Revisit: Better Player Right Now: Jalen Brunson V Anthony Edwards

[CKB]

There is no debate. At this moment, on Sept 19, 2024, Brunson is the better player. He is a team leader. He leads by example. His playmaking and his shooting efficiency is off the charts. He is a master baiter to the foul line. He draw so many charges in a season. He plays under control no matter the situation.

ANT has the physical advantage but he doesn't have the basketball IQ of a Brunson yet. His consistency is still sporadic. He can still take over games and make spectacular defensive plays. But right now, he is behind Brunson.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

If the well rounded player doesn’t have more impact than the scorer, does it really matter that they’re well rounded? Give me the more impactful player every time.

The scorer=Brunson
Well rounded=Edwards

Which one do you value more?
In my opinion, Edwards is more impactful.

https://stathead.com/tiny/je8AL

Impact stats say otherwise.

Thank you for the offensive stats which shows that Brunson is the better scorer.

[Scalabrine]

What do you guys value? A scorer or a well rounded player? It seems like anytime we have a comparison thread, it’s always the offense that people care about.

If the well rounded player doesn’t have more impact than the scorer, does it really matter that they’re well rounded? Give me the more impactful player every time.

The scorer=Brunson
Well rounded=Edwards

Which one do you value more?
In my opinion, Edwards is more impactful.

Brunson is much more than a scorer though. Thats underselling him. He's a great facilitator. He's a leader. He's a winner. He has his limitations defensively, but for his size, he's still good (leads the league in charges drawn, rarely gets picked on) and the Knicks are one of the best defenses in the league despite his limitations.

[DaGawd]

If the well rounded player doesn’t have more impact than the scorer, does it really matter that they’re well rounded? Give me the more impactful player every time.

The scorer=Brunson
Well rounded=Edwards

Which one do you value more?
In my opinion, Edwards is more impactful.

Brunson is much more than a scorer though. Thats underselling him. He's a great facilitator. He's a leader. He's a winner. He has his limitations defensively, but for his size, he's still good (leads the league in charges drawn, rarely gets picked on) and the Knicks are one of the best defenses in the league despite his limitations.

i think that’s what gets missed in a lot of the general nba fans analysis of jalen brunson when it comes to of his defense.. the guy isn’t a total sieve on that end and is good at using angles to make up for what he lacks in size (that’s what she said!) that’s what allows the knicks to still be one of the better defensive teams in the league even with him in the lineup. for comparison sake i think you’d be hard pressed to have a top tier defense with someone like trae young for example because he’s held hostage to his physical limitations by not thinking the game cerebrally on the defensive end

[Klomp]

Love Ant Man but it has to be Brunson right now.

He is having such a profound impact since joining the Knicks, making them a legit championship contender again for the first time in over 20 Years.

Just seems like a thoroughly decent chap too, leaving close to 100 million or so on the table in his recent contract extension to give the Knicks Cap flexibility going forwards to bolster the team.

He is a winner with a winner's attitude (so is Antan btw but he is still a bit young and naive and still needs to mature a bit)

I think the Knicks have done a really good job of building a roster and system around Brunson in a way that maximizes his ability.

As a diminutive guard, he needs length and defense on the perimeter. It's also an offensive system with complementary pieces that let Brunson do his thing. Brunson isn't Rose athletically obviously, but in terms of building a roster around them, I feel like the Knicks built this team a lot like the Thibs Bulls were built.

[nbaguy1]

Knicks are one of the teams favored to make it to the ECF at the moment. Knicks can keeping Knicking if that what it is.

favored since nyc and for being pretty good. dont get me wrong. i routed for knicks last po. highly likeable group of players. but they miss a true batman imo

you don’t think a player who averages close to 40 ppg in the playoffs on decent efficiency while having whole defenses geared toward trying to stop him knowing he has no other reliable scoring option is a true batman?

yes. basketball 95% doesnt exist within a vacuum. you had a team effort geared towards a certain best strategy possible, to be as efficient as possible, to be as succesful as possible. i think ny gameplan with brunson as batman is simply to hard of a plan. but its cool to watch. i love brunson honestly. have him way above ant as a champ. but he needs a batman to be like a steady championship bet

[bledredwine]

I'll be surprised if Brunson maintains this level of play that he showed in the playoffs.

I'm a doubter, but I also want him to prove me wrong. I'm rooting for him.
I want some consistent American superstars in the league.
It's part of the reason that I'm so excited about ANT (the other reason being he's a 90s throwback and I like his style/mentality).

I'm fairly confident in saying ANT until proven wrong.

Why can't he maintain it? He was playing at a very high level when key teammates were out because of injury for several seasons now. And it wasn't like his efficiency fell of a cliff either.

Just imagine what a season would be like if all of the freak injuries didn't happen and more of his teammates were available.

He's 27 (peak age), made a sudden leap when he joined NY (as a Bulls fan, I've learned that lower end playoff teams can make a talented player look really good) and went bonkers this playoffs in particular.

I've got to see it for more than one playoffs to be a believer, especially for someone who isn't blessed with physical gifts alongside the skills, which I admit Brunson has plenty of. Last year, I thought it was just great volume scoring, This year, it was elite volume scoring. That's the difference.

If he was making that improvement at 22 or 23, or not right at his 27th (average peak) year, I'd be more of a believer.

I consider him more of a peak Boston Isaiah Thomas than a Steph Curry or peak Dame.
But I really do hope that I'm wrong.
I'll give him his flowers when he does it again.

Very few of the smaller guys maintain an elite level because it's challenging and most just don't have the talent to sustain that level above the span of an NBA career with all of it's micro-injuries.

[tsherkin]

you don’t think a player who averages close to 40 ppg in the playoffs on decent efficiency while having whole defenses geared toward trying to stop him knowing he has no other reliable scoring option is a true batman?

"Decent efficiency" isn't really accurate, though because of the sample it's hard to make broad descriptions. When he was good, he was very good. When he was not, he was awful.

His average efficiency was actually quite bad. Brunson's PS efficiency was 4.4% worse than regular season league average, and 3% worse than playoff league average. There's no slicing away how bad that was. He was shooting a lot more in the mid-range, eating away at his shots at the rim, and he couldn't really hit from 3 most of the playoffs. So even though he was slaying it at the rim and drawing fouls quite effectively, his actual efficiency was pretty garbage. Obviously, heavier coverages, less passing support, much higher usage... like, he isn't prime Jordan, so it was inevitable that we would see at least SOME changes in his scoring efficiency behind all of that. But yeah, it really wasn't "decent efficiency." It was the best he could do in that situation, it seems, and he had some big games, but it was a lot of possessions where he shot, leading to a lot of points.

BUT, that also isn't the full picture.

From Game 3 in the Philly series through Game 2 of the Indy series, he was lighting it up. And then he got it back in game 5 against Indiana as well. In that first stretch, those 6 games, he actually posted 61.6% TS, which was scintillating. And again, at 8.1% TOV vs 36.5% USG. 39.8 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 8.7 apg, 51.2 / 36.4 (7.3 3PA/g) / 80.9 (11.3 FTA/g). That wasn't sustainable at all, but DAMN was it fun to watch. Dude was killing it for a minute.

That was some wild stuff. It was shooting under 39% FG in 3 of the next 5 games that really started to tank it out, posting 49.5% TS over that stretch.

[Klomp]

you don’t think a player who averages close to 40 ppg in the playoffs on decent efficiency while having whole defenses geared toward trying to stop him knowing he has no other reliable scoring option is a true batman?

"Decent efficiency" isn't really accurate, though because of the sample it's hard to make broad descriptions. When he was good, he was very good. When he was not, he was awful.

His average efficiency was actually quite bad. Brunson's PS efficiency was 4.4% worse than regular season league average, and 3% worse than playoff league average. There's no slicing away how bad that was. He was shooting a lot more in the mid-range, eating away at his shots at the rim, and he couldn't really hit from 3 most of the playoffs. So even though he was slaying it at the rim and drawing fouls quite effectively, his actual efficiency was pretty garbage. Obviously, heavier coverages, less passing support, much higher usage... like, he isn't prime Jordan, so it was inevitable that we would see at least SOME changes in his scoring efficiency behind all of that. But yeah, it really wasn't "decent efficiency." It was the best he could do in that situation, it seems, and he had some big games, but it was a lot of possessions where he shot, leading to a lot of points.

BUT, that also isn't the full picture.

From Game 3 in the Philly series through Game 2 of the Indy series, he was lighting it up. And then he got it back in game 5 against Indiana as well. In that first stretch, those 6 games, he actually posted 61.6% TS, which was scintillating. And again, at 8.1% TOV vs 36.5% USG. 39.8 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 8.7 apg, 51.2 / 36.4 (7.3 3PA/g) / 80.9 (11.3 FTA/g). That wasn't sustainable at all, but DAMN was it fun to watch. Dude was killing it for a minute.

That was some wild stuff. It was shooting under 39% FG in 3 of the next 5 games that really started to tank it out, posting 49.5% TS over that stretch.

Now add Ant's playoff production into the comparison
Brunson: 30.3 ppg (.456/.317/.824), 4.0 rpg, 6.6 apg, 2.4 tpg, 1.1 spg in 40.0 mpg (24 games)
Edwards: 28.5 ppg (.482/.386/.823), 6.5 rpg, 6.2 apg, 2.9 tpg, 1.6 spg in 40.4 mpg (21 games)

[Klomp]

Read on Twitter

[tsherkin]

Now add Ant's playoff production into the comparison
Brunson: 30.3 ppg (.456/.317/.824), 4.0 rpg, 6.6 apg, 2.4 tpg, 1.1 spg in 40.0 mpg (24 games)
Edwards: 28.5 ppg (.482/.386/.823), 6.5 rpg, 6.2 apg, 2.9 tpg, 1.6 spg in 40.4 mpg (21 games)

Right, and as with Brunson, let's look at Ant in more detail.

Ant was a 57.5% TS guy (-0.5% rTS) in the RS. Sample size and waiting to see how he'd do beyond the first round to settle his playoff averages have been the watchword with him.

He was a 59.8% TS guy this past PS, which was +3.2% rTS.

31/8/6.3 on 64.8% vs Phoenix, with 4.0 tpg
27.7 / 5.1 / 5.7 on 60.9% vs Denver, with 2.7 tpg
24.6 / 8.8 / 7.8 on 53.9% vs Dallas, with 3.4 tpg

For context:

RS lgav 58.0
PS lgav 56.6

So anyway, he obliterated the first two rounds on average, and then the Dallas series wasn't hot. I think his hard fall was in game 6 of the Dallas series.

The Phoenix series doesn't really require context: he kicked the crap out of them, outside of game 2.

The Denver series was a little more up and down. He was hot in the opener. He shot well, but not enough, in game 2 and had 5 turnovers while posting 19 points in a loss. He exploded all over them for 44 in a loss the next game. Then he sucked in Game 4. Big bounceback after, and then he was terrible in the close-out game. Very hesitant, chucked up a bunch of 3s and was just bleh. Rebounded well, passed well, but just so tentative. I think most are pretty comfortable saying that his back was limiting him in that one. He was hot garbage for the first 2 games against Dallas as far as scoring, but kept passing well. He was connecting from 3 in the opener but didn't really do anything else as a scorer. In the second game, he was drawing fouls, just missing shots. And then he got his mojo back for the last 3, albeit with a lot of turnovers.

So, on the whole, pretty good. Rough, kind of scary fall near the end of the Dallas series and then he got himself mostly back together. A pretty successful postseason for him. I think he needs to limit his total 3pt volume a little more for maximum efficacy over a playoff series, but he's continuing to show that he can punish weaker defenses quite handily, and that he's got something against the better ones as well. Now we'll see if he can finally break the code on being really good in the RS. Because he hasn't been a particularly noteworthy RS scorer to date, but he's been killing it in the playoffs.

Lots to be happy about as a Minny fan.

[bronxknicksfan1]

like the op said tho, this was with several key injuries to his supporting cast and the opposing defense keying in on him because of that fact

Sure. And his 3pt shot dried up. And he's small and doesn't have a speed advantage. -3% rTS sucks, especially compared to that low league playoff average. That is what it is. He doesn't have the physical tools to overcome that sort of context and get through with mediocre to good scoring like taller, more athletic players do. It's a weakness, and a ceiling-setter in the absence of those who can do otherwise. Now, what the Knicks would have looked like with a healthy team, I mean, that's obviously going to be better. I think that goes without saying.

But the D keying in on him is basically what happens when you're The Man, and when you're a short guy with no burst and your 3 abandons you, that's what happens. He gave it a good shot in the sense of pure effort and all that, but he's not Lebron (not that anyone was suggesting as much), so it didn't work.

With respect to Ant versus Brunson, it's difficult to tell. Edwards is obviously a much better defender. He ALSO suffers from relying too much on his 3, so his variance is extreme and he is often frustrating af because he's gaming for the 3 instead of trying to attack and using the pull-up as a counter. And he got to see some tougher D this time around and struggled some, even before the fall, which clearly slowed him down after.

Should be interesting to watch both going forward, though.

Thing is, with another offensive threat out there, Brunson isn’t getting doubled/trapped damn near every possession. In the Indiana series, he went from a 68.2% TS in the 2 games OG played to 49.5% TS in the 5 games after. Dude was out there playing with a full bench unit as his starters. It would be the equivalent of Ant losing KAT, Gobert and McDaniels for the playoffs.

Brunson has shown that he can be an efficient scorer in the playoffs for a couple of years already. Have no doubt that he can continue to do that with the actual starters on the team around.

[tsherkin]

Thing is, with another offensive threat out there, Brunson isn’t getting doubled/trapped damn near every possession. In the Indiana series, he went from a 68.2% TS in the 2 games OG played to 49.5% TS in the 5 games after.

He was murdering it in the bottom half of the circle in game 1, shooting 4/6. He was 1/2 in the top half. 6/12 otherwise in the paint and then he hit a short shot outside of the key on either side. It was a similar story in game 2. He wouldn't have continued shooting that well the whole series, but yes, it certainly got harder for him with less around him, that is a given.

Brunson has shown that he can be an efficient scorer in the playoffs for a couple of years already. Have no doubt that he can continue to do that with the actual starters on the team around.

Yes, he did pretty well in the two prior postseasons as well. We know he's a pretty decent postseason scorer already, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.