I appreciate the response. But if he's trash then why are players of TMac and JJ Reddicks quality say this is a good signing and a good contract?
I appreciate the response. But if he's trash then why are players of TMac and JJ Reddicks quality say this is a good signing and a good contract?
for the same reason that lebron went out of his way to get his team to trade for westbrook? Same reason harden wanted melo on the rockets? Players are terrible judges of talent
So let me match you with two examples on flip side Magic wanted Kareem and Lakers coming out of NCAA, and said if Bulls win coin toss he was going back to college, he knew the Bulls at that time had nothing close in talent to Kareem J West has been pretty elite at judging talent, from playing with Baylor and Wilt to building that showtime dynasty and also trading for Kobe and landing Shaq via free agency to getting G Rice etc So for every Westbrook and Bron, you have a West/Magic Some hit and some miss, that's life in all sports across the board
Yup west was great. Magic was an F- as a GM though so that’s a bad one. 2 random players saying brooks is good even though EVERY metric is existence says he’s horrific means nothing. The odds the the dude who’s gonna have the lowest VORP in the history of the sport is actually good is…..not high
Just look at what Jordan has done as the owner of --- wait a minute. Eureka, we need to trade our franchise player, Dillon Brooks, for a treasure chest from the Hornets. I like where your head is at.
Harden nor Bron was a GM, I mentioned Magic as a player who wanted to play with Kareem and wanted nothing to do with Bulls who had no big time talent during that era I mentioned West because though he was a GM, he also stated how Wilt would embarrass those 90's Centers being he had a close up view of a old yet still dominant Wilt, so he was good at judging players on both sides of the lens 2 random players saying Brooks is good is no diff than 2 random players saying he is garbage And yet he made all defense team with those same horrible alphabet gang metrics, its why you never go full VORP to rank a player, it can be useful but not the end of all be I don't really care they signed Brooks or not, but they had to spend their cap space and both highest paid free agents they signed were highly overpaid but they do bring elements the baby Rockets were missing And all this Brooks negative backlash came after he attacked the NBA golden boy this past postseason If Brooks makes 1st or 2nd all NBA defense team first couple seasons and plays within the Ime system, then it will be worth it
Ultimately you think the metrics that say he’s awful are wrong, i say they’re correct. My view of him has not changed over the last few years, I thought he was trash since he came into the league. Looking at the data, he’s certainly even worse then I imagined. You are talking about the guy who will likely break the all time record for negative VORP, a guy that is currently not a top 500 player in the league. If you think he’s good, there’s nothing that will convince you otherwise. Same as with guys like nix or kpj or wood, everyone has their fans. Kpj at least showed some improvement, brooks can only dream of being kpj good.
Brooks is who he is, a player known for his defense dog style who can occasionally hit some 3's I use metrics/stats along with watching a player, after 5 yrs of seeing something you pretty much know what they are Brooks was never something I thought was special, I Am not trying to change your view about him, but using VORP as your end metric to evaluate a player is flawed, you can just watch his games played and see what he is, metrics derive from what a player showcase from games played So if you feel he is horrible then that is your free opinion, but don't try to make it seem like I said he was this good player overall, but Rockets need a all defense team player, and you can't deny that about him, regardless what the metrics say, his reputation comes from that side, not offense KPJ is pretty much what he is going to be as well, and being young is more on his side than Brooks, 4-5 yrs younger is a lot in sports, so I would take KPJ over Brooks, but Brooks brings a element that is needed over youth, and hopefully it rubs off, defensive mentality that is
Haven't you been paying attention? Basically every player on the team is a "franchise palyer" according to some. This kind of thing happens on teams that have no franchise quality players but a lot of player first type fans.
He's clearly exaggerating. We only have 9 by my count. Alperen Sengun Amen Thompson Cam Whitmore Jabari Smith Matthew Mayer Fred VanVleet Jalen Green Dillon Brooks Alperen Sengun
What you don't get about metrics dude is that they are about the past. Projections (based on metrics) are not scientific facts. Let's say Dillon Brooks (or any player who sucked too last season) has a bounce back season and his metrics bounce upwards. That happens because humans are not robots, even though it's more likely that most people will continue on a trend. So in that case, how would you personally rationalize it? What in the metrics would have told you that's going to happen? Nothing. There's nothing in the metrics that would tell you that. That's where people with intensive experience come in and sometimes snatch a player who was in a bad situation or was not correctly inspired to make a change to their behavior. That's why Phil Jackson wins titles with Shaq and Jordan before anyone else could. That's why he and MJ were able to keep Rodman consistent and focused like no other coach could. That's why Jerry West has outperformed Sam Presti and Daryl Morey as a judge of talent. It's why Rudy T delivered back to back titles with a team that the metrics said should not win the title. The metrics only show you can do something after you've done it, so when you look BACK at the Rockets metrics we obviously deserved to win, but if you had tried to predict from the previous metrics that we should win there was no argument that we should have swept the Magic and then repeated as a 6th seed. I understand where you are, we've all been there. You can't figure out why to give less weight to metrics, but some day you'll understand that context and anomalies must be factored in beyond the margin of error. That's because the margin of error assumes our understanding of good/bad data is perfect when it's literally not. I'd be very interested to hear your answers. If Brooks takes a step up in his career next season by listening to this coach rather than the previous coach, how would you personally rationalize it? What in the metrics would have told you that's going to happen?
