What Should Constitute an NBA Rookie?

[byennie]

Your rookie year should be whichever year is the first year you are paid by a NBA team.

The first year you are paid by a NBA team counts as your first year of service, regardless of whether or not you play, so it should be considered your rookie season.

What if you are drafted by a NBA team but then spend your entire first season in the GLeague?  What if you play on a summer league team or in training camp, but then go to Europe or the GLeague for the entire season?  What if you sign a 10 day contract at the end of some season but never play in a game?

Doesn't matter. If you accrue a year of NBA service, that is your rookie year.

It counts as your first year in every other meaningful way, so I see no reason why rookie awards should be viewed differently.

"Rookie" has virtually always meant the first portion of someone's PLAYING career in a league.

I get the idea that it could have been defined differently in the first place, but it seems to me the vast majority of people don't see it as either broken or worth changing.

Sorry, but the timing of this just reeks of Simmons jealousy to me. Theoretically he got slightly "lucky" versus say a Julius Randle who plays 1 game his first year, but it's not like the system is suddenly broken. I'd be a little cheesed if I was a Philly fan and Simmons was never eligible because he suffered a serious injury, too.

[KGs Knee]

Your rookie year should be whichever year is the first year you are paid by a NBA team.

The first year you are paid by a NBA team counts as your first year of service, regardless of whether or not you play, so it should be considered your rookie season.

What if you are drafted by a NBA team but then spend your entire first season in the GLeague?  What if you play on a summer league team or in training camp, but then go to Europe or the GLeague for the entire season?  What if you sign a 10 day contract at the end of some season but never play in a game?

Doesn't matter. If you accrue a year of NBA service, that is your rookie year.

It counts as your first year in every other meaningful way, so I see no reason why rookie awards should be viewed differently.

"Rookie" has virtually always meant the first portion of someone's PLAYING career in a league.

I get the idea that it could have been defined differently in the first place, but it seems to me the vast majority of people don't see it as either broken or worth changing.

Sorry, but the timing of this just reeks of Simmons jealousy to me. Theoretically he got slightly "lucky" versus say a Julius Randle who plays 1 game his first year, but it's not like the system is suddenly broken. I'd be a little cheesed if I was a Philly fan and Simmons was never eligible because he suffered a serious injury, too.

There's no jealousy on my behalf, I can promise you that.  You can choose to believe that or not, I'm not concerned one way or the other what you choose to believe about my motivations.  I'm not even really concerned that much with the ROY award.  It's just not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, though, I've always held this opinion.  I don't care if you got hurt in your rookie year and didn't get to play, too bad.  Life isn't all rainbows and lollipops.  It's basically like giving a guy a do-over.   Your rookie year amounted to nothing and you didn't help the team, so you shouldn't be given a do-over when it comes to consideration for the ROY award.

If other people view it differently, that's fine.  As I said, the ROY award really isn't a big deal anyway.  I was just giving my opinion.

[byennie]

There's no jealousy on my behalf, I can promise you that.  You can choose to believe that or not, I'm not concerned one way or the other what you choose to believe about my motivations.  I'm not even really concerned that much with the ROY award.  It's just not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, though, I've always held this opinion.  I don't care if you got hurt in your rookie year and didn't get to play, too bad.  Life isn't all rainbows and lollipops.  It's basically like giving a guy a do-over.   Your rookie year amounted to nothing and you didn't help the team, so you shouldn't be given a do-over when it comes to consideration for the ROY award.

If other people view it differently, that's fine.  As I said, the ROY award really isn't a big deal anyway.  I was just giving my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean just you personally. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter of how to define "rookie".

It's more the context of Simmons > Tatum and the conspiracy element that makes the whole thread feel like sour grapes. I disagree somewhat with a lot of rules, but also don't think the status quo needs to be challenged whenever my team loses out. Imagine if Tatum had Hayward's injury this year? I think almost everyone would be fine with calling him a rookie next year.

[droopdog7]

There's no jealousy on my behalf, I can promise you that.  You can choose to believe that or not, I'm not concerned one way or the other what you choose to believe about my motivations.  I'm not even really concerned that much with the ROY award.  It's just not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, though, I've always held this opinion.  I don't care if you got hurt in your rookie year and didn't get to play, too bad.  Life isn't all rainbows and lollipops.  It's basically like giving a guy a do-over.   Your rookie year amounted to nothing and you didn't help the team, so you shouldn't be given a do-over when it comes to consideration for the ROY award.

If other people view it differently, that's fine.  As I said, the ROY award really isn't a big deal anyway.  I was just giving my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean just you personally. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter of how to define "rookie".

It's more the context of Simmons > Tatum and the conspiracy element that makes the whole thread feel like sour grapes. I disagree somewhat with a lot of rules, but also don't think the status quo needs to be challenged whenever my team loses out. Imagine if Tatum had Hayward's injury this year? I think almost everyone would be fine with calling him a rookie next year.

There’s little doubt that this is the driving force for this thread.  Without looking, I’m betting you find this thread on the Utah board.  Doubt you’ll find it on the philly board.

As for me, don’t change the rule.  Every league defines it as playing and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It’s the cleaning way to do it.  I mean, if you’re going to complain about unfair advantages, it gets slippery.  Most rookies are older they jayson.  Should we take that into account too. 

It is what it is.  And it’s fine.

[jambr380]

There's no jealousy on my behalf, I can promise you that.  You can choose to believe that or not, I'm not concerned one way or the other what you choose to believe about my motivations.  I'm not even really concerned that much with the ROY award.  It's just not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, though, I've always held this opinion.  I don't care if you got hurt in your rookie year and didn't get to play, too bad.  Life isn't all rainbows and lollipops.  It's basically like giving a guy a do-over.   Your rookie year amounted to nothing and you didn't help the team, so you shouldn't be given a do-over when it comes to consideration for the ROY award.

If other people view it differently, that's fine.  As I said, the ROY award really isn't a big deal anyway.  I was just giving my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean just you personally. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter of how to define "rookie".

It's more the context of Simmons > Tatum and the conspiracy element that makes the whole thread feel like sour grapes. I disagree somewhat with a lot of rules, but also don't think the status quo needs to be challenged whenever my team loses out. Imagine if Tatum had Hayward's injury this year? I think almost everyone would be fine with calling him a rookie next year.

There’s little doubt that this is the driving force for this thread.  Without looking, I’m betting you find this thread on the Utah board.  Doubt you’ll find it on the philly board.

As for me, don’t change the rule.  Every league defines it as playing and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It’s the cleaning way to do it.  I mean, if you’re going to complain about unfair advantages, it gets slippery.  Most rookies are older they jayson.  Should we take that into account too. 

It is what it is.  And it’s fine.

I absolutely didn't think to start this thread with the thought that Tatum should be ROY over Simmons. And I don't think anybody else here thinks that is the case either. If nothing else, Mitchell is clearly ahead of Tatum. I think most would agree that Simmons is the best 'rookie' this year, it's just that opinions vary on what really constitutes being a 'rookie' and I thought it would be a fun topic since the debate started being discussed in another thread.

While I tend to believe that a player's rookie year should [at least] begin on the first year of his rookie contract, I also believe there ways to address the issue, like putting off the start of a rookie contract due to injury and requiring a certain number of minutes or games played. This designation could also be useful in bringing players up from the G-League without it counting as a player's rookie year.

[droopdog7]

There's no jealousy on my behalf, I can promise you that.  You can choose to believe that or not, I'm not concerned one way or the other what you choose to believe about my motivations.  I'm not even really concerned that much with the ROY award.  It's just not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, though, I've always held this opinion.  I don't care if you got hurt in your rookie year and didn't get to play, too bad.  Life isn't all rainbows and lollipops.  It's basically like giving a guy a do-over.   Your rookie year amounted to nothing and you didn't help the team, so you shouldn't be given a do-over when it comes to consideration for the ROY award.

If other people view it differently, that's fine.  As I said, the ROY award really isn't a big deal anyway.  I was just giving my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean just you personally. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter of how to define "rookie".

It's more the context of Simmons > Tatum and the conspiracy element that makes the whole thread feel like sour grapes. I disagree somewhat with a lot of rules, but also don't think the status quo needs to be challenged whenever my team loses out. Imagine if Tatum had Hayward's injury this year? I think almost everyone would be fine with calling him a rookie next year.

There’s little doubt that this is the driving force for this thread.  Without looking, I’m betting you find this thread on the Utah board.  Doubt you’ll find it on the philly board.

As for me, don’t change the rule.  Every league defines it as playing and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It’s the cleaning way to do it.  I mean, if you’re going to complain about unfair advantages, it gets slippery.  Most rookies are older they jayson.  Should we take that into account too. 

It is what it is.  And it’s fine.

I absolutely didn't think to start this thread with the thought that Tatum should be ROY over Simmons. And I don't think anybody else here thinks that is the case either. If nothing else, Mitchell is clearly ahead of Tatum. I think most would agree that Simmons is the best 'rookie' this year, it's just that opinions vary on what really constitutes being a 'rookie' and I thought it would be a fun topic since the debate started being discussed in another thread.

While I tend to believe that a player's rookie year should [at least] begin on the first year of his rookie contract, I also believe there ways to address the issue, like putting off the start of a rookie contract due to injury and requiring a certain number of minutes or games played. This designation could also be useful in bringing players up from the G-League without it counting as a player's rookie year.

Topic is not new, has been discussed here, and many other places this year.  There is one reason for this;  Ben Simmons.  And Jayson was near enough to rookie of the year at times this year for resentment to build among celtic fans.

[Ogaju]

I think this is actually a good debate and saying people on one side are jealous is just nonsense.
Having said that I have a solution, go the college rout. Simmons is not a true rookie but a redshirt rookie...lol

[droopdog7]

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.

It sounds like you're saying Simmons shouldn't be eligible for rookie of the year because it's an unfair advantage to be around an NBA team for a year before playing. Is it not also an unfair advantage for Dario Saric to play professional basketball for years overseas and be older than someone drafted after one year of college in America? Why does one thing matter and the other doesn't?

Because the award isn’t for Global Professional Rookie of the Year, it’s NBA ROY. Ben Simmons collected a year of checks from an NBA franchise for a whole season, his first season, when he never played. Saric collected checks from a non-NBA entity. I am not merely saying being a pro for a year is an advantage. It is, but to me the contractual element is tied to the award. Also, you can’t tell me with a straight face that Euro leagues are like the NBA. The talent in all phases is worlds apart. I know multiple people that played pro in Europe (Jared Jordan from Marist being one) and I could survive on the court with them in my day. You think I could blend in with NBA players?

To use someone else’s analogy, let’s say I’m hired as a teacher right out of college, but I refuse to teach for my entire first year and just sit in and watch seasoned teachers teach, explore how curriculums are setup, see how different kids learn in different ways, understand how administration works and how to deal with parents, etc.

Now, after I do that for a year, bring in a college grad with no classroom or real world experience, and who is less promising of a candidate than I was when I came out of college, and have us each teach a class. The less effective teacher will be fired. Who do you think keeps their job? And why compare the two of us at all if the playing field is stacked so differently?

First, what does being a less promising candidate have to do with anything?  Second, in your analogy, the straight to teaching candidate is getting very similar "training" to the teacher sitting out.  That person is learning about curriculum, how students learn, etc. too. 

And the teacher in college actually has an advantage.  He's getting an opportunity to practice his craft while the teacher sitting has year-long laryngitis and doesn't get to practice.

Who does better when they teach?  In the end, the one that is better prepared, sharper, and more talented, and in a better situation.  Lots of variables that just sitting on the bench and watching from the sidelines.

[tazzmaniac]

There's no jealousy on my behalf, I can promise you that.  You can choose to believe that or not, I'm not concerned one way or the other what you choose to believe about my motivations.  I'm not even really concerned that much with the ROY award.  It's just not that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

For the record, though, I've always held this opinion.  I don't care if you got hurt in your rookie year and didn't get to play, too bad.  Life isn't all rainbows and lollipops.  It's basically like giving a guy a do-over.   Your rookie year amounted to nothing and you didn't help the team, so you shouldn't be given a do-over when it comes to consideration for the ROY award.

If other people view it differently, that's fine.  As I said, the ROY award really isn't a big deal anyway.  I was just giving my opinion.

Sorry, I don't mean just you personally. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter of how to define "rookie".

It's more the context of Simmons > Tatum and the conspiracy element that makes the whole thread feel like sour grapes. I disagree somewhat with a lot of rules, but also don't think the status quo needs to be challenged whenever my team loses out. Imagine if Tatum had Hayward's injury this year? I think almost everyone would be fine with calling him a rookie next year.

There’s little doubt that this is the driving force for this thread.  Without looking, I’m betting you find this thread on the Utah board.  Doubt you’ll find it on the philly board.

As for me, don’t change the rule.  Every league defines it as playing and there’s nothing wrong with that.  It’s the cleaning way to do it.  I mean, if you’re going to complain about unfair advantages, it gets slippery.  Most rookies are older they jayson.  Should we take that into account too. 

It is what it is.  And it’s fine.

I absolutely didn't think to start this thread with the thought that Tatum should be ROY over Simmons. And I don't think anybody else here thinks that is the case either. If nothing else, Mitchell is clearly ahead of Tatum. I think most would agree that Simmons is the best 'rookie' this year, it's just that opinions vary on what really constitutes being a 'rookie' and I thought it would be a fun topic since the debate started being discussed in another thread.

While I tend to believe that a player's rookie year should [at least] begin on the first year of his rookie contract, I also believe there ways to address the issue, like putting off the start of a rookie contract due to injury and requiring a certain number of minutes or games played. This designation could also be useful in bringing players up from the G-League without it counting as a player's rookie year.

Putting off the start of a rookie contract isn't ever going to happen.  That will cost players money. 

Seems to me NBA players would be the best judge of what "being a NBA rookie" should be based on and to my knowledge they've made no attempt to get the eligibility rule changed. 

[jambr380]

Topic is not new, has been discussed here, and many other places this year.  There is one reason for this;  Ben Simmons.  And Jayson was near enough to rookie of the year at times this year for resentment to build among celtic fans.

I didn't claim that it was new, but there hasn't been a topic devoted to it. You're right, Ben Simmons is the reason for this being a hot button issue, just as it was when Blake Griffin won in 2010-11. I don't know who you have been talking to, but the idea that Tatum ever had a chance to win the award is far-fetched at best. You do not understand the question if you are simply harping on the 'jealousy of Celtics fans argument.'

Why would people be talking about it so much now if they felt Tatum was being ripped off? He is a distant 3rd in the voting. It clearly isn't about Tatum.

[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?

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.

It sounds like you're saying Simmons shouldn't be eligible for rookie of the year because it's an unfair advantage to be around an NBA team for a year before playing. Is it not also an unfair advantage for Dario Saric to play professional basketball for years overseas and be older than someone drafted after one year of college in America? Why does one thing matter and the other doesn't?

Because the award isn’t for Global Professional Rookie of the Year, it’s NBA ROY. Ben Simmons collected a year of checks from an NBA franchise for a whole season, his first season, when he never played. Saric collected checks from a non-NBA entity. I am not merely saying being a pro for a year is an advantage. It is, but to me the contractual element is tied to the award. Also, you can’t tell me with a straight face that Euro leagues are like the NBA. The talent in all phases is worlds apart. I know multiple people that played pro in Europe (Jared Jordan from Marist being one) and I could survive on the court with them in my day. You think I could blend in with NBA players?

To use someone else’s analogy, let’s say I’m hired as a teacher right out of college, but I refuse to teach for my entire first year and just sit in and watch seasoned teachers teach, explore how curriculums are setup, see how different kids learn in different ways, understand how administration works and how to deal with parents, etc.

Now, after I do that for a year, bring in a college grad with no classroom or real world experience, and who is less promising of a candidate than I was when I came out of college, and have us each teach a class. The less effective teacher will be fired. Who do you think keeps their job? And why compare the two of us at all if the playing field is stacked so differently?

I never said that Euro leagues are the same as the NBA. But you can't tell me that Saric didn't benefit from playing professional basketball for years with professional coaching and training, all the while being in contact with the Sixers, or that he didn't benefit from being older than other rookies.

There are countless ways players could have a leg up on the competition for ROY that could be thought of as "unfair". As I said before, the children of NBA players are going to have advantages that many other rookies don't. But you're not going to disqualify them for the award.

So if it's not about Simmons and Griffin getting an unfair benefit, then what is the problem? That they're receiving a paycheck form the NBA? Is that really it? Why does that matter? And would it matter if they were receiving a paycheck from the NBA but only playing in the D-League? Or what if there was a system where a player could get an NBA paycheck but stay in college?

It doesn't seem like there's a consistent point of view, here. It sounds more like there's a thing you don't like but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be changed. And I don't mean specifically you, obviously there are lots in this thread who feel the same.

[BringToughnessBack]

I definitely don't have any jealousy on this matter and actually don't think Tatum is the ROY either- I do feel that when you sign a contract, that is your first year if you are with that team no matter if you play or are injured the entire year. If Tatum was injured all year(god forbid!), his rookie year is still this year. I feel if you sign a contract, and go overseas, that is still your first year. Rookie after ink dries.

By the way, I really could care less about the award. I would love to have Simmons or Mitchell join Tatum on our team any day of the week! They are all great talents with amazing futures in front of them. Of course when all is said and done though, Tatum will have more rings 

[Ogaju]

It's a nonissue really...any player that signs a rookie contract is a rookie

[bdm860]

Is anybody willing to attempt to quantify this huge benefit Simmons got by sitting out a year (which doesn't have to do with him just being a year older/stronger/more mature)?

Simmons is averaging 16/8/8 with a PER of 20 after sitting out a year.  If he instead stayed another year at LSU and got taken by Philly in 2017, do you really think he's not putting up practically identical numbers?  What would Simmons stats be now had he just come out a year later (assuming still on Philly)?  That year off really improved his game so much to the point of being unfair?

Sure, he may be putting up better numbers than he would have last year, but that's the difference between being 20 and 21 and Philly being an all around better team this year, not the year off with access to Philly's full staff.  Not saying it's not beneficial, but the impact of it is probably so minimal.  Guys like Justice Winslow, Dante Exum, Jabari Parker sat out huge portions of their rookie contracts, didn't seem to improve their game when they came back.  I'm actually trying to think of an example where a guy missed most or all of a season and actually came back better (hopefully Hayward 2019  ), they usually come back the about the same or worse (unless you attribute normal growth and development to that missed year).

So what would Simmons stats be now had he just come out a year later?

[Ogaju]

It doesn't matter...it's not his first year in NBA he is not a rookie.
'Has anyone even bothered to look up the definition of rookie in the dictionary?