I find it weird how folks on these sorts of boards get 'dug in' on positions such as some of the negative criticisms of not only Simmons, but also of Ingram, Bender, Brown, Heild, Murray & Dunn.
Some posters are relentless in reaching for negatives, seemingly pulled out of nowhere (really, really old scouting reports or videos from a year or more ago, quibbling over length & weight measures taken for 17 & 18 year old kids, third-and-fourth party gossip about 'intangibles, etc., etc.). It makes you think that they would absolutely hate the idea of that player being on the Celtics.
Ultimately, who we get may not be a matter of choice.
If Danny gets the #2 pick, he's almost certainly going to take whomever of Simmons/Ingram is not taken.
It just seems strange to me to get all dug in and assertively negative about any of these players when the truth is, most on the board won't have a fraction of the information that Danny should have with which to make an informed choice.
I'm just glad we are certain to get a top 6 pick (and most likely a top 4). I can see the positive potential in all the possible outcomes of that and I hope that those positives are realized.
I've noticed something slightly different. I see a ton of over-hyping of prospects, and I've seen a natural backlash to that. How can an objective fan not bristle a bit when a 19 year old with some glaring flaws is being compared to Magic and Oscar?
I doubt any of us would pass on Simmons at #2, but that's separate and apart from thinking he'll be a top-10 player of all-time.
Also, the only quibbling over measurements I remember is when a poster condescending tried to use LSU's biased measurements to shut down Jonathan Givony. When people bring snark and arrogance, I think it's fair to "quibble" about accuracy.
"Bristle"? Are Magic and Oscar's legacies at stake because someone is trying to use them as a model for how a young player's game might fit in the NBA?
My least favorite of internet arguments: the strawman, pumped up on hyperbolic PEDs.
Technically, not a straw man, since put in the form of rhetorical question, but I'll concede. A straw man to beg the question, "What is there to bristle about?".
Nobody said Magic and Oscar's legacies were at stake. It seems odd that you'd jump to that conclusion. Some of us are just wary of comparing a 19 year old who missed the Tournament to two of the top-10 players of all-time. This being an internet discussion forum, off-base comparisons seem worthy of debate.
Saying that Kelly Olynyk plays a similar basketball role (7 foot stretch shooting big who can handle and pass the ball) to Dirk isn't asserting he will ever, ever be as good as Dirk. What's to get offended about?
More strawmen. Simmons was called a "6'10" Oscar Robertson" and a "slightly lesser" Magic. Those are direct comparisons about how those posters saw Simmons projecting, not saying that guys have a similar style. Also, of course, any comparison of KO to Dirk is lazy and does a disservice to Kelly, since it makes him look like an abject failure by comparison.
Actually, no. KG Living Legend's exact words were: "Imagine what he could do with a 6'10" Oscar Robertson
type of talent". And crimson_stallion's words were, "...a 6'10" big man
who can run, pass and dribble like Simmons can... I doubt Simmons will ever be as good as Magic, but
I think he could become a slightly less dominant version of Magic."
Those seem pretty clearly to be about style. Neither seems to be claiming Simmons will definitely be as good as either Hall of Famer.
What about that is supposed to make us bristle?
And, nobody said they were offended. They just pointed out that others were being hyperbolic. It's possible to have a discussion where two sides disagree without falling back on the faux outrage that so many hold near and dear.
What exactly do you mean by "bristle", then? Why is that not "faux outrage"?
Why is it "natural" to backlash against some fan's hyperbolic optimistic view of some player? Why is it necessary to dig oneself in with negative hyperbole and in some cases intangible character aspersions about a young player in response to the hyperbole spewed by some random fan?
When somebody wildly overestimates somebody, it's a natural to move the discussion toward more realistic expectations. I'm not sure that I've seen much negative hyperbole about Simmons. What's hyperbolic about the criticism? He's a poor outside shooter. He missed the Tournament. Experts have questioned whether he plays to hang stats. Those may be unwarranted criticisms -- or they may be legit -- but they're certainly not hyperbolic.
You have apparently missed reading assertions about Simmons or Brown having "zero ability to shoot", or Ingram or Bender being too skinny, soft and weak.
Correct, accusing a player of playing to hang stats would not be hyperbolic. That would fall into the category of character aspersion.
I also know you are talking about me with the remark regarding LSU's measurements of Simmons versus the Hoop Summit numbers which you prefer to cite, but no one has answered to my question about why LSU's measurements, taken 6 months ago are necessarily less credible than measurements taken over a year ago, for a young player who has clearly been growing during the last two years. If he gets measured at this coming pre-draft combine, it's very likely neither set of numbers from before will be repeated exactly.
The Hoops Summit numbers are well-regarded and standardized. Historically, they have matched up with the other combine measurements, within some level of deviation to account for future growth.
The LSU numbers, on the other hand, suggest that Simmons added several inches to his standing reach within a matter of months, which would be a biological miracle. They also suggest that Simmons ran the fastest 3/4 court sprint in the history of recorded combine measurements. LSU's measurements of its others players wildly deviated in several instances from other more respected measurements, always to the advantage of the LSU player.
So, between the 2014 Nike Skills Academy and the April 2015 Nike Hoop Summit, Simmons apparently grew two inches in height, but between the latter and the LSU camp it is not reasonable that his wingspan gained 1.25"?
Do you think he did not grow during the intervening months?
Do you think he has not grown in the last calendar year?
Standing reach is always a dubious stat because it is posture dependent. It doesn't matter how 'well regarded' the event is. It has been the source of magical, super-athletic max vertical leaps by many a player formerly thought to be 'not athletic'. There is no reason to put any more stock in the 8' 7" measurement over a year ago than the 9' 3" measurement at LSU.
The lying eye test and rebounding, steal & block stats & efficiency at the rim suggest to me that length is, ultimately, probably not a problem for Mr. Simmons.
Whether other possible concerns such as his jump shooting or alleged 'character flags' are, I will leave it up to Danny and his staff to vet. I'm not going to assert that he isn't without concerns -- no player is -- and in particular I am concerned about his reluctance to shoot in key moments.
I just find some of the polarized debate over him to be somewhat contrived. DE's strengths video shows one thing (look how great he rebounds!) and the weakness video shows the opposite (short arms means he has trouble rebounding!) -- and both are completely anecdotal so folks can latch on to whichever they want to support a viewpoint. The current tone of negatives in the 'weakness' side of DE's portrayal would convey the image of someone barely deserving of a top lottery pick, let alone the #2 slot on their board. In the 'length' criticism part of the video, made this Spring, they cite a year-old standing reach number, then throw a few anecdotal 'fail' rebounding and scoring events and claim dubiously that he failed because of reach issues. But when I look carefully, that isn't clear at all that that's what the videos are showing - mostly they just show anecdotally moments when he failed to really get good position or timing. Sometimes even the best, longest rebounders get beat.
I have no problem with the idea that Ingram should or might be the #1 pick. But it almost seems as if there is an effort to exaggerate Simmons' negatives in order to justify that. Sheesh. Ingram is a great young prospect. It should be possible to justify ranking him #1 based on his positives!
As I've said before, I'll be happy with whomever we get from this top group of players.
Topic: Best scenario for Simmons. Celtics winning lottery. (Read 22388 times)