The last question was:
Is the problem simply that Embiid and Simmons can't play together?Let's look at the net ratings and the minutes played together. Philadelphia is a very polarizing team and therefore I can divide the team into 4 groups: Embiid, Simmons, starters (Redick, Butler and Chandler) and role players (Korkmaz, Muscala, McConnell and Shamet).
Moreover I can distinguish 6 different type of line ups. Those group of players of course don't have the same amount of playing time. The distribution is best expained as follows:
Embiid + Simmons + starters (18 minutes)
Embiid + starters (6 minutes)
Simmons + starters (6 minutes)
Embiid + Simmons + role players (6 minutes)
Embiid + role players (6 minutes)
Simmons + role players (6 minutes)
Now, how can the starters have a huge positive net rating (averaging around +8), slightly better even than Embiid (+7), Simmons have a modest (+3) rating and the role players being negative (averaging around -2)? Just play the game and allocate values to the line ups above and see how you can come up with the appropriate net ratings. The result:
Embiid + Simmons + starters (+2, big positive)
Embiid + starters (+2, big positive)
Simmons + starters (0, neutral)
Embiid + Simmons + role players (-2, big negative)
Embiid + role players (+1, positive)
Simmons + role players (-1, negative)
What do we observe?As we see the starting line-up is doing great, but they are doing just as well without Simmons. However the starters need Embiid, since without him they are at best equal to their opponent.
In fact Embiid with a bunch of bad role players does better than the other starters on their own. Simmons can't elevate either the starters or the role players. Is that his fault? Can we not simply conclude that without Embiid the 76ers are a below average NBA team? That the 76ers consist of a superstar (Embiid), a couple of very good starters (Butler, Simmons, Redick) and a worthless bench?
Yes, we can. But we haven't looked at the 4th line-up and that's the worst performing unit (Embiid + Simmons + role players). Why does a good performing bench unit that consists of Embiid + role players, suddenly become terrible when Simmons gets on the court for just some worthless role player?
Is that worthless role player that's willing to shoot, but doesn't command the ball more useful than Simmons in a unit with Embiid? It seems like it. The starters have a lot of scoring power and that's probably why Simmons can be filled in that line-up with Embiid. But without those big threats Simmons becomes a liability for Embiid. Defenses can collapse against lesser shooters, but especially when non-shooters are on the court.
My conclusions:- Embiid is simply an amazing player. He really doesn't need much help to beat up other teams.
- Simmons can't lead his team very far without Embiid.
- I would say that Simmons is still a decent player though.
- Simmons needs to learn to shoot to become a great player.
- Embiid doesn't need Simmons, in fact he's better off without him.
- The Philadelphia 76ers should trade Simmons as soon as possible.
To answer the question (Is the problem simply that Embiid and Simmons can't play together?):
yes