Yup. He's obviously delusional, the idea of a team with him as it's best player doing ANYTHING is laughable, but it seems like this is where it's going, just gotta pray it's not here as a rocket.
He was basically the best player on a 56 win team this season (considering Tatum barely played and wasn't as good as Brown when he first came back). I was always very skeptical of Brown too, I previously considered him more around the 20th best player in the league, but I have to admit he stepped up and was right there at borderline top 10 status this season. 29, 7 and 5 on 57% true shooting. He also already does have a Finals MVP under his belt. Sure, they did get bounced by Philly in 7, but Philly was lucky enough to have Embiid healthy and playing like his old self for once. Dude's been a top 3-4 player in the league when he's not nursing something or another. Sh*t happens, can't win 'em all. I don't think Brown is at that top tier where he is going to be the best player in most playoff series he encounters, but he is the next level down.
Does Jaylen Brown still count as their best player, when the Celtics are way better every year when he is off the floor?
What statistic are you referring to here? Just wins/losses? For whatever this stat is worth (I'm always a bit skeptical), it looks like Brown has had a positive +/- each of the last five seasons. Not the best on their team, but far from the worst. I do think Tatum is the better player when fully healthy.
He's negative every season of the last four in on/off differential, and has been significantly negative in the aggregate over his whole career. https://cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/454/onoff#tab-team_efficiency He's in the 300th-400th range in multi-year RAPM (which adjusts the on/off impact for teammates and opponents on the floor). The Rockets FO seems to care about impact metrics of this kind a lot. It's very obvious to see when you look at the players we sign or trade for. FVV and Adams are among the biggest RAPM monsters of this era, Brooks and DFS not far behind, and we've never acquired someone who wasn't towards the top of these lists. We are probably the last team in the league that would think Jaylen Brown is worth his contract. I'm would bet a lot of money they think Derrick White (another impact metric monster) is better than Jaylen Brown.
Fair enough, but something fishy has to be going on there. Brown had the 2nd highest usage rate in the entire NBA this season. I'm very skeptical they could win 2/3 of their games with him or have the 4th best net rating in the league if Brown's impact is not at least a net positive. Boston has a good roster around the Jays, but surely they're not that good. It also doesn't line up with more-traditional statistics, nor other advanced catch-all metrics, for whatever those are worth.
I mean, it happens every year. The impact metrics are over massive multi-year samples. It's not some fluke. Look at the playoffs even: 2025-26: -27.7 2024-25: +0.7 2023-24: -13.8 2022-23: -2.9 It's kind of a known thing at this point. Brad Stevens is gonna fleece somebody out there, but it's not gonna be us.
Tatum injured most of season, Brown, led that team to 56 wins. Averaged 34 minutes and played 71 games. Solid 57 TS% this year. Vorp and bpm at 3.3 Not saying the on/off stat is bad, but could it just be Celtics bench is severely better than their opponent's bench. It's not telling the full story. A referendum to say he's bad this year, is very counterintuitive.
I mean if this metric is saying White is better than Brown then it's probably not a good metric. FVV and Adams also haven't accomplished nearly as much as Brown has and I'm not sure there is a team that would take them over Brown? Then DFS being a monster in this stat when it turns out he was a terrible signing. I'm not saying you are wrong, the numbers are the numbers but IF this is the leading metric the Rockets pay attention to then it might explain some of their decision making when it comes to acquiring players.
Yeah, Philly is not some normal 7th seed, they are a lot like the Warriors of last year in that they were a different team when the playoffs roll around since they got healthy PG13 back who is not as good as he was but still a solid role guy at this point and they got Embiid back. This was supposed to be a team contending for a top 4 seed in the East that just ran into injury issues. I think Brown is a 2nd tier player. First tier being guys that are basically perennial MVP guys, Jokic, SGA, Wemby (ugh), Luka, Giannis when he's healthy... Brown is on that 2nd tier of guys I'd argue which are guys that are all-NBA players and pretty much locks for the all-star game if they are healthy.
Over the last four years, the Boston Celtics are 47-10 in games Jaylen Brown did not play in. This year they were 9-2 in games without him. Brown is not "leading them" to being a great team. They are a great team with a great coach with or without him. Over those same four years they have been 6.4 points better with Brown off the floor than on. Their other starters, Tatum and White, are the opposite, the Celtics are much better when they are on the floor. It's only Brown that is negative. It's not about bench vs. bench. And the question is not "Is Jaylen Brown any good?", or is "Jaylen Brown better than FVV or Steven Adams? (lol)". These metrics are measuring how good a player is in the role that he plays for his team. The question is "Is Jaylen Brown worth being paid $60M/yr to be a team's #1 guy". The answer is no. The Celtics are better when Brown is not playing that role for them.
Is he overpaid, yes I don't think you'll get too much push back on that. At the start of season, Vegas and media projections generally had Celtics to win in the low 40's. Porzgingis and Horford left, and Tatum in rehab. The C's ended up with 50+ wins and a #2 seed. Putting aside Brown on/off numbers, would you say Brown was a key contributor to the Celtic's regular season success?
I'm not super familiar with the actual formula here or the way it's calculated, but I agree with @JayGoogle that it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny at least in this specific case. How is it even possible to have that good of a team when giving MVP-level usage to a guy who is a net negative? When every other metric I look at says he's been a great player this season, I feel more inclined to discount these results. That's not to say they can't be useful, of course, or that they might not even be detecting that Brown is weaker than you might think, I just don't think it could possibly be accurate that he's a sub-replacement level player (if that's what these numbers imply).
The correct interpretation is not that he is a sub-replacement level player, it is that he is a sub-replacement level player in his role, and that role is "guy getting MVP usage". I.e., Jaylen Brown is a sub-replacement level star. It shouldn't be that alien of a concept to Rockets fans. Jaylen Brown is a lot better than Jalen Green, but the logical syllogism of "this guy gets star usage on a great team, ergo he is great" didn't hold up for Jalen Green when we were a very good team with him leading us in scoring, and doesn't hold up for Jaylen Brown leading a great team in scoring. In both cases the on/off differentials and impact metrics told the story. It doesn't just come from thin air. For a "star" Jaylen Brown is a poor playmaker, floats around league average efficiency or below as a scorer every year, shoots 35% or below from 3 every year; and his impact on the possession game is broadly negative -- ORB%, STL%, and BLK% are all poor for a wing.
pictured: Jaylen and some dingleberries Brown's got some real KD level 'get on social media and say some dumb **** to blow up a team' potential imo
