Table of Contents
I. The Unforeseen Race: How a Preseason Favorite’s Injury Created a Historically Contentious Rookie of the Year Contest
The 2016-17 NBA Rookie of the Year race was never supposed to be a competition.
In the months leading up to the season, a consensus had formed around a singular, transcendent talent.
Ben Simmons, the Philadelphia 76ers’ number one overall pick from LSU, was not just the favorite; he was viewed as the preordained winner.
His combination of size, court vision, and playmaking ability at the forward position drew comparisons to all-time greats, and the betting markets reflected this certainty.
Simmons was installed as a +130 favorite, a figure that made him one of the most heavily favored preseason Rookie of the Year candidates in recent memory, rivaling the hype that once surrounded John Wall and Blake Griffin.
The odds were so skewed that some sportsbooks offered a unique proposition: a wager on Simmons versus the entire field of his fellow rookies.
This narrative of a one-man race was shattered before a single regular-season game was played.
During the 76ers’ final preseason training camp scrimmage, Simmons suffered a fracture of the fifth metatarsal bone in his right foot, an injury that would ultimately sideline him for the entire season.
The injury created a massive power vacuum.
The player expected to dominate the rookie landscape was gone, and the race for the Eddie Gottlieb Trophy was suddenly, unexpectedly, wide open.
In the immediate aftermath of Simmons’ injury, a new favorite was hastily crowned.
Kris Dunn, a polished point guard selected fifth overall by the Minnesota Timberwolves, was seen by many as the next logical choice.
Oddsmakers quickly adjusted, installing Dunn as the frontrunner.
However, as the season began, it became clear that the race would be far more volatile.
A new, unexpected force emerged from within the 76ers’ own ranks: Joel Embiid.
After sitting out his first two NBA seasons with injuries, the third overall pick from the 2014 draft finally made his debut and was nothing short of sensational.
His immediate and overwhelming impact captivated the league.
A preseason longshot with odds as high as +1200, Embiid rapidly became the prohibitive favorite.
A panel of five experts at CBS Sports unanimously predicted he would win the award before the season tipped off, sensing his potential despite the injury history.
By January, his betting odds had skyrocketed to an astonishing -2500, signifying a near-certainty.
The season’s narrative arc, as told by the league’s own monthly awards, illustrates this dramatic shift in momentum and the subsequent chaos that defined the race.
| Month | Eastern Conference Winner | Western Conference Winner |
| Oct/Nov | Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers | Jamal Murray, Denver Nuggets |
| December | Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers | Buddy Hield, Sacramento Kings |
| January | Joel Embiid, Philadelphia 76ers | Yogi Ferrell, Dallas Mavericks |
| February | Dario Šarić, Philadelphia 76ers | Buddy Hield, Sacramento Kings |
| March | Dario Šarić, Philadelphia 76ers | Tyler Ulis, Phoenix Suns |
| April | N/A | N/A |
Source: Data compiled from S16, S20.
As the table demonstrates, the race unfolded in distinct phases.
The first half of the season was the “Embiid Dominance Phase,” as he swept the first three Eastern Conference Rookie of the Month awards.
But just as he had reached the zenith of his hype, injury struck again, sidelining him for the remainder of the season.
This opened the door for his teammate, Dario Šarić, who seized the opportunity and won the award for February and March, establishing himself as the new frontrunner in the season’s final stretch.
Lost in the shuffle of these dramatic momentum swings was Malcolm Brogdon.
The Milwaukee Bucks guard never won a single Rookie of the Month award.
He was never the betting favorite.
Yet, it was Brogdon who would ultimately stand victorious.
His win was not the result of a season-long campaign as the top candidate, but rather a triumph of steady, unflappable consistency in a field where every other major contender was felled by a catastrophic flaw.
The 2016-17 Rookie of the Year contest became a war of attrition, a process of elimination where the frontrunners kept falling, leaving the most durable, well-rounded, and unimpeachable candidate standing at the end.
Brogdon did not win the race in a traditional sense; he outlasted it.
II. The Case of Transcendent Talent vs. Temporal Scarcity: Analyzing Joel Embiid’s Dominant 31-Game Campaign
The argument for Joel Embiid as the 2016-17 Rookie of the Year was a study in profound, undeniable, and ultimately fleeting brilliance.
When he was on the court, Embiid was not merely the best rookie in his class; he was, on a per-minute basis, one of the most dominant and impactful players in the entire NBA.
His candidacy forced voters to confront a fundamental philosophical question: does a brief, supernova-like burst of greatness outweigh a full season of solid, sustained contribution?
Unprecedented Per-Game Dominance
Embiid’s statistical output was staggering, especially considering he was operating under a strict minutes restriction.
In an average of just 25.4 minutes per game, he posted an incredible line of 20.2 points, 7.8 rebounds, 2.1 assists, and a league-leading 2.5 blocks among rookies.
He was the undisputed leader of the rookie class in points, rebounds, and blocks per game, making the statistical comparison with his peers appear almost lopsided.
His impact went far beyond raw numbers.
The entire Philadelphia 76ers offense was architected around him, a fact borne out by his astronomical usage rate of 36.3%.
This figure, which measures the percentage of a team’s offensive plays a player is involved in, was not only 11 points higher than any other rookie but was also the third-highest in the entire league, trailing only MVP winner Russell Westbrook and perennial All-Star DeMarcus Cousins.
He was, in essence, a rookie playing with the offensive responsibility of a seasoned superstar.
The argument for his candidacy was best captured by a popular analogy at the time: Anthony Hopkins won an Academy Award for Best Actor for his role in The Silence of the Lambs despite appearing on screen for only 16 minutes.
The pro-Embiid camp argued that his 31 games of transcendent basketball were more valuable and more memorable than 82 games of mediocrity from anyone else.
The Achilles’ Heel: Availability
For all its brilliance, the case for Embiid was built on a foundation of sand.
It was a spectacular but fragile argument that collapsed under the weight of a single, damning number: 31.
Embiid played in just 31 of a possible 82 games.
A torn meniscus in his left knee, suffered in late January, ultimately ended his season, causing him to miss 40 of the team’s final 41 contests.
The scarcity of his appearances was stark.
In total, he logged just 786 minutes on the court for the entire season.
For a team that played 3,966 total minutes, this meant Embiid participated in a mere 15.8% of the 76ers’ season.
This became the central, inescapable conflict of the entire Rookie of the Year debate.
It forced every voter into a philosophical corner.
Could a player who was present for less than 38% of his team’s games and less than 16% of their total minutes truly be worthy of a full-season award? As one analyst bluntly put it, there is a “bare minimum of showing up,” and “you can’t give the dude an A for showing up for a third of the season,” regardless of how spectacular that third was.
Embiid’s candidacy, therefore, became a referendum on the very definition of the award.
It pitted the concept of “Most Outstanding Rookie” against “Rookie of the Year.” The final voting results would reveal a deeply fractured electorate on this issue.
While a significant portion of voters—the 23 who cast first-place ballots for him—believed his peak talent did indeed outweigh the missed time, the vast majority did not.
His limited availability was a flaw too great to overcome, transforming the most talented rookie in a generation from a sure-fire winner into a historical “what if.”
III. The Case of Steadfast Volume on a Losing Squad: Evaluating Dario Šarić’s Season of Endurance
As Joel Embiid’s spectacular campaign was cut short by injury, his Philadelphia 76ers teammate, Dario Šarić, stepped into the void.
The Croatian forward’s Rookie of the Year case was the mirror opposite of Embiid’s: it was not built on transcendent, per-minute brilliance, but on steadfast endurance, raw volume, and a compelling narrative of a player shouldering an unexpected burden.
Yet, for all its strengths, his candidacy was ultimately undermined by glaring inefficiency and the inescapable context of playing for a losing team.
The Workhorse: Availability and Volume
Šarić’s greatest asset was his constant presence.
He appeared in 81 of the team’s 82 games, logging a total of 2,129 minutes, the second-most by any rookie.
In a race defined by injuries to top contenders, his durability was a significant differentiator.
This availability allowed him to accumulate impressive counting stats.
He finished second among all rookies in scoring with 12.8 points per game and third in rebounding with 6.3 per game.
More importantly, he led all rookies in total production.
He was the only first-year player to surpass the 1,000-point threshold for the season, finishing with a rookie-best 1,040 total points.
He also led the class in total rebounds with 513.
After the All-Star break, with Embiid permanently sidelined, Šarić elevated his game significantly, averaging 17.3 points and 7.3 rebounds per game as the team’s primary offensive option.
This created a powerful narrative of a player stepping up when his team needed him most, a story arc that resonated with many observers and earned him the Eastern Conference Rookie of the Month awards for both February and March.
The Counterargument: Inefficiency and “Empty Calories”
While Šarić’s volume was undeniable, the efficiency with which he produced those numbers was highly questionable.
His case was plagued by the classic “good stats, bad team” stigma.
He shot a meager 41.1% from the field and an even poorer 31.1% from three-point range.
His True Shooting Percentage (TS%), a metric that accounts for the value of three-pointers and free throws, was just 50.8%, a subpar figure for a high-volume scorer.
Advanced analytics painted an even bleaker picture of his overall impact.
His Win Share (WS), a metric that estimates a player’s contribution to their team’s wins, was a paltry 1.0 for the entire season.
To put that in perspective, his primary competitor, Malcolm Brogdon, posted a WS of 4.1.
Some analyses went even further, noting that the 76ers, a team that won only 28 games, were actually statistically worse when Šarić was on the floor, according to simple plus-minus and more complex on/off ratings.
Critics argued that his numbers were “empty calories”—inflated by the high usage rate afforded to him on a non-competitive team where someone had to take the shots.
This combination of factors created a fatal weakness in his candidacy.
Furthermore, the presence of two legitimate, albeit very different, Rookie of the Year candidates on the same losing team created a vote-splitting scenario that proved disastrous for both 76ers and directly benefited Brogdon.
Voters who were sympathetic to the “Trust the Process” narrative were forced to choose between Embiid’s peak talent and Šarić’s sustained volume.
The final voting results show that 36 voters cast a first-place vote for a 76ers player (23 for Embiid, 13 for Šarić).
While even a consolidated vote would not have surpassed Brogdon’s 64 first-place ballots, the division of support was critical in the second and third-place voting.
The 83 second-place votes cast for the two Philadelphia rookies were split, preventing either from building the consensus needed to challenge Brogdon.
In essence, Brogdon did not just face two competitors; he faced a fractured opposition, making him a much cleaner and simpler choice for voters seeking a viable alternative.
IV. The President’s Winning Platform: Deconstructing Malcolm Brogdon’s Campaign of Efficiency, Maturity, and Contribution
While the campaigns of Joel Embiid and Dario Šarić were defined by spectacular highs and debilitating lows, Malcolm Brogdon’s path to the Rookie of the Year award was one of remarkable and unwavering consistency.
Nicknamed “The President” for his mature demeanor and cerebral approach to the game, Brogdon presented a case to voters that was built not on overwhelming volume or singular moments of brilliance, but on a foundation of elite efficiency, well-rounded contribution, and, most importantly, a tangible impact on winning.
His candidacy was the most complete and least flawed in a field of compromised contenders.
The Bedrock of Efficiency
In a year where his main competitor for a full season’s work, Dario Šarić, struggled with inefficiency, Brogdon’s effectiveness stood in stark relief.
While his scoring average of 10.2 points per game was modest—and would ultimately be the lowest for any Rookie of the Year winner in NBA history—the manner in which he scored was exceptional.
He posted pristine shooting splits of 45.7% from the field, a blistering 40.4% from three-point range, and 86.5% from the free-throw line.
His proficiency from beyond the arc was particularly noteworthy.
His 40.4% mark was second-best among all rookies and placed him in elite historical company.
Brogdon became one of only five rookies in the history of the NBA to shoot over 40% from three while averaging at least 4.0 assists per game, joining a prestigious list that includes Hall of Famer Larry Bird and future Hall of Famer Stephen Curry.
In an era increasingly dominated by analytics, Brogdon’s efficiency provided a clear, data-driven argument for the superiority of his offensive contributions.
His True Shooting Percentage of 55.5% dwarfed Šarić’s 50.8%, giving voters a quantitative reason to value his more measured offensive role.
The All-Around Contributor
Brogdon’s impact extended far beyond efficient scoring.
He established himself as the most complete and versatile guard in the rookie class.
He led all first-year players in both assists per game (4.2) and steals per game (1.1), demonstrating his ability to run an offense and disrupt the opposition’s.
His playmaking prowess was highlighted on December 31, 2016, when he recorded 15 points, 12 assists, and 11 rebounds against the Chicago Bulls, the only triple-double recorded by any rookie during the 2016-17 season.
His defensive contributions were equally significant.
A two-time ACC Defensive Player of the Year at the University of Virginia, Brogdon brought a level of defensive acumen and versatility rarely seen in a rookie.
He was often tasked with guarding the opponent’s top perimeter threat, adding another crucial, albeit less statistically visible, layer to his value.
While Embiid was the dominant interior force and Šarić was the volume-scoring forward, Brogdon was the steady, two-way player who filled every column of the box score.
The Ultimate Differentiator: Contribution to Winning
The single most powerful and persuasive element of Brogdon’s candidacy was its context.
His solid, efficient numbers were not accumulated in a vacuum or on a team playing out the string.
They were forged in the crucible of a playoff race.
Brogdon was an integral rotation player for a Milwaukee Bucks team that won 42 games and secured the 6th seed in a competitive Eastern Conference.
The 76ers, by contrast, finished the season with a 28-54 record.
This difference in team success was not merely correlational; advanced metrics suggested Brogdon was a direct cause.
His Win Share (WS) of 4.1 was more than four times that of Dario Šarić’s 1.0.
This provided a clear, analytical answer to the question of which rookie had a greater positive impact on team performance.
When the Bucks reached the postseason, Brogdon was thrust into the starting lineup for all six games against the Toronto Raptors, proving his mettle on the league’s biggest stage.
He scored 16 points in Milwaukee’s impressive Game 1 road victory, a performance that crystallized his role as a contributor to “meaningful basketball”.
The stark contrast between the candidates is best illustrated by a direct statistical comparison.
| Metric | Malcolm Brogdon (MIL) | Joel Embiid (PHI) | Dario Šarić (PHI) |
| Games Played | 75 | 31 | 81 |
| Minutes Per Game | 26.4 | 25.4 | 26.3 |
| Points Per Game | 10.2 | 20.2 | 12.8 |
| Rebounds Per Game | 2.8 | 7.8 | 6.3 |
| Assists Per Game | 4.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Steals Per Game | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| Blocks Per Game | 0.2 | 2.5 | 0.4 |
| Field Goal % | 45.7% | 46.6% | 41.1% |
| 3-Point % | 40.4% | 36.7% | 31.1% |
| True Shooting % | 55.5% | 58.4% | 50.8% |
| Win Shares | 4.1 | 2.6 | 1.0 |
| Team Record | 42-40 (Playoffs) | 28-54 (Lottery) | 28-54 (Lottery) |
Source: Data compiled from S7, S10, S12, S14, S18, S30, S31, B2.
This tale of the tape reveals why Brogdon ultimately prevailed.
While Embiid’s per-game numbers and efficiency were transcendent, his games played were a non-starter for most voters.
While Šarić offered volume and availability, his inefficiency and lack of team success were significant drawbacks.
Brogdon’s case, however, had no major holes.
He was available (75 games), highly efficient (40.4% 3P%), a multi-faceted contributor (led rookies in APG and SPG), and a key piece on a winning team (4.1 WS).
He represented the “path of least resistance” for voters, a candidate whose profile was solid, well-rounded, and unimpeachable on its own terms.
He was the safest, most logical, and most defensible choice in a field of high-risk alternatives.
V. Anatomy of a Vote: A Quantitative and Qualitative Breakdown of the Final Ballot
To fully understand why Malcolm Brogdon won the 2016-17 Rookie of the Year award, one must move beyond the on-court arguments and dissect the final voting results.
The numbers reveal the collective mindset of the 100-member media panel, exposing the competing philosophies at play and illustrating how Brogdon built a decisive coalition of support.
His victory was not just a reflection of his own strengths, but also of the deep divisions created by his competitors.
The final tally showed a clear, though not unanimous, victory for the Milwaukee Bucks guard.
| Player | Team | 1st Place Votes (5 pts) | 2nd Place Votes (3 pts) | 3rd Place Votes (1 pt) | Total Points |
| Malcolm Brogdon | MIL | 64 | 30 | 4 | 414 |
| Dario Šarić | PHI | 13 | 59 | 24 | 266 |
| Joel Embiid | PHI | 23 | 9 | 35 | 177 |
Source: Data compiled from S25, S26, S27.
Brogdon secured the award with 414 total points, comfortably ahead of Dario Šarić’s 266 and Joel Embiid’s 177.
The most critical number was his 64 first-place votes, representing a clear majority of the electorate who believed he was the most deserving candidate.
However, a deeper analysis of the vote distribution reveals several key patterns that explain the outcome.
Decoding the Ballots: Key Voting Patterns
1.
Embiid’s “All-or-Nothing” Candidacy: The most fascinating and telling pattern in the vote is Joel Embiid’s distribution.
He received 23 first-place votes—ten more than the second-place finisher, Šarić.
Yet, he finished a distant third in the overall standings.
This bizarre result indicates that voters who were captivated by his talent placed him at the top of their ballot, but those who were deterred by his 31 games played penalized him severely.
He received only nine second-place votes.
This suggests that for the vast majority of the electorate, Embiid was either the clear winner or not a serious candidate at all; there was very little middle ground.
He was the ultimate boom-or-bust choice, and for 77 of the 100 voters, he was a bust.
2.
Šarić as the Consensus Runner-Up: While Šarić garnered only 13 first-place votes, he was the overwhelming choice for the second spot on the ballot, receiving 59 second-place votes.
This established him as the primary alternative for the 64 voters who placed Brogdon first.
The typical “Brogdon ballot” likely had Šarić listed second, rewarding his full season of production.
His campaign was strong enough to be considered the next-best option by most, but not compelling enough to win over a plurality of voters for the top spot.
3.
Brogdon’s Broad Appeal: Brogdon’s victory was built on two pillars: the strength of his first-place support and his broad, universal appeal.
Not only did he capture a commanding 64% of the first-place votes, but he also appeared on 98 of the 100 ballots cast (64 first-place, 30 second-place, and 4 third-place).
This near-unanimous inclusion demonstrates that almost every voter acknowledged his season as being, at a minimum, one of the three best among all rookies.
While Embiid’s candidacy was polarizing and Šarić’s was seen as a solid but flawed second choice, Brogdon’s was the one nearly everyone could agree on.
Ultimately, the 2017 Rookie of the Year vote was less a simple ranking of the “best rookies” and more a reflection of three distinct and competing voter philosophies.
There were the “Peak Talent Over All” voters, the 23 who cast their ballots for Embiid, believing his transcendent ability in a small sample size was enough.
There were the “Volume and Endurance Matter Most” voters, the 13 who chose Šarić, rewarding his durability and raw production.
And finally, there was the largest camp: the “Efficiency and Winning Contribution are Paramount” voters.
This group of 64 found Brogdon’s well-rounded, efficient, and impactful performance on a playoff team to be the most compelling argument.
The race became an ideological battle, and Brogdon’s ideology won by a decisive margin.
VI. A Historic Anomaly and Its Legacy: Placing Brogdon’s Win in the Pantheon of NBA Awards
Malcolm Brogdon’s victory in the 2016-17 Rookie of the Year race was more than just an unexpected outcome; it was a historic anomaly that challenged long-held conventions and signaled a potential evolution in how NBA awards are adjudicated.
His triumph was not only a personal achievement but also a landmark moment for overlooked prospects and a victory for a modern, analytics-informed philosophy of basketball.
The Underdog Triumph: A Historic Draft Pick Anomaly
The most significant aspect of Brogdon’s win was his draft position.
He was selected by the Milwaukee Bucks with the 36th overall pick in the second round of the 2016 NBA Draft.
The Rookie of the Year award has historically been the domain of high lottery picks, players anointed as future stars before they ever step on an NBA court.
By securing the trophy, Brogdon became the first second-round draft pick to be named Rookie of the Year since Willis Reed in 1965.
He shattered a 52-year precedent, accomplishing something that generations of non-lottery picks had failed to do.
He joined Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as only the second player in Milwaukee Bucks history to win the award.
Brogdon’s win was a powerful testament to the potential of players who develop over a full college career and enter the league with maturity and a refined skillset.
He acknowledged the weight of this achievement in his acceptance speech, dedicating the award as a symbol of hope for players who are underestimated.
“This is a testament to guys that are second-round picks, guys that are undrafted every year, that get looked over regardless of the work they put in,” Brogdon stated.
“You can always achieve your dreams if you have faith, if you sacrifice for what you want”.
Redefining the “Rookie of the Year” Stat Line
Just as historic as his draft position were the statistics with which he won.
Brogdon claimed the award while averaging the fewest points per game (10.2) and fewest minutes per game (26.4) of any winner in the award’s history.
For decades, the Rookie of the Year award has often served as a proxy for the rookie scoring title, with voters frequently defaulting to the first-year player who put up the biggest raw numbers.
Brogdon’s victory demonstrated a clear departure from this tradition.
It proved that a modern electorate, armed with more sophisticated analytical tools and a greater appreciation for context, was willing and able to look beyond simple scoring totals.
Voters prioritized his elite efficiency, his leadership in assists and steals, and his quantifiable impact on a winning team over the higher-but-less-efficient scoring of his peers.
The Lasting Legacy: A Bellwether for Future Awards?
The 2016-17 Rookie of the Year race can be interpreted as a landmark moment in the evolution of NBA award voting.
It pitted the traditional formula for success—a high-volume scorer on a bad team with ample opportunity (Šarić)—against a transcendent but unavailable talent (Embiid) and an efficient, winning role-player (Brogdon).
The electorate’s decisive choice of Brogdon suggests a modernization of voter thinking, where concepts like True Shooting Percentage, Win Shares, and the context of “meaningful games” are gaining influence over raw points per game.
Brogdon’s victory established a powerful new precedent: a player does not need to be the highest scorer, the most hyped prospect, or a top-five draft pick to be recognized as the best in their class.
They need to present the most compelling, complete, and analytically sound case for their positive impact on the court.
In a race defined by chaos and contention, Malcolm Brogdon’s steady, intelligent, and winning brand of basketball provided the clearest signal in the noise.
His victory was not just a win for himself, but a win for a specific, modern, and more nuanced philosophy of how basketball excellence should be defined and rewarded.
