What Should Constitute an NBA Rookie?

[bopna]

If you are under contract, whether you play or not, that should be your rookie year.  Imagine if Simmons pulled a Hayward, injured 5 minutes in, then he would not be a rookie, but if injured in last pre-season game, he's a rookie.  Doesn't make sense.

No need to imagine.  Julius Randle was hurt in his 1st regular season game and Blake Griffin was injured in the last preseason game.  Their next seasons Randle wasn't eligible for ROY but Griffin was.  There was no huge uproar about it.  The NBA could have chosen to change the ROY eligibility rules but didn't.

Because Randle was a nobody.. If he was the no. 1 pick there would have been an uproar I can tell you that.
Rookies should be players drafted in their class and when their contract starts since they are technically members of their team and will reap the benefit of teaching, coaching, nutrition medical treatments etc. Given to them..

[Androslav]

Take Dario Šarić, for example, he was drafted, played 2 more years in Turkey and then came to NBA. He was a rook last year, and finished 2nd in votes. With the draft class being the standard for determining rookies, he would have never been an NBA rookie.
That legislation seems flawed.

However, I do agree that redshirt guys have a strong advantage against those that play right away. The aforementioned Blake, Simmons, Embiid (3 redshirt years) are all excellent examples of that.

IMO, There can't be any clear-cut "rule", that works for every player since they are coming from different leagues (some are already pros some amateurs), different countries, some are healthy, some not. Hey some NCAA rooks are 23 some are 19, is that "fair", 4 years of their biggest developmental period.
There is no one size fits all answer to this conundrum.

[Csfan1984]

NBA Rookie should be considered by draft class lol!

So if you are drafted in 2016 then you compete with the 2016 group for that award. Not a 2016 player competing with a 2017 group.

If you got injured that whole season then oh well! There could be other awards for that, though.

There are two awards. Comeback player and most improved.

[ederson]

I don't think that missing a whole year is an advantage. Sure you get real pro trainning but you also recover from a serious injury. Isnt that a big disadvantage ?

Anyway i agree with Androslav.... There a too many different kind of rookies ... The undrafted 26yo who bounced around lower leagues and finally got a spot through summer league could be said that he has an adavantage.

To be honest i find the whole discussion hypocritic.... If it wasn't for a Cs player nobody would have even thought about this.

[Csfan1984]

I don't think that missing a whole year is an advantage. Sure you get real pro trainning but you also recover from a serious injury. Isnt that a big disadvantage ?

Anyway i agree with Androslav.... There a too many different kind of rookies ... The undrafted 26yo who bounced around lower leagues and finally got a spot through summer league could be said that he has an adavantage.

To be honest i find the whole discussion hypocritic.... If it wasn't for a Cs player nobody would have even thought about this.

Tatum isn't the top of his class in likely votes, Mitchell is.

[jambr380]

Take Dario Šarić, for example, he was drafted, played 2 more years in Turkey and then came to NBA. He was a rook last year, and finished 2nd in votes. With the draft class being the standard for determining rookies, he would have never been an NBA rookie.
That legislation seems flawed...

This is the example that I keep bringing up and it seems like a possible 3rd option for the poll.  Somebody like Daniel Theis would also fit this designation since he previously declared for the NBA draft (wasn't drafted) and then had several years of experience in Germany.

I think another question to be asked is, does it matter if you were somebody like Saric (played two years in Turkey after being drafted) or Doncic (will play immediately after being drafted) when it comes to being a rookie? Both played in other professional leagues before coming to the NBA.

If you are a person advocating strictly for 'draft class', you would say there is a difference - Saric shouldn't have been eligible while Doncic should. If you believe that your rookie year should be your first year of your NBA contract, then there would be no difference.

And if you don't think that anybody who has ever played professionally in another league should be eligible, well, then this thing could get dicey 

[Celtics4ever]

Some one drafted in last year's draft, period.   Not guys who got hurt their rookie year and trained all year, not guys who were signed after being a pro years overseas.   First year players drafted in the draft the in the season that when the draft was held.

[Moranis]

honestly the 1st year you play is fine with me, but if they want to make something like 10 or less games on the active roster or 200 or less minutes and you are still considered a rookie, I'd be fine with that as well.  That way someone like Julius Randle would have been a rookie despite playing a few minutes in a game and getting hurt in what the NBA calls his rookie year.  That would also cover someone like John Holland, who signed multiple contracts, with San Antonio, Boston, and Cleveland (though only played in 1 playoff game for Boston), before the league enacted the 2-way contracts and he signed one of those with Cleveland this year.  He has played in 22 games this year.  It appears the playoff game, not being a regular season game, has made him still be counted as a rookie this year, but under the less than x games system, he would have been a rookie anyway.  That seems like the better way to do things.  Just make it based on experience and that way a late season DLeague call-up is still considered a rookie.  Or a guy that plays in a couple of games and then is lost for the season, is still considered a rookie.  Or a guy that stays in Europe after being drafted, is still considered a rookie.  Or a guy that gets hurt in the preseason and misses his first year, is still considered a rookie.  I think that is a broader standard that makes it more clear, but I'm fine with the current system i.e. you are a rookie the season you play in a game, period.

[Big333223]

For those who think it should a rookie should be determined by their draft class, does that mean Dario Saric would never have had a rookie season?

[tazzmaniac]

honestly the 1st year you play is fine with me, but if they want to make something like 10 or less games on the active roster or 200 or less minutes and you are still considered a rookie, I'd be fine with that as well.  That way someone like Julius Randle would have been a rookie despite playing a few minutes in a game and getting hurt in what the NBA calls his rookie year.  That would also cover someone like John Holland, who signed multiple contracts, with San Antonio, Boston, and Cleveland (though only played in 1 playoff game for Boston), before the league enacted the 2-way contracts and he signed one of those with Cleveland this year.  He has played in 22 games this year.  It appears the playoff game, not being a regular season game, has made him still be counted as a rookie this year, but under the less than x games system, he would have been a rookie anyway.  That seems like the better way to do things.  Just make it based on experience and that way a late season DLeague call-up is still considered a rookie.  Or a guy that plays in a couple of games and then is lost for the season, is still considered a rookie.  Or a guy that stays in Europe after being drafted, is still considered a rookie.  Or a guy that gets hurt in the preseason and misses his first year, is still considered a rookie.  I think that is a broader standard that makes it more clear, but I'm fine with the current system i.e. you are a rookie the season you play in a game, period.

I agree with you.  I like the MLB rookie eligibility rules (<130 at bats or 50 innings pitched) and would think that would be an improvement to the NBA rules. 

[tazzmaniac]

Take Dario Šarić, for example, he was drafted, played 2 more years in Turkey and then came to NBA. He was a rook last year, and finished 2nd in votes. With the draft class being the standard for determining rookies, he would have never been an NBA rookie.
That legislation seems flawed...

This is the example that I keep bringing up and it seems like a possible 3rd option for the poll.  Somebody like Daniel Theis would also fit this designation since he previously declared for the NBA draft (wasn't drafted) and then had several years of experience in Germany.

I think another question to be asked is, does it matter if you were somebody like Saric (played two years in Turkey after being drafted) or Doncic (will play immediately after being drafted) when it comes to being a rookie? Both played in other professional leagues before coming to the NBA.

If you are a person advocating strictly for 'draft class', you would say there is a difference - Saric shouldn't have been eligible while Doncic should. If you believe that your rookie year should be your first year of your NBA contract, then there would be no difference.

And if you don't think that anybody who has ever played professionally in another league should be eligible, well, then this thing could get dicey 

The last option doesn't seem realistic.  It would exclude all the players that teams draft to stash overseas or that are placed in the G-league. 

[kozlodoev]

I don't quite understand why this matters. Are folks that hellbent about a wallflower award that doesn't mean anything?

[smokeablount]

I don't quite understand why this matters. Are folks that hellbent about a wallflower award that doesn't mean anything?

Probably.  People debate MVPs for decades after they are awarded. 

[smokeablount]

For those who think it should a rookie should be determined by their draft class, does that mean Dario Saric would never have had a rookie season?

No, because his rookie season was his first with an NBA team.  Euros who stay overseas can't be held to draft class, but guys like Simmons, Griffin and Embiid can, like Androslav mentioned.

[tazzmaniac]

I don't quite understand why this matters. Are folks that hellbent about a wallflower award that doesn't mean anything?

Probably.  People debate MVPs for decades after they are awarded.

MVP is a lot more meaningful.  It is a significant part of a players legacy if they win it.  It also is a criteria for eligibility for designated rookie and veteran extensions.  ROY is a footnote that rarely comes up in discussions.  It generally goes to rookies on bad teams because they get the playing time.  It doesn't indicate future success.  MCW won ROY.  Enough said.