Remember when - Brand, Artest & Brad Miller were Bulls?

But Krause and Tim Floyd threw it all away in Rebuilding II!

They didn't throw anything away ... those guys would probaby still be losing. Brand isn't good enough to lead a team very far.

 

WTF is the point of this thread. It has a point with Miller and Artest, they went from losing to winning. Brand is still losing, so why would the Bulls be any better with him. I never said Brand wasn't good, but he doesn't impact winning. He's productive, but it translates into nothing for his team. The guys has been in the league as long as Steve Francis and hasn't been on a team that won more than half its games, yet everyone thinks he's close to Franchise player.

 

The guy is a great player that has never been on a good team. I mean are you saying going from a rebuilding Bulls team to a rebuilding clippers team a good situation for a star player?

You couldn't expect him to do anything more than Steve had done before Yao came along.

Brand shows he can play and if he was on a good team they would be winning more and have a force to deal with at the 4 spot. You can't really knock the guy for not completely carrying his team when you have played for the Clippers and the Bulls.

 

Hope Chicago is getting used to losing.

 

Found a similar situation............
Based on the seasons below, what would you expect the record for the 2003 - 2004 Season to be?

2000 -2001 Season
43 - 39

2001 - 2002 Season
44 - 38

2002 - 2003 Season
42 - 40


What would be your opinion of the player that has lead his team to these type of results?

 

How bout taking a team to a winning record his second season?

 

It depends on his role on the team.

 

In the western conference to add to that, yet everyone on this board makes excuses for a player from another team but knock the player on the team they root for.

 

I think Brand's talent level is very similar to Francis. Both are very good players, but not so great as the lead star on a championship team.

They were in a fairly similar situation. Both started out being the best player on the team by default. The difference is, Francis was on a team with a good coach and a management that at least try to win. Brand was with the Bulls which were being deconstructed. Then he was traded to the Losers with revolving door scapegoats. . . uh. . . coaches. Do you seriously believe anyone can win with the Clippers organization? (BTW, I seriously hope Kobe will go to the Clippers and rot there. Then he'll know how immensely lucky he has been to be able to start out his career with a player like Shaq.)

pgabriel, not *everyone* on this board makes excuses for Brand. Just that a lot of people here want Brand instead of Francis as our *second* star.

 

The 2003 - 2004 record for that same team was 21 - 61, which is worse than Brand's Clippers (28 - 54), yet there are quite a few people on this BBS that are hungry for that player.

 

I don't see Brand going and pulling a SAR, but then again I never saw Shareef pulling a SAR either.

 

I'm inclined to agree w/ pgabriel. That's one thing I've noticed as well. In the yrs of watching the league, I've often been left wondering at why some trade work out and others don't. What I've realised from a concerted effort at pattern recognition is that the correlation between a player with impressive stats and his future success in a team (no matter how well he seems to fit in theory, role wise) is lower than might be logically hypothesized.

Some players will tend to put up lofty numbers on every team they go to but these teams never win because these players are very proficient at doing the individual things which show up on the score sheet. On the other hand, there are the difference makers who do the little things which help lead to wins but does not necessarily translate to the statsheet. An example of the first type of player is Elton Brand, SAR, Juwan Howard, Jamison, Ricky Davis and arguably Stephon Marbury.

Alternatively, there are some players who become just help the wins because of overwhelming talent . Examples are Chris Webber (look at every team he has been on, the pre-Webber record and the post Webber record), JKidd, Shaq.

A final type are the players who are great for any team which picks them up because they do that which is necessary, which does or does not show up on the stat sheet. These players are not necessarily dominant and are not sufficient in themselves to drastically alter the win profile of a team but they definitely become an integral part of team wins because they do the little things which translate to victories regardless of personal stats. Examples are Rasheed Wallace (look at the Pistons of late, even though he doesn't have exceptional stats), Sam Cassell, Spree, Ron Artest and arguably Jim Jackson.

Maybe Brand in the the last category, maybe not. I'm inclined to think not because teams with him just haven't shown much improvement w/ or w/o him. For eg: Bulls didn't fall thru the floor when he left and the Clips barely improved when he arrived. But players in the last category should be available at more modest rates than the max scale.

 

do you even need to ask?

pgabriel absolutely loves this player, a franchise player and the consummate superstar.

 

I don't get the point these guys are trying to make. McGrady has proven he can carry a team. Most people consider him a top 5 player. So he had one bad season. He's still a franchise player.

 

<a HREF="http://www.nba.com/playerfile/elton_brand/index.html?nav=page">Brand</a>

<a HREF="http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tracy_mcgrady/index.html?nav=page">TMac</a>


Artest & Miller went to the Pacers, which seems to be a quality operation with sound ideas about running a franchise. The Clippers are not noted as being strong in that area.

Miller eventually ended up with the Kings, which appears to be a well run organization that is willing to spend on players which the Clippers do not like to do.


In regards to the concept of having an impact on winning, exactly how much did he </ii>impact</i> it?

Orlando Won - Loss Record

1999 - 2000 <b>(Before TMac)</b>
41 - 41

2000 -2001 Season
43 - 39

2001 - 2002 Season
44 - 38

2002 - 2003 Season
42 - 40

2003 - 2004
21 - 61

 

Apparently a good deal, if you want to believe all this statistical junk that I can barely understand:

 

Interesting stats.......

Also, it is interesting that Brand finishes ahead of Miller & Artest in those stats.

<hr color=red>
<i>
I find that Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Andrei Kirilenko, Tim Duncan, and Shaquille O’Neal are the five most effective players in the NBA. Replacing an average player with one of these five players would result in a team improving by about 14 points per 100 possessions or a little over 10 points per game. In other words, in 2003-04 replacing one of the average players on the Orlando Magic with one of these five players likely would have made them a bit better than the New Jersey Nets and Memphis Grizzlies

http://www.82games.com/comm30.htm
</i>

He should have picked a different example than the Orlando Magic since Tracy is already on that team.

 

You're right about what the original point of the thread was. As far as it is concerned, Miller is playing with two better frontline players than he did with in Chicago, Webber>Brand, and Peja>Artest, and Artest is playing with a better powerforward in O'neal although it might be a wash because Miller is a better player than Foster.

But the point is, there is no guarantee that they would be premier team had they stayed together, particularly Miller has benifited the most from going to a team in Sacramento that uses his passing ability, and the frontline he plays with is more suited for his passing talents, more so than an Artest and Brand would be.