RealGM

Yet the advanced numbers NBA front offices use to evaluate players tell a different story.

In that story, Brown represents the widest gap in basketball between “the eye test” — what you see when you watch him — and what the math sees. In other words, he’s a spectacular scorer, but he does not improve his team’s chances of winning.

How can that be?

Let’s answer that and see why the numbers point to a conclusion almost no one is saying out loud: The Celtics won this trade.

Why is Brown inefficient?
Brown is one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA. But unlike the league’s other top scorers — the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, say — Brown pays full price for his points. His volume is elite — he shoots a lot; the rate at which he converts is not.

This past season, his best as a scorer, Brown’s true shooting percentage — the catch-all efficiency measure folding in 2-pointers, 3-pointers, and free throws — was 57.3 percent, below the league average of 58.1. From 3-point range, the same story: Brown has shot below the league average in each of the last four seasons.

There are two roads to efficient scoring. You can take easy shots — the Cleveland Cavaliers’ center Jarrett Allen lives at the rim. Or you can make hard ones, the Kevin Durant route, where elite touch redeems what looks like poor shot selection.

Brown travels the second road, and that may explain his reputation better than anything else: Nothing looks more like stardom than a contested jumper falling through.

The bottom line
In return for Brown, the Celtics received Paul George — a nine-time All-Star now on the downslope — plus two future first-round picks and two second-round picks.

I am not a huge believer in George at this stage of his career. He’s 36 — seven years older than Brown — and relatively brittle.

But given Brown’s questionable on-court impact, Boston still comes out ahead. While both players are overpaid relative to the rest of the NBA, George’s deal comes off the books a year earlier than Brown’s.

The NBA is unpredictable. Perhaps Brown will thrive in Philly. Perhaps the Celtics will collapse.

But almost every bit of evidence we have says the Celtics were better without Brown — and will be again.

hugepatsfan wrote:IDK who, but I anticipate that ORL trades someone significant at some point. They're pushing the 2nd apron this year which means paying a ton of tax to just runback a play-in team as of right now. And looking ahead, they don't have any significant contract off the books for next year. They do have an $8M dead money charge for Isaac that will be gone. But the point is that re-signing Black would set them up to go into the 2nd apron next year. I just can't see them doing that for the team they have.

IDK when and it could be as simple as just S&Ting Black away like Utah did with Kessler next offseason, but I'd be shocked of all of Banchero/Wagner/Bane/Suggs/WCJ/Black are all on ORL to start next year.

165bows wrote:

Read on Twitter

I’ll listen later but apparently details about Jaylen scaring off trade suitors he didn’t like.

If so it pretty much explains why they just made it happen.

canman1971 wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/08/opinion/celtics-jaylen-brown-trade-analytics/

Yet the advanced numbers NBA front offices use to evaluate players tell a different story.

In that story, Brown represents the widest gap in basketball between “the eye test” — what you see when you watch him — and what the math sees. In other words, he’s a spectacular scorer, but he does not improve his team’s chances of winning.

How can that be?

Let’s answer that and see why the numbers point to a conclusion almost no one is saying out loud: The Celtics won this trade.

Why is Brown inefficient?
Brown is one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA. But unlike the league’s other top scorers — the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, say — Brown pays full price for his points. His volume is elite — he shoots a lot; the rate at which he converts is not.

This past season, his best as a scorer, Brown’s true shooting percentage — the catch-all efficiency measure folding in 2-pointers, 3-pointers, and free throws — was 57.3 percent, below the league average of 58.1. From 3-point range, the same story: Brown has shot below the league average in each of the last four seasons.

There are two roads to efficient scoring. You can take easy shots — the Cleveland Cavaliers’ center Jarrett Allen lives at the rim. Or you can make hard ones, the Kevin Durant route, where elite touch redeems what looks like poor shot selection.

Brown travels the second road, and that may explain his reputation better than anything else: Nothing looks more like stardom than a contested jumper falling through.

The bottom line
In return for Brown, the Celtics received Paul George — a nine-time All-Star now on the downslope — plus two future first-round picks and two second-round picks.

I am not a huge believer in George at this stage of his career. He’s 36 — seven years older than Brown — and relatively brittle.

But given Brown’s questionable on-court impact, Boston still comes out ahead. While both players are overpaid relative to the rest of the NBA, George’s deal comes off the books a year earlier than Brown’s.

The NBA is unpredictable. Perhaps Brown will thrive in Philly. Perhaps the Celtics will collapse.

But almost every bit of evidence we have says the Celtics were better without Brown — and will be again.

canman1971 wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/08/opinion/celtics-jaylen-brown-trade-analytics/

Yet the advanced numbers NBA front offices use to evaluate players tell a different story.

In that story, Brown represents the widest gap in basketball between “the eye test” — what you see when you watch him — and what the math sees. In other words, he’s a spectacular scorer, but he does not improve his team’s chances of winning.

How can that be?

Let’s answer that and see why the numbers point to a conclusion almost no one is saying out loud: The Celtics won this trade.

Why is Brown inefficient?
Brown is one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA. But unlike the league’s other top scorers — the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, say — Brown pays full price for his points. His volume is elite — he shoots a lot; the rate at which he converts is not.

This past season, his best as a scorer, Brown’s true shooting percentage — the catch-all efficiency measure folding in 2-pointers, 3-pointers, and free throws — was 57.3 percent, below the league average of 58.1. From 3-point range, the same story: Brown has shot below the league average in each of the last four seasons.

There are two roads to efficient scoring. You can take easy shots — the Cleveland Cavaliers’ center Jarrett Allen lives at the rim. Or you can make hard ones, the Kevin Durant route, where elite touch redeems what looks like poor shot selection.

Brown travels the second road, and that may explain his reputation better than anything else: Nothing looks more like stardom than a contested jumper falling through.

The bottom line
In return for Brown, the Celtics received Paul George — a nine-time All-Star now on the downslope — plus two future first-round picks and two second-round picks.

I am not a huge believer in George at this stage of his career. He’s 36 — seven years older than Brown — and relatively brittle.

But given Brown’s questionable on-court impact, Boston still comes out ahead. While both players are overpaid relative to the rest of the NBA, George’s deal comes off the books a year earlier than Brown’s.

The NBA is unpredictable. Perhaps Brown will thrive in Philly. Perhaps the Celtics will collapse.

But almost every bit of evidence we have says the Celtics were better without Brown — and will be again.

phincsfan wrote:I found it interesting that Lee and the Hornets didn't want to part with Brandon Miller for a JB trade. If there was one coach I would bet would take JB would have been Lee. I'd take that bet quicker than I would if it was Ime.

cloverleaf wrote:

canman1971 wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/08/opinion/celtics-jaylen-brown-trade-analytics/

Yet the advanced numbers NBA front offices use to evaluate players tell a different story.

In that story, Brown represents the widest gap in basketball between “the eye test” — what you see when you watch him — and what the math sees. In other words, he’s a spectacular scorer, but he does not improve his team’s chances of winning.

How can that be?

Let’s answer that and see why the numbers point to a conclusion almost no one is saying out loud: The Celtics won this trade.

Why is Brown inefficient?
Brown is one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA. But unlike the league’s other top scorers — the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, say — Brown pays full price for his points. His volume is elite — he shoots a lot; the rate at which he converts is not.

This past season, his best as a scorer, Brown’s true shooting percentage — the catch-all efficiency measure folding in 2-pointers, 3-pointers, and free throws — was 57.3 percent, below the league average of 58.1. From 3-point range, the same story: Brown has shot below the league average in each of the last four seasons.

There are two roads to efficient scoring. You can take easy shots — the Cleveland Cavaliers’ center Jarrett Allen lives at the rim. Or you can make hard ones, the Kevin Durant route, where elite touch redeems what looks like poor shot selection.

Brown travels the second road, and that may explain his reputation better than anything else: Nothing looks more like stardom than a contested jumper falling through.

The bottom line
In return for Brown, the Celtics received Paul George — a nine-time All-Star now on the downslope — plus two future first-round picks and two second-round picks.

I am not a huge believer in George at this stage of his career. He’s 36 — seven years older than Brown — and relatively brittle.

But given Brown’s questionable on-court impact, Boston still comes out ahead. While both players are overpaid relative to the rest of the NBA, George’s deal comes off the books a year earlier than Brown’s.

The NBA is unpredictable. Perhaps Brown will thrive in Philly. Perhaps the Celtics will collapse.

But almost every bit of evidence we have says the Celtics were better without Brown — and will be again.

Baloney. Posters here have winced for years while watching games to see JB's lack of court vision, dribbling off his own foot, passing into nothing, falling asleep on D, driving into 3 defenders, etc., etc. Sure, there were highlight dunks. But JB failed many fans' eye tests for years. It's just his bigger numbers off of being a high-usage, solely featured offensive player and occasionally being a defensive demon on a high-profile target that can possibly explain the "eye test" claims.

SuperDeluxe wrote:

canman1971 wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/08/opinion/celtics-jaylen-brown-trade-analytics/

Yet the advanced numbers NBA front offices use to evaluate players tell a different story.

In that story, Brown represents the widest gap in basketball between “the eye test” — what you see when you watch him — and what the math sees. In other words, he’s a spectacular scorer, but he does not improve his team’s chances of winning.

How can that be?

Let’s answer that and see why the numbers point to a conclusion almost no one is saying out loud: The Celtics won this trade.

Why is Brown inefficient?
Brown is one of the most prolific scorers in the NBA. But unlike the league’s other top scorers — the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, say — Brown pays full price for his points. His volume is elite — he shoots a lot; the rate at which he converts is not.

This past season, his best as a scorer, Brown’s true shooting percentage — the catch-all efficiency measure folding in 2-pointers, 3-pointers, and free throws — was 57.3 percent, below the league average of 58.1. From 3-point range, the same story: Brown has shot below the league average in each of the last four seasons.

There are two roads to efficient scoring. You can take easy shots — the Cleveland Cavaliers’ center Jarrett Allen lives at the rim. Or you can make hard ones, the Kevin Durant route, where elite touch redeems what looks like poor shot selection.

Brown travels the second road, and that may explain his reputation better than anything else: Nothing looks more like stardom than a contested jumper falling through.

The bottom line
In return for Brown, the Celtics received Paul George — a nine-time All-Star now on the downslope — plus two future first-round picks and two second-round picks.

I am not a huge believer in George at this stage of his career. He’s 36 — seven years older than Brown — and relatively brittle.

But given Brown’s questionable on-court impact, Boston still comes out ahead. While both players are overpaid relative to the rest of the NBA, George’s deal comes off the books a year earlier than Brown’s.

The NBA is unpredictable. Perhaps Brown will thrive in Philly. Perhaps the Celtics will collapse.

But almost every bit of evidence we have says the Celtics were better without Brown — and will be again.

That's a rosy view of the trade. The Celtics may be better in the long term (and maybe also in the short term, who knows?), but they didn't get nearly enough value for Brown. I never liked his game (he made way too many stupid decisions, was very selfish up until last year, had the dumbest turnovers imaginable) and was hoping one day he'd be traded... but not like this.

Gant wrote:

phincsfan wrote:I found it interesting that Lee and the Hornets didn't want to part with Brandon Miller for a JB trade. If there was one coach I would bet would take JB would have been Lee. I'd take that bet quicker than I would if it was Ime.

There was a recent report that Brown had no interest in playing for Charlotte as well as New Orleans and Brooklyn.

phincsfan wrote:But, what came first? I would think Stevens reached out to GMs he worked with before. What I'm saying is if Lee wasn't willing to part with Miller to get get JB, that again tells a story on his value to even coaches who worked and won with him.

If JB got wind of talks between the Hornets and Boston and said "nope, not playing there", that would be problem #2, but if I'm Lee, JB would immediately be a major draw for the small market Hornets plus he's a winner.

itrsteve wrote:

phincsfan wrote:But, what came first? I would think Stevens reached out to GMs he worked with before. What I'm saying is if Lee wasn't willing to part with Miller to get get JB, that again tells a story on his value to even coaches who worked and won with him.

If JB got wind of talks between the Hornets and Boston and said "nope, not playing there", that would be problem #2, but if I'm Lee, JB would immediately be a major draw for the small market Hornets plus he's a winner.

If I were Charlotte there's no way I would have touched the JB contract. They're in a great spot in terms of cap and player upside potential.

They don't have a single boat anchor on their cap sheet, optionality if you will.

Celticlifer wrote:

SuperDeluxe wrote:

canman1971 wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/08/opinion/celtics-jaylen-brown-trade-analytics/

That's a rosy view of the trade. The Celtics may be better in the long term (and maybe also in the short term, who knows?), but they didn't get nearly enough value for Brown. I never liked his game (he made way too many stupid decisions, was very selfish up until last year, had the dumbest turnovers imaginable) and was hoping one day he'd be traded... but not like this.

going to try one more time. The return reflects his value. Brad would have taken more if it was offered. That was JB's max value, period. The market has spoken. The only decision Brad had to make was do it now or do it later. If we run it back next year, we are the same team basically and now we are closer to JB's extension, so he will have less value than he does now. If we factor in any, I mean any, drop off in his play from this past year, which could result from injury, lower usage, conflict with JT, his value goes down further. What do we get for waiting? Another year of the same basic team, with greatly increased possibility of team conflict, and a worse position next year if we need to move on from JB.

chrisab123 wrote:

itrsteve wrote:

phincsfan wrote:But, what came first? I would think Stevens reached out to GMs he worked with before. What I'm saying is if Lee wasn't willing to part with Miller to get get JB, that again tells a story on his value to even coaches who worked and won with him.

If JB got wind of talks between the Hornets and Boston and said "nope, not playing there", that would be problem #2, but if I'm Lee, JB would immediately be a major draw for the small market Hornets plus he's a winner.

If I were Charlotte there's no way I would have touched the JB contract. They're in a great spot in terms of cap and player upside potential.

They don't have a single boat anchor on their cap sheet, optionality if you will.

Would have helped ticket sales which is more important that optionality

tfribs45 wrote:

cloverleaf wrote:

canman1971 wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/07/08/opinion/celtics-jaylen-brown-trade-analytics/

Baloney. Posters here have winced for years while watching games to see JB's lack of court vision, dribbling off his own foot, passing into nothing, falling asleep on D, driving into 3 defenders, etc., etc. Sure, there were highlight dunks. But JB failed many fans' eye tests for years. It's just his bigger numbers off of being a high-usage, solely featured offensive player and occasionally being a defensive demon on a high-profile target that can possibly explain the "eye test" claims.

whatever fits your narrative, You forgot that he's a DAWG and Finals MVP.

chrisab123 wrote:

itrsteve wrote:

phincsfan wrote:But, what came first? I would think Stevens reached out to GMs he worked with before. What I'm saying is if Lee wasn't willing to part with Miller to get get JB, that again tells a story on his value to even coaches who worked and won with him.

If JB got wind of talks between the Hornets and Boston and said "nope, not playing there", that would be problem #2, but if I'm Lee, JB would immediately be a major draw for the small market Hornets plus he's a winner.

If I were Charlotte there's no way I would have touched the JB contract. They're in a great spot in terms of cap and player upside potential.

They don't have a single boat anchor on their cap sheet, optionality if you will.

Would have helped ticket sales which is more important that optionality