ESPN is trolling again

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I think they are being contrarian because they think it makes them look smart, and/or to get attention and/or because they think Davis will have the bigger impact IN THE FUTURE, and they think it will make them look smart. The thing is, it isn't the "who will be better in the future" award. It's the rookie of this year award. Douche bags.
 
It makes you wonder what happened to him though. His numbers have steadily declined every year since. He's nowhere near as effective, which is weird because usually Chris Paul inflates the stats of his teammates.

Cause he sucks
 
Ric Bucher said:
With the rookie wall and adjusting to NBA rigors part of the challenge of being a first-year player, I considered disqualifying Anthony Davis, Bradley Beal, Dion Waiters and Andre Drummond from consideration. Anyone raving about Davis' statistics without acknowledging the huge advantage in making only 64 appearances is ignoring the impact of going from playing 30-some games against boys vs. 82 vs. men for the first time. Ultimately, I decided not to eliminate Davis, Waiters et. al from consideration because it opened up another question: What do you make the minimum? Eighty percent of the season or more? Seventy-five percent? Or should the baseline depend purely on minutes, not appearances? I suppose if some of the supporting players who didn't miss significant time -- Harrison Barnes, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Kyle Singler -- had had more of an impact, it might've shifted my thinking. My ballot: 1. Damian Lillard 2. Anthony Davis 3. Bradley Beal. And if I'd had to fill out a ballot before the season started, those three names would've been on there -- conceivably in the same order, anticipating that Lillard would have the ball in his hands a lot and thereby inherently have the chance to make a bigger impact.
http://sulia.com/channel/basketball/f/cd8eb76d-c6da-44de-b8ef-8fc29b54b46c/?source=twitter
 
It makes you wonder what happened to him though. His numbers have steadily declined every year since. He's nowhere near as effective, which is weird because usually Chris Paul inflates the stats of his teammates.

His raw stats are worse but his advanced stats are very much the same.
 
Are you joking, or did you actually just butcher the Schonz? Everyone knows that it's bango before bongo.

Hm...not sure how I can explain that one
 
The Lillard Lesson

The best argument for underclass players staying in college for more preparation is the fact that you can mention Damian Lillard and LeBron James in the same sentence. No, not that you can compare Lillard's game to LeBron's, but you can write this perfectly acceptable sentence: LeBron James for MVP and Damian Lillard for rookie of the year are the two easiest choices for this year's NBA awards.

I thought so too...guess some just like to make it hard.

5NTAIaP.png
 
I am a HUGE Lillard homer but if Davis had been a key component or led, and led is the key word here, the Hornets to the playoffs I would highly highly consider Davis as ROY. But he didnt. Not even close. So for as great as people say his numbers are they really didnt do a whole lot for the Hornets. Lillard has record breaking numbers and was a key component and competing for a playoff spot. And I am still waiting for the list of record breaking ROOKIE records and achievements for Davis. Lillard didnt just have a great rookie year he had one of the best rookie years in the last 20-30 years. SMH
 
His raw stats are worse but his advanced stats are very much the same.

Correct, offensively he might even be slightly better, although his rebound rate is somewhat lower.

People are too focused on the raw, per-game numbers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top