, with the only disappointing part being his shooting really. When Simmons works out how to finish in this league he's going to be a monster.
By comparison, here are the Per-36 numbers of the rest of the top 8 players:
- Ingram: 16.0 Pts, 5.5 Reb, 2.4 Ast, 0.8 Stl, 0.5 Blk
- Brown: 19.8 Pts, 7.6 Reb, 1.6 Ast, 2.9 Stl, 1 Blk
- Bender: 9.7 Pts, 6.3 Reb, 1.1 Ast, 1.1 Stl, 1.1 Blk
- Dunn: 25.5 Pts, 7.4 Reb, 2.9 Ast, 2.1 Stl, 1.0 Blk
- Hield: 19.0 Pts, 6.1 Reb, 4.3 Ast, 0.9 Stl, 0.2 Blk
- Murray: 23.9 Pts, 6.1 Reb, 4.3 Ast, 0.9 Stl, 0.2 Blk
- Chriss: 11.9 Pts, 10.7 Reb, 0.3 Ast, 0.3 Stl, 0.8 Blk
I think it's pretty clear that Simmons and Dunn had the best overall numbers out of the top 8, followed by Murray, Brown and Hield.
The others were all 'unspectacular' to say the least.
Thanks for summing it up.
19 year old Gordon per-36: 23.9 points, 12.8 rebounds, 2.9 assists, 1.8 blocks, 1.4 steals - 50% FG, 50% 3P
19 year old Brown per-36: 19.8 points, 7.6 reounds, 1.6 assists, 1 block, 2.9 steals 32% FG, 22% 3P
So yeah, I agree with you. Brown shows signs. Gordon was better than him a year ago.
19 year old Gordon per-36: 23.9 points, 12.8 rebounds, 2.9 assists, 1.8 blocks, 1.4 steals - 50% FG, 50% 3P
18 year old Wiggins per-36: 15.5 points, 3.5 reb, 0.25 assists, 1.5 blocks, 1.25 steals - 40% FG, 15% 3PT
Was Gordon better then Wiggins a year ago? Let me help you with that - the answer is no. Wiggins led all rookies in scoring and won the ROY award, and nobody else came close.
But you may foolishly believe Gordon was better if you went off nothing but those Summer League stats.
Those stats are from Wiggins two years ago as a rookie ... in which he was clearly better than Aaron Gordon as a rookie... and has exactly jack squat to do with how Jaylen Brown played in Summer league this year compared to how Aaron Gordon played in Summer league last year... and whether or not Jaylen is anywhere near as good as Aaron Gordon heading into year 3.
Let me get this straight...
18 year old Andrew Wiggins' Per-36 numbers as a rookie:
18.6 points, 4.2 rebounds, 0.3 assists, 1.5 steals, 1.8 blocks, 40.5% FG, 15.4% 3PT
19 year old Jaylen Brown's Per-36 numbers as a rookie:
19.8 points, 7.6 reounds, 1.6 assists, 2.9 steals, 1 block, 32% FG, 22% 3PT
19 year old Aaron Gordon's Per-36 numbers as a 2nd year pro:
23.9 points, 12.8 rebounds, 2.9 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.8 blocks - 50% FG, 50% 3PT
So if you go based on Summer League stats (as you have been), then:
1) Jaylen Brown as a rookie was better then Andrew Wiggins as a rookie
2) Aaron Gordon as a second year player is better then Jaylen Brown as a rookie
Yet it is already a foregone conclusion (which you even agreed with) that Andrew Wiggins as a rookie was better then Aaron Gordon was as a second year player.
You know what they call that? A complete contradiction of basic logic.
If B > A and C > B, then C > A. Simple mathematical logic.
You have two possible arguments here:
Argument 1: Summer League stats are an indication of how good a player will be as a proIf this is your argument, then Aaron Gordon today is better then Jaylen Brown today. However if this is your argument then it also means that Aaron Gordon today is better then Andrew Wiggins was as a rookie. We've already determined that is false, therefore your argument is
invalid.
Argument 2: Summer League stats are not an indication of how good a player will be as a proIf this is your argument, then you shouldn't have referenced Aaron Gordon's summer league stats to begin with - so your argument is
invalid.
I hope you can understand that no matter which direction you take at this point, your argument at this point is well and truly invalid. It contradicts itself. It is, effectively, a paradox.
If you believe that Gordon is a better NBA player right now then Jaylen Brown, then that's fine. That is a perfectly fair argument to make, and it may well be right. But it is ultimately your opinion, not a fact, because until Brown has an NBA season under his belt (or at the very least, half of one) there is no valid evidence to support that. So if you wish to insist that Gordon is, factually, a better player then Brown right now - then I suggest you dig deep and find a more compelling argument then simple summer league stats.
Not meaning to be rude, just stating the obvious - or at least what seems (to me) to be the obvious.