Stein: Chatter Circulating About The Spurs' Attempts To "Barge" Their Way Into Simmons Sweepstakes

[Seventyniner]

Basketball is a team sport, a mental sport, a cohesiveness and camaraderie and continuity sport.

That and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Talent is what drives this league. MJ himself is the biggest contra-indicator for your argument, Kobe/Shaq weren't much better, and LeBron is no paragon of cohesiveness himself. Camraderie is nice, and is certainly better than its lack, but I hardly view it as necessary to be a good team.

If team success was as linear as your argument implies, sure, there'd be no problem gutting the current roster to get BS, having him lead us to the first round where he'll face the inevitable wall and shrink, and try that for a couple years before shipping him out to X location and bringing in another star to carry us the rest of the way to a chip.

I don't think you can extrapolate what Simmons has done in Philly to what he would do in SA. You act as if such playoff "shrinkage" is 100% inevitable and will never change, but I disagree: plenty of players have been viewed as playoff chokers until they aren't. This quote also carries the implicit assumption that the first round is the ceiling for the Spurs-with-Simmons. I disagree, again depending on what the Spurs have to give up.

But that's not how it works, is it? How many good, great teams had their peaks in the second round, WCF, or even Finals, only to be derailed or disbanded and never getting back to that success again?

I would trade the Spurs' current situation for that of one of these teams in an instant. Simmons doesn't necessarily get them there, but he would be a large step towards it. Talent trumps all, and Simmons has plenty of it.

, these Sixers could very well be a poster boy of that - a Nephew shot away from the Finals, and it's all been downhill ever since. And a big part, not all of it of course, but a big part of that downfall has been due to BS himself. Even his own coach couldn't lie through his teeth and tell the media he can be a championship contending PG. Doc was stupid to say what he did, but it's the truthness of his statement that made it so controversial, not how wrong it was. The writing's on the wall, and everyone's read it.

See above re: extrapolation. And what Doc Rivers said was an opinion, not a fact, so it can't be classified as true or false. Damon Stoudamire said no team with Avery Johnson as the PG would ever win a championship, and it happened that very season.

So, in an imaginary vaccuum, you could say get Simmons now, let him carry the team, worry about his flaws later. But this is reality. And the reality is the Spurs, once faced with the same wall Philly faced last year, will not have the big market draw, the deep pockets, the marketability to simply replace Simmons with a "true star" that'll do what Benny boy can't and won't ever be able to do. If a team like the Spurs doesn't get their #1 option from within (and no, this doesn't mean exclusively through the draft, but it does mean developing the star from the ground up), they'll never get it from outside.

I don't want Simmons to flip him for true star later. I want him to pair with said star to make a le push.

I especially disagree with your last sentence. I don't think the Spurs trading for a #1 option, or signing one as a free agent, is impossible at all. I'll give you unlikely, but not impossible.

So you see where Philly is - they already have their MVP-level two-way player, a sufficient #3 guy, and an adequate cast of roleplayers. They literally are in the perfect position for Simmons to thrive - yet they're actively, violently trying to get rid of them. Why on Earth do you think the Spurs could do better, given their assets, to put a successful team around BS -- and more importantly, why do you think Simmons would be interested in staying in SA at all, while we rebuild the team to his needs?

As you said, Philly was a lucky bounce away from having a great shot at the le in 2019. That doesn't speak against them at all. Not succeeding doesn't mean that success was impossible, or that it would be impossible in the future.

Philly, in terms of fanbase and ownership, is basically a show. They wildly overpaid Tobias Harris and can't (or at least won't) keep their drama in-house. I absolutely think the Spurs can do better, at least in terms of being smart about handing out contracts and managing the media.

Simmons is under contract for 4 more years anyway. I'm not worried at all about him leaving in free agency because there are far too many things that can happen between now and 2025 that will make a much bigger impact.

No, it's not the "no Simmons at any cost" camp that's hard to understand, tbh. And especially so given his recent antics. What a ing diva, and the worst kind - unable to back it up on the court when it matters.

The "no Simmons at any cost" camp is hard for me to understand. Of course it isn't hard for you, because you're in it.

We come to different conclusions because we make different assumptions. It looks like you think Simmons will always choke in the playoffs and will never be worth his salary. I think he has enough talent that, while not being capable of carrying a team to a le like a true superstar, can still be a solid #2/#3 guy on a contender. I don't think a wall of text on the part of either of us will convince the other at this point, though.

[R. DeMurre]

But I can't quite understand the "don't want Simmons at any cost" camp.

I think there's no question that he'll add wins to an average team-- like an Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, Carmelo Anthony-- but for me he's also likely the main reason you can't/don't win a championship. Also, his VORP and BPM have gone steadily down in his four years, which is really unusual, and might indicate that opposing coaches and defenses have figured him out to a certain extent and he hasn't had the ability (or desire?) to adjust to their adjustments.

Simply put, this is the reason I feel that way. The best year the 76ers had occurred when Jimmy Butler took control and Simmons became the #3 guy, surrounded by pretty good role players & shooters, and that still wasn't enough. And then Jimmy Butler left, complaining of Ben's "mental make up."
I know the Spurs are far from championship contention now, but I just don't think adding a guy I view as a Championship Stopper is the answer. There are 500+ other guys in the league to potentially take aim on, and they don't come with multiple red flags attached.

[FutureMan]

Phoenix would instantly no longer be championship contenders.

Phoenix was a contender last year. Let’s see how things go this year.

[tbdog]

Simply put, this is the reason I feel that way. The best year the 76ers had occurred when Jimmy Butler took control and Simmons became the #3 guy, surrounded by pretty good role players & shooters, and that still wasn't enough. And then Jimmy Butler left, complaining of Ben's "mental make up."
I know the Spurs are far from championship contention now, but I just don't think adding a guy I view as a Championship Stopper is the answer. There are 500+ other guys in the league to potentially take aim on, and they don't come with multiple red flags attached.

500? Bull . Maybe 20.

[R. DeMurre]

500? Bull . Maybe 20.

I just meant that as generically the amount of guys in the NBA.

[tbdog]

I just meant that as generically the amount of guys in the NBA.

I don't know what that even means. Are you saying there are 500 players the spurs could obtain and develop into a simmons without the red flags?

[R. DeMurre]

I don't know what that even means. Are you saying there are 500 players the spurs could obtain and develop into a simmons without the red flags?

No, not at all. I just meant that the Spurs can look at all of the other players in the NBA (500+ is approximately how many players there are at any given time) rather than pursuing Simmons simply because he's available. No, I don't think there are 500 players better than him. I would say a lot more than 20 though.

[tbdog]

No, not at all. I just meant that the Spurs can look at all of the other players in the NBA (500+ is approximately how many players there are at any given time) rather than pursuing Simmons simply because he's available. No, I don't think there are 500 players better than him. I would say a lot more than 20 though.

But a really good player is available. I would say it'll be hard to find 30 better players though.

[Mr. Body]

That and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Talent is what drives this league. MJ himself is the biggest contra-indicator for your argument, Kobe/Shaq weren't much better, and LeBron is no paragon of cohesiveness himself. Camraderie is nice, and is certainly better than its lack, but I hardly view it as necessary to be a good team.



I don't think you can extrapolate what Simmons has done in Philly to what he would do in SA. You act as if such playoff "shrinkage" is 100% inevitable and will never change, but I disagree: plenty of players have been viewed as playoff chokers until they aren't. This quote also carries the implicit assumption that the first round is the ceiling for the Spurs-with-Simmons. I disagree, again depending on what the Spurs have to give up.



I would trade the Spurs' current situation for that of one of these teams in an instant. Simmons doesn't necessarily get them there, but he would be a large step towards it. Talent trumps all, and Simmons has plenty of it.



See above re: extrapolation. And what Doc Rivers said was an opinion, not a fact, so it can't be classified as true or false. Damon Stoudamire said no team with Avery Johnson as the PG would ever win a championship, and it happened that very season.



I don't want Simmons to flip him for true star later. I want him to pair with said star to make a le push.

I especially disagree with your last sentence. I don't think the Spurs trading for a #1 option, or signing one as a free agent, is impossible at all. I'll give you unlikely, but not impossible.



As you said, Philly was a lucky bounce away from having a great shot at the le in 2019. That doesn't speak against them at all. Not succeeding doesn't mean that success was impossible, or that it would be impossible in the future.

Philly, in terms of fanbase and ownership, is basically a show. They wildly overpaid Tobias Harris and can't (or at least won't) keep their drama in-house. I absolutely think the Spurs can do better, at least in terms of being smart about handing out contracts and managing the media.

Simmons is under contract for 4 more years anyway. I'm not worried at all about him leaving in free agency because there are far too many things that can happen between now and 2025 that will make a much bigger impact.



The "no Simmons at any cost" camp is hard for me to understand. Of course it isn't hard for you, because you're in it.

We come to different conclusions because we make different assumptions. It looks like you think Simmons will always choke in the playoffs and will never be worth his salary. I think he has enough talent that, while not being capable of carrying a team to a le like a true superstar, can still be a solid #2/#3 guy on a contender. I don't think a wall of text on the part of either of us will convince the other at this point, though.

I'm amazed at this kind of thinking, which seems to have infected American culture in many ways these last five years or so. It's pretty astonishing to me:

"Because [thing] has never happened, that proves [thing] will definitely happen."

You see it with QAnon, with Trumpers, with all sorts of , and I don't get it. Are there brain worms floating around? Has ty media rotted our brains completely? I truly want to understand how this fanciful, magical thinking about the stupidest topics has happened. "Ben Simmons is going to be great at San Antonio in precisely the ways he was terrible at Philadelphia."

Can you explain to me why this absurd fallacy has become so common?

[Chinook]

Bod, you've got to narrow your question down a bit.

[Seventyniner]

I'm amazed at this kind of thinking, which seems to have infected American culture in many ways these last five years or so. It's pretty astonishing to me:

"Because [thing] has never happened, that proves [thing] will definitely happen."

You see it with QAnon, with Trumpers, with all sorts of , and I don't get it. Are there brain worms floating around? Has ty media rotted our brains completely? I truly want to understand how this fanciful, magical thinking about the stupidest topics has happened. "Ben Simmons is going to be great at San Antonio in precisely the ways he was terrible at Philadelphia."

Can you explain to me why this absurd fallacy has become so common?

First, Simmons has not been close to terrible in Philly. Underwhelming compared to his draft status, salary, and expectations? Perhaps. But a career 0.156 WS/48 (very good) along with an All-NBA nod and two All-Defensive first team selections are far, far better than "just a guy", let alone "terrible".

Second, me saying that Simmons's lack of playoff success, at least relative expectations, not necessarily being indicative of the future only applies to this situation, not to all situations ever. You have taken this thread and run a mile further than I intended to take it.

You have completely misconstrued my position here. I said "Even though [thing] has never happened, [thing] could happen in the future." I never said anything that could be taken as "will definitely".

[R. DeMurre]

But a really good player is available. I would say it'll be hard to find 30 better players though.

But again, few of those 30 have proven to be successful targets of opposing defenses in the playoffs like Simmons has. It's fine-- we disagree. I get why some people like him, but he's just not a guy I'd target. I think his flaws combined with his at ude are too fatal to be overcome.

[R. DeMurre]

First, Simmons has not been close to terrible in Philly. Underwhelming compared to his draft status, salary, and expectations? Perhaps. But a career 0.156 WS/48 (very good) along with an All-NBA nod and two All-Defensive first team selections are far, far better than "just a guy", let alone "terrible".

Second, me saying that Simmons's lack of playoff success, at least relative expectations, not necessarily being indicative of the future only applies to this situation, not to all situations ever. You have taken this thread and run a mile further than I intended to take it.

But aren't you cherry picking those stats? The scary thing about Simmons is that many of his advanced have gotten progressively worse 4 years running. His WS, OBPM, BPM, and VORP have all gone down in each of his 4 years in the league. That's incredibly rare for a star player.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...simmobe01.html

[Seventyniner]

But aren't you cherry picking those stats? The scary thing about Simmons is that many of his advanced have gotten progressively worse 4 years running. His WS, OBPM, BPM, and VORP have all gone down in each of his 4 years in the league. That's incredibly rare for a star player.

https://www.basketball-reference.com...simmobe01.html

I think WS/48 is a better indicator than the ones you mentioned because it's a per-minute stat, while WS/OBPM/BPM/VORP are total stats. Take into account how many minutes he has played each season: 2700/2700/2000/1900.

Saying that he hasn't improved, using those stats as an argument, is defensible. Saying that he has gotten worse isn't.

[Dejounte]

WS/48 is such a flawed stat to use when you start to look deeper and realize that good players on bad teams have below average WS/48, then when the team gets good, it rises. Such a stupid stat to place all your bets in.

[Dejounte]

Devin Booker. First four seasons. Below .100 WS/400. Next two seasons, it’s above… hmm, wonder why? Because he has a ing better team. Guess he’s a terrible player and nowhere in Ben Simmons’ league.

[Dejounte]

Ja Morant. Two seasons in the NBA. Below .100 WS/48. Guess he’s a ing terrible player.

[Dejounte]

Bradley Beal. First four seasons. Below .100 WS/40. Guess he’s ing hopeless and has no future aside from becoming a role player in the NBA. Oh wait…

[Dejounte]

DeMar DeRozan had five of his first six seasons with below 0.100 WS/40 but DeMar’s biggest supporter on here will go and trash Murray for doing the same thing AND actually use the stat against Murray.

[Dejounte]

Khris Middleton. Began 3 out of 5 seasons with below 0.100 WS/40. SCRUB. Jrue Holiday. Majority of his career he’s been below 0.100 WS/40. Not a championship PG. didn’t do jack squat for USA Basketball. Amiright?

[tbdog]

Ja Morant. Two seasons in the NBA. Below .100 WS/48. Guess he’s a ing terrible player.

You know what. I don't see Morant as the number one option going forward. Good player but what other allstar is looking at Memphis right now and saying that they want to join him.

[TimDunkem]

^Holy let him play a few years first.

[Seventyniner]

WS/48 is such a flawed stat to use when you start to look deeper and realize that good players on bad teams have below average WS/48, then when the team gets good, it rises. Such a stupid stat to place all your bets in.

You're doing this wrong. If you're trying to prove that WS/48 is not a useful stat for gauging Ben Simmons, you need to find players with high WS/48 and are bad, not those with low WS/48 and are good.

And I would take Simmons over just about every player you mentioned. Maybe not Booker, but Booker's archetype is much easier to find.

[Dejounte]

You're doing this wrong. If you're trying to prove that WS/48 is not a useful stat for gauging Ben Simmons, you need to find players with high WS/48 that are bad, not those with low WS/48 who are good.

I knew this was the next response, that’s why I’m prepared.

First up:

Michael Porter Jr. Comparable WS/48 to Ben. Denver just gave the bag to this scrub. Let’s build around this idiot. NAH!

[Dejounte]

Serge Ibaka. IDENTICAL first five seasons WS/40 to Ben. Let’s build around him after his fifth season, and pay him the max. LMFAO.