football scores today

I remember sitting in my living room back in 2018, watching the NBA season unfold with that particular excitement that only comes when you know you're witnessing something special. As someone who's been covering basketball for over a decade, I've seen my share of remarkable rookie seasons, but what Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell accomplished that year was something entirely different. The 2018 NBA Rookie of the Year race wasn't just about individual brilliance—it became a historic debate that challenged our very definition of what constitutes a "rookie" season and ultimately reshaped how we evaluate young talent in the league.

The controversy began when Ben Simmons, after missing what would have been his actual rookie season due to injury, returned to dominate the court with a versatility we rarely see in first-year players. I still recall arguing with colleagues about whether he should even be eligible for the award, given he'd spent a full year practicing with the team and learning the NBA system. Meanwhile, Donovan Mitchell was putting on a scoring clinic that reminded many of a young Dwyane Wade, dropping 20.5 points per game and leading the Jazz to unexpected heights. The statistical comparison was fascinating—Simmons averaged 15.8 points, 8.1 rebounds, and 8.2 assists, nearly joining Oscar Robertson as the only rookies to average a triple-double, while Mitchell's scoring explosions included three 40-point games, something no rookie had done since Allen Iverson.

What made this situation particularly interesting to me was how it mirrored some of the dynamics I've observed in developmental leagues and international competitions. I'm reminded of two exciting games I covered at Ynares Center in Antipolo where similar debates emerged about player eligibility and development timelines. In those games, we saw how extended exposure to professional systems—even without official game time—could accelerate a player's readiness in ways that traditional metrics couldn't capture. The takeaways from those games at Ynares Center demonstrated that basketball development isn't always linear, and sometimes the most prepared "rookies" are those who've had time to mature within professional environments without the pressure of official competition.

The heart of the problem with the 2018 ROY debate, in my view, wasn't just about Simmons' eligibility—it was about how we measure development versus immediate impact. Mitchell represented the traditional rookie trajectory: draft, summer league, training camp, then immediate contribution. Simmons followed what I'd call the "redshirt professional" path that's becoming more common with injured top picks. Having spoken with several front office executives about this, I've come to understand that teams are increasingly viewing a player's first professional year—regardless of whether they play—as their true adaptation period. The solution to this classification dilemma might be to create clearer definitions, but personally, I think the ambiguity makes for better basketball conversations. The league eventually ruled Simmons eligible, and he won the award with 90 first-place votes to Mitchell's 11, but the debate raged on through the playoffs and into the offseason.

Looking back, the historic nature of that race extends beyond the eligibility question. It represented a shift in how teams develop franchise players and how voters evaluate different developmental paths. The 2018 class has produced multiple All-Stars, something that hasn't happened since the legendary 2003 draft featuring LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Carmelo Anthony. What I find most compelling, and what makes this award historically significant, is how it forced us to reconsider our definition of rookie readiness. The traditional one-and-done college player versus the professionally incubated talent—both have merit, but they create fundamentally different evaluation challenges. In my conversations with scouts since then, many have admitted they now place greater emphasis on a player's entire professional journey rather than just their first official games.

The implications of that season continue to ripple through the league today. We're seeing more teams take the "Simmons approach" with injured high picks, using what would have been their rookie years as extended development periods. The success of players like Blake Griffin and Joel Embiid following similar paths has created a new developmental model that challenges conventional wisdom. From my perspective, this has made rookie evaluations more complex but ultimately more interesting. The 2018 Rookie of the Year debate wasn't just about who deserved an award—it was a watershed moment that changed how we think about player development timelines and the very nature of what makes a rookie season successful. And if you ask me who really deserved it? I'm still not sure I have a definitive answer, and maybe that's what makes it such a fascinating chapter in NBA history.