gambitx777 wrote:payitforward wrote:I'm with Kanye on this. Perhaps it will sound strange coming from me, but isn't there some other tone in which we could discuss this subject?
No one can know what Brooks would have or wouldn't have done in a situation that didn't exist. Hence, there's a lot of flame going back & forth from people on both sides of a non-issue.
That doesn't mean one can't speculate.
Brooks played Sheldon 287 minutes. I like Sheldon, but Patrick McCaw is a better player than Sheldon. That fact does allow one to speculate that Brooks might have played McCaw a lot more than he played Sheldon.
OTOH, Brooks played Thornton 555 minutes (in 2/3 of a season). Yet, Sheldon was a better player than Thornton. That fact does allow one to speculate that Brooks might have played McCaw less than he played for Golden State -- obviously a better team than the Wizards.
There is simply no way to know. So, Nat, you're just giving an opinion. But, so are those of you chastising Nat for that opinion -- you're just giving a different opinion!
What's incontrovertible is that our GM has never done what GS just did two Summers in a row: he's never bought an extra R2 pick & used it to take a young player with a lot of promise. Speculation about what Brooks might or might not do doesn't change that fact.
See if you look at the box scores whe Mac and McCaw plaey similar minutes their production was similar, the only way to know right now who is turely better would be for them to play the same minutes on the same team and compare or for them to at least play the same amount of minutes. Because one could make the case that if Mac had more minutes he might even look better than MaCaw Because they averaged similar pergame numbers but Mac averaged 9.6 minutes a game to Macaws 15. over the course of the season. So, While my focus for the case for McCaw over Mac would be more so on the fact that he is 21 and Mac is 24.
What you write is true. There wasn't a lot of difference at all between their level of productivity last season.
McCaw wins on shooting/scoring -- he had a higher TS%, but Sheldon's actually wasn't terrible -- certainly not as bad as his 3pt. % would make you expect. He was above average for a wing on 2pt. shots, he got to the line at an above average rate, & he shot over 85% on those FTs.
But Sheldon was a bit better than McCaw overall on the non-scoring stuff.
The result is that McCaw was slightly better than Sheldon on a per40 minute basis. But it wasn't a meaningful difference.
In that sense, you are right again, my statement that McCaw "is a better player than Sheldon" really does mean that being a full 3 years younger he is a better
prospect than Sheldon.
So you could argue that Brooks wouldn't have played McCaw much, precisely b/c he is so young. Then again, McCaw is the same age as Oubre, who played 1600+ minutes!
IOW, pure & simple, there's just no way to know.
