Basketball Free For All

At this point, the remaining Kings fans are probably all thinking the same thing, but aren’t saying it because it sounds a little crazy. It’s the idea that the Sacramento Kings are actually playing better without their best player and leader, Kevin Martin. It sounds ludicrous, but the anecdotal evidence is mounting and the battle lines are forming. Time for another Great Debate.

For being such a great scorer, it is amazing to think that Kevin might actually hurt a team more than he helps. But before we dig too deeply, just how good of a scorer is the other K-Mart? To put it in perspective, Martin was scoring 30.0 points per game, after only Carmelo Anthony (30.2) and Kobe Bryant (30.1), prior to his wrist injury earlier this season. That’s pretty good company right there. Thus, Martin is clearly a high usage scorer with a usage percent of 29.1 percent, which would be good for 11th overall this season if he qualified for inclusion on the leader board.

But scoring and scoring efficiently are two different things all together. So what about K-Mart’s scoring efficiency? His effective field goal percentage is .500 percent (versus a league average .494 percent) and his true shooting percentage is .577 this season (versus a league average of .531 percent). So it is safe to say that Martin is a high usage scorer that also is above average in scoring efficiency. Definitely a pretty ideal combination for a team’s primary or secondary scoring option.

With that being said, how is it possible that a team could be better without Martin on the floor?

Theory One: The Kings are Better Without K-Mart

Those that believe the Kings are better without Martin on the floor will first point to the Kings’ record. The proof is in the pudding, they say. With Martin in uniform this season, the Kings are a paltry 1-4 (.200 win-loss percentage). With Kevin riding the pine this season, the Kings are 4-5 (.444 win-loss percentage). Granted, the Kings don’t have a winning record without Kevin but their win-loss percentage has improved noticeably in his absence. So it appears there is some evidence for the argument that the Kings might be better off without Martin in the lineup.

Beyond the Kings’ record, there are other metrics that give credence to Theory One. In looking at On/Off data from 82games for Martin, the case against K-Mart continues to build. With Martin on the floor, the Kings had an O-Rating of 106.6 and a D-Rating of 117.2, for a net of -10.6 points per 100 possessions. Ouch — not what you want if you are trying to win basketball games. With Martin firmly entrenched on the bench, Sacramento had an O-Rating of 110.6 and a D-Rating of 107.4, for a net of +3.2 points per 100 possessions. So to recap, the Kings have been worse both offensively (-4.0 points per 100 possessions) and defensively (+9.8 points allowed per 100 possessions) with Martin on the floor.

Most people who have watched Martin play would have probably conceded that he is a defensive liability but never would have thought him to be a liability on offense as well. If you take the Kings’ win-loss record and Martin’s On/Off data together, Theory One looks to be pretty convincing. But before you start demanding that the Maloofs trade K-Mart, take a look at the argument that says Kevin isn’t responsible.

Theory Two: K-Mart is Not the Problem

According to Theory Two, Martin being out of the lineup is not the cause for the King’s improved record but instead simply a correlation. Proponents of this theory will mention the names of two of Kevin’s teammates when presenting their case: Tyreke Evans and Beno Udrih. Each of these two players play a pivotal role in helping making the Kings better when Kevin Martin went down.

When picked fourth overall by the Kings in the 2009 NBA Draft, Evans was sold to the Sactown faithful as the point guard of the future. True to their word, the Kings started Evans at the one from the opening tip, allowing Martin and Evans to make up the Kings’ starting backcourt. This moved Udrih to the bench backing up the young and promising rookie. From the start, Evans numbers were pretty nice for a rookie and no one was complaining. But once Martin went down, Evans’ numbers really took off.

So what changed?

The significant change was Beno Udrih moving into the starting five, sliding Evans over to the two. And the numbers have shown that Evans is hands down much more effective playing the off guard. Examining 82games’ positional data for Evans, Evans’ production compared to his opponent counterpart’s production clearly illustrates the difference. Playing point, Evans has had a PER of 11.5 while his opponent counterpart has had a PER of 22.8 for a -11.3 net. Playing the two, Evans has had a PER of 25.2 while his opponent counterpart has had a PER of 15.0 for a net of +10.2. What a difference playing the correct position can make. Switching Evans from the one to the two has had a huge impact on Evans’ effectiveness on both the offensive and defensive ends of the floor. Pretty convincing stuff.

But there is more to the story. As mentioned earlier, Martin’s injury has opened up increased PT for Udrih and he has definitely risen to the challenge. For evidence, examine Udrih’s splits as a starter/reserve this season. Coming off the bench, Udrih has averaged 9.8 points on .484/.750 percent shooting, 1.5 threes, 1.5 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.3 blocks and 2.0 turnovers in 22.3 minutes per game. As a starter, Udrih has averaged 15.8 points on .509/.900 percent shooting, 1.1 threes, 2.6 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.1 blocks and 2.0 turnovers per game. As a starter, Udrih has played much more efficiently (both shooting and assist-to-turnover) and has been much better at than Evans at the point (as a reference, check out Beno’s positional data from 82games and notice that Udrih is a net positive).

According to Theory Two, Martin is not the problem. Instead, the problem was playing a shooting guard at the point and having an effective point guard wallow on the bench. With Martin out, Coach Paul Westphal tweaked his lineup with beneficial results.

Conclusion

Both theories have enough basis in fact to be believable. However, only one theory can be correct and it is to each person to make up their own mind. In my opinion, Kevin Martin is too good of a player for Theory One to be true. If he were a high volume, low efficiency scorer, it would be easier to give credence to Theory One. However, his efficient scoring alerts me to the fact that something else is probably to blame. Enter Theory Two, which stands to reason and is supported by factual evidence.

So where then does the blame lie?

One, as is usually the case, coaching is partially to blame. Granted it was only a few games, but Evans is clearly not a point guard but is instead a shooting guard. It took an injury to Kevin to make Coach Westphal realize this fact but I am sure he has gotten the memo after Evans has posted impressive line after impressive line. And two, the front office is culpable as well. The front office has the final say on who the Kings draft and they chose a player who plays the same position as their star player. They duped themselves into believing that Evans could be molded into playing an unnatural position. More often than not, attempts to change a player’s nature fails (see the Allen Iverson saga).

One thing is for sure, though. Kevin Martin is not the one to blame.

Of all of this season’s early story lines, the big constants have been Golden State’s descent into the abyss and Chicago swingman John Salmons‘ poor shooting. Fantasy managers that drafted him expected efficient scoring and across the board production. Instead, owners have been rewarded with a roto-crippling field goal percent of .317 through the Bulls’ first nine games. If Salmons were to keep shooting at this clip for the entire season, it would easily qualify as a career worst for him.

With owners stuck with less than what they bargained for from their middle-round pick (average draft position of 73.7 in Yahoo! leagues), each manager must evaluate their situation and decide what course of action should be taken. For owners lucky enough not to have drafted John, they are left wondering whether he is a nice buy low target or whether he should be treated like he has the H1N1.

Throughout his career, nothing has ever been given to Salmons and he has hung around the league until injuries opened up increased PT. And with an increased role, he truly broke out and took the fantasy world by storm becoming a fast favorite for those lucky enough to snag him off the waiver wire. In casual NBA circles, Salmons’ rise to prominence, like many of his young teammates, was the epic Celtics-Bulls first round playoff series of 2008-09 that will go down as one of the greatest of all time.

With a basketball resume spanning eight seasons in the NBA, Salmons’ production is a relatively known quantity (or at least we thought it was), previously providing sneaky-good roto contributions that was good for 50th overall in per game value according to Basketball Monster and 53rd in per game value according to Ziguana. His cumulative value was also top notch at 34th according to BBM and 33rd according to Ziguana. Last season, his per-36 minute averages were 17.6 points on .472/.830 percent shooting, 1.5 threes (on .417 percent shooting), 4.1 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 1.0 steals, 0.3 blocks and 2.0 turnovers. When managers spent a eighth round pick on average on Salmons, those were the numbers they expecting in return.

But what went wrong? And more importantly, will he turn it around in time to salvage the season?

For Salmons, the situation is complex and there are various competing theories for what could be causing his shooting woes. In his case, there probably isn’t one right answer but instead a combination of contributing factors and competing theories that provide insight as to why Salmons has been shooting so poorly this season.

Let’s dive right in, analyze and discuss how each of them affect John’s outlook for the remainder of the season.

Theory One: Baby Watch

Salmons definitely had an interesting offseason dealing with a sore groin that dates back to the aforementioned epic Celtics playoff series. In addition, Salmons also dealt with the birth of his daughter. If you are wondering whether the birth of Salmons’ child could really be a contributing factor to his poor shooting, take a look at an NBC Sports player update blurb posted during the offseason.

John Salmons missed Friday’s game due to the birth of his child. He will rejoin the team on Sunday. This birth has been lingering for weeks and he can now focus on the Bulls now that it’s over. Congratulations, John. Now let’s play ball.

Source: NBA Sports

Lacking focus during the offseason can have negative effects at the beginning of the season as a player will have to play catch-up or struggle with things that he should have worked on when games didn’t matter. If this were the case, you would expect to see his shooting percentages down across the board, which is exactly the case with Salmons.

Those of you not buying the argument that the birth of a child could be that much of a distraction obviously don’t have any children or don’t know anyone with kids. Don’t worry; you’ll see for yourself one day. Managers that buy into this theory should hang on to Salmons if they own him or try to buy low, as he is bound to turn it around eventually once he regains his focus and conditioning.

Theory Two: Law of Averages

Another theory with a more optimistic outlook for John’s fantasy relevance centers around the law of averages, or more formally regression to the mean. In it’s most simplest form, regression to the mean can be boiled down to the idea that statistics like shooting percentages tend to gravitate towards their averages. In this case, Salmons has just had an extremely negative string of performances early on and each subsequent performance will tend to gravitate toward his career averages.

In this case, offseason distractions, roster changes and individual matchups so far this season don’t really matter. What matters are the numbers and Salmons’ established track record in eight seasons in the NBA. With a large enough sample size we can be confident that Salmons is a .444 percent field goal shooter, a .357 percent three point shooter and a .798 percent free throw shooter and not the .317/.267/.742 percent shooter we’ve seen so far this season.

Again, this time for dramatic purposes, the only really important things to examine with the theory of the law of averages is John’s current production versus his established averages. His numbers will return to normalcy at some point this season, salvaging John’s fantasy value and making him a roto-stud, as expected. For those that believe this, Salmons is a serious buy low that could pay huge dividends down the line.

Theory Three: Three Point Shooting

It’s no secret; the Bulls need help with their three point shooting this season. Desperately. For a little perspective, they rank 29th in three point attempts, 30th in threes made and 30th in three point shooting percentage. Officially, the Bulls are hands down the worst three point shooting team in the league this season. Compared to last year, the Bulls are significantly worse from behind the arc (23rd/22nd/6th, respectively, in 2008-09).

Which begs the question, what’s the main difference between last year’s three point shooting and this season’s?

Ben Gordon’s departure is the single biggest reason for the drop-off as a team. However, John Salmons’ and the other Bulls guards’ regression is another (John’s three point shooting percentage dropped from .415 in 2008-09 with Chicago to .267 this season while his attempts increased from 4.5 per game to 5.0 attempts). Chicago’s two other main rotation guards, sophomore point guard Derrick Rose and Kirk Hinrich, have not been getting it done from downtown either. Rose just doesn’t have three point range yet, as his .213 career and .000 current season three point shooting percentages attest. Hinrich, like Salmons, has been slumping so far this season shooting a career worst .267 from deep.

Gordon’s proficiency from downtown and propensity to launch bombs has been missed in Chicago thus far. However, none of Chicago’s guards have increased their attempts per game except for Salmons. Sometimes when players increase their shot attempts they not only take more shots but they also take more bad shots. It’s the opposite of the commonly quoted phrase letting the game come to you. When you ignore the common adage, overall efficiency suffers, which could be what is going on with John right now.

If you are persuaded by this theory, the Bulls as a team (ahem Coach Vinny Del Negro) will either need to find a solution to replace Gordon’s three point shooting or Salmons will need to reduce the number of threes he takes per game. Either one would help alleviate some of the pressure on Salmons’ shooting efficiency and make his fantasy line more palatable. Or so the Theory Three goes. According to this Theory, Salmons would be a buy low until Coach Del Negro or Salmons himself makes the necessary adjustments.

Theory Four: Different Shots

The fourth theory of interest is that Salmons is getting different looks than he was getting last year, with a negative result. The solution would be a coaching change that allowed John to get the looks he was seeing last season and the expected result would be a return to his efficient scoring ways. But does the evidence support this claim?

Examining shot data from 2008-09 and from this season, you can see a subtle shift in the pattern of shots Salmons is taking. His is relying on his jump shot more and is relying on his teammates to set him up more. At the same time, he is taking less attempts close to the basket and inside. These changes could all be expected to contribute to a lower field goal percentage. Looking at the shot data in a different way, what is the reason for the change in Salmons’ shot selection?

At 30 years of age, the changes evidenced in Salmons’ shot data could be the result of losing just a bit of his athleticism. Losing a step forces him to rely more heavily on his jumper, which was never John’s strongest part of his game, instead of slashing and getting higher percentage looks closer to the rim. Call this Theory 4.1. Or, the changes in Salmons’ shot selection could be a result of the emergence of Joakim Noah as a legitimate force in the paint, forcing Salmons farther away from the hoop into lower percentage looks. Call that Theory 4.2. The final variation is that John’s different looks could be solely Coach Del Negro’s fault, as he is ultimately the one who coordinates the Bulls offense and orchestrates the Bulls’ attack. For those keeping track that would be Theory 4.3.

If you buy 4.1, John’s atrophy is only going to accelerate so wait for Salmons’ next big game and see what you can get for him. Cut your losses, as they say. However, if you happen to be believers of Theory 4.2 or 4.3, coaching changes could allow Salmons to become an efficient scoring machine once again. The question then becomes, how much faith do you have in second year head coach, Vinny Del Negro, to make the necessary adjustments?

Theory Five: Higher Usage

The last, and probably most commonly cited theory, is the idea that Salmons is now forced to shoulder a heavier burden on offense with Gordon in Mo-Town and his efficiency has suffered as a result. With Gordon gone, Salmons has to take more shots on offense (increased usage) while simultaneously receiving greater defensive attention and pressure. Unfortunately for us, there are no freely-available statistics that track double teams or defensive pressure. Teams probably track statistics that could shed some light on this issue but they are not available to the public at this point. Not yet at least.

However, there are metrics that track usage percentage, which is simply an estimate of the number of team plays a player uses while he is on the floor. Contrary to the common wisdom, Salmons is actually shouldering a lighter load this season with a usage percentage of 19.8 percent down slightly from 20.2 last season. In this case, the numbers just don’t back up the theory that a higher usage is responsible for John’s decreased efficiency. And with no means of objectively testing the amount of defensive pressure Salmons is receiving this season, Theory Five is looking to be more or less debunked.

Conclusion

Of all the theories that attempt to explain Salmons’ poor efficiency, none clearly stand out as the definitive explanation for John’s shooting woes. More realistically, Salmons is suffering from the perfect storm of offseason distractions, team dynamics, roster changes, coaching issues, tough scheduling early on, confidence problems or a myriad of other possible contributing factors.

Of all the possible explanations, the higer usage theory is the one with the least amount of supporting evidence. Similar to the Elton Brand situation in Philadelphia, we as fantasy managers cannot know what is actually causing Salmons’ poor efficiency this season. As a result, the burden lies on each of us to examine each argument individually and weigh it against the facts. Based upon how you are swayed and by which argument, it totally changes whether you should cut your losses or try and buy low.

Few issues divide the fantasy fanatics these days more decisively than the Elton Brand conundrum. As in the I drafted Elton Brand now what the hell do I do with him conundrum. Those fortunate enough to not have drafted Brand remain on the sidelines trying to determine whether or not to target EB as a suitable buy low candidate.

Newcomers to fantasy basketball may not understand all the man-love and hype surrounding Brand. Over the prior two season, Elton played a total of 37 games, posting averages of 14.6 points on .449/.710 percent shooting, 8.6 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.5 steals, 1.6 blocks and 2.3 turnovers. Solid, for sure, but nothing to pine over. However, many managers have a strong affinity to owning Brand after some monster seasons in the not so distant past (Andrei Kirilenko, anyone?).

Step into the time machine and take a look at Brand’s 2005-06 season, which is probably the finest of  his career, during which he played 79 games logging just under 40 minutes per. He posted 24.7 points on .527/.775 percent shooting, 0.0 threes, 10.0 rebounds, 2.6 assists, 1.0 steals, 2.5 blocks and 2.2 turnovers. I’ll take two, please. Current Brand owners are hoping for a return to the dominant, first round stud of yesteryear. Although at this point, they’d definitely settle for third round production.

What’s not up for debate is the fact that Brand’s production has fallen off, and significantly so. This season, Brand’s averages are 10.1 points on .452/.833 percent shooting, 0.0 threes, 5.6 rebounds, 1.0 assists, 1.1 steals, 0.9 blocks and 2.0 turnovers. These averages are good for 133rd in per game value according to Basketball Monster and 131st in per game value according to Ziguana. Pretty tough for a guy that was drafted 39th overall on average in Yahoo! leagues.

What is up for debate is the reason for Brand’s decreased production this season and his future outlook. There are two competing theories to explain his output this season, both of which are not mutually exclusive. Theory one is that Brand is old and his major injuries have permanently limited his ability to play basketball at the highest level. The second theory is that he simply isn’t fitting into Eddie Jordan’s Princeton offense. The two theories, however, do lead to different conclusions about the possible career trajectory for EB.

Theory One: Old and Injured

In basketball years, 30 means you qualify for AARP membership and can no longer relate to the youths. Your run isn’t necessarily over, but time is most definitely no longer on your side. There are some players that can play effectively late into life (John Stockton comes to mind), but big men with a history of serious injuries do not exactly fit the Stockton mold.

But what injuries did Brand suffer and how serious were they?

Brand has suffered four major injuries in his eleven seasons playing professional basketball. Over his first eight seasons, Brand missed a total of 50 games while suffering two moderate injuries. Brand’s first stint on the injured reserve list came in 2002-03 when he suffered a stress fracture in his left leg and missed 18 games. Brand’s second stint on the injured reserve list occurred the next season when he missed 13 of the Clippers’ first games with a hairline stress fracture of his right foot.

These two injuries early in Brand’s career were nothing too out of the ordinary for a big man playing physical basketball in the paint. However, everything would change for Brand in August 2007.

In the latest nasty injury blow for the Los Angeles Clippers, cornerstone forward Elton Brand ruptured his left Achilles tendon on Friday during his usual daily workout.

Brand, 28, is expected to undergo surgery next week and joins teammate Shaun Livingston on the list of long-term injury victims for the Clippers. Achilles tendon injuries typically sideline NBA players for at least a year, which would theoretically threaten Brand’s availability for all of the 2007-08 season.

Source: ESPN

Rupturing the Achilles tendon is a devastating injury and can sap the explosiveness of an athlete, potentially permanently. There is not even consensus on the best treatment for a ruptured Achilles. This type of injury is so devastating that there is even an online community dedicated to bringing together people who are recovering from a ruptured Achilles. The result for Brand was a disappointing 2007-08 campaign in which he only played in eight, mediocre games. If you stashed EB on your bench for most of the 2007-08 season, you probably lost. My condolences.

After a frustrating 2007-08 season, Brand bailed on the Clippers for greener pastures playing in Philadelphia. He was the marquee free agent signing of the summer of 2008, inking a five year, $80 million dollar deal. At the time, the Brand signing was widely seen as the piece that would push the Sixers from pretenders to contenders. Unfortunately for Elton, fate had other plans for him last season.

After a less than perfect union between Brand and the Sixers early on, the major injury bug would strike again. This time, Brand suffered a dislocated shoulder while committing a foul against the Bucks’ rookie forward out of UCLA, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. After missing 16 games, Brand returned for a handful of games before re-aggravating his injured shoulder. This time, he opted for season-ending surgery on his right shoulder.

That brings us to the current-day Elton Brand.

With these recent injuries, both have the potential to impact Brand’s ability to play basketball at the level at which he played in the 2005-06 season. Although there have been no reports confirming this fact (and why would the team choose to release this information anyways?), Brand’s range of motion and ability to hit mid range jumpers could be affected by his shoulder injuries last season. Elton is right-handed and his dislocated shoulder was his right shoulder. This would expect us to see lower shooting efficiency (check) and less rebounds (check). Circumstantial evidence seems to support the idea that Brand’s shoulder injury has left him with a  limited range of motion, but we can’t know for sure.

As far as the Achilles rupture, Brand’s tendon should be similarly as strong as it was prior to injury while the risk of re-rupture should be almost non-existant.

Mendelbaum and colleagues showed that those undergoing direct repair lost only 2.6% of their strength when undergoing isokinetic testing and that 92% of athletes were able to return to their respective sports at a similar level at 6 months postoperatively.

Source: Medscape.com

However, there is a problem. The size of Brand’s calf muscle is noticeably smaller since the injury. Apparently, he suffered a lot of muscle atrophy which he hasn’t as yet been able to fully regain. A comparison could be made to Dominique Wilkins who suffered through an identical injury – Achilles tear and differently sized calf muscle.  He went on to make a successful comeback earning two more All-star appearances.

What differentiates Brand from ‘nique is that he’s never relied on fantastic athleticism.  Once Wilkins was able to rehab his tendon extremely well, he was able to showcase his talents (or almost all of it) again.  On the other hand, for Brand, his game has been centered more around power. It is quite conceivable that the missing strength in Brand’s calf is having some influence on his game. In reading the aforementioned article, Brand finishes it by saying that “it’s still coming.” This obviously is an admittance he’s not able to do the same stuff he was prior to the Achilles rupture.

If you accept the conclusions of Theory One, EB’s possible career trajectory is average at best and pathetic at worst. Brand is destined to be an extremely highly paid role player, one that people will never believe a franchise was stupid enough to give an $80 million contract to. If you find yourself in this camp, do not attempt to buy low on Brand and if you already own him, cut your losses and sell him for whatever you can get. Every fantasy league has a Brand optimist or two.

Theory Two: System/Coach

According to this viewpoint, Brand’s pitiful production this season is more a result of poor coaching and a mismatch between player and system. Under this theory, Eddie Jordan and his motion offense are the antagonists and Brand is simply caught in the crossfire. There are a few variations on this general theory but the basic themes remain the same.

The first variation is that Coach Jordan is not getting Brand the shots he wants, where he wants them while playing him limited minutes. It seems plausible at first, especially if you’ve watched some of Philadelphia’s games this season. But if you look at the shot selection data from Brand’s vintage season, 2005-06, and compare it to the current season, some remarkable similarities emerge.

If you look at the percentage of attempts of different types of shots, you see that Brand is taking different types of shots at about the same rate now as in 2005-06. In his vintage season, 70 percent of EB’s shots were jump shots, versus 71 percent now. The similarity between percentage of shot attempts holds true for close (24 percent versus 23 percent now), dunks (4 percent versus 6 percent now) and tips (2 percent versus 0 percent now). In 2005-06, 30 percent of Brand’s attempts were from close range versus 29 percent now. Thus, the shot selection data from 82 Games does not support the claim of vastly different shot selection between Brand’s vintage seasons and now.

Looking more closely at the data, a couple of differences emerge. Brand v2009 had more of his shots blocked than Brand v2005, which actually provides mild support for Theory One. However, the truly interesting numbers are the assisted percentage number. This reflects the percentage of shot attempts that were setup by EB’s teammates. Across the board, these numbers are down in the current season meaning Brand has more responsibility to create his own shot. If you read between the lines, you come to the conclusion that EB might be struggling with having to create his own shots without a pure point guard on the roster.

Moreover, isn’t it curious that Brand is easily seeing the lowest minutes he’s ever had in his career (a little over 27)?  It’s especially confusing when you consider how much better the team performs when he is ON the floor. This, supports the idea that Brand’s struggles are related to the system and minutes that Coach Jordan has employed in the early goings this season.

The second variation is that Eddie Jordan is playing two post players (Brand along with either Samuel Dalembert or Marreese Speights) when the basics of the Princeton offense dictate it should be only one. Currently, Brand has logged the majority of his minutes at the four. This variation insists that Brand is being utilized ineffectively and that sliding him to the five where he can play closer to the basket where he can work on the low block. There may be some that point to the 82 Games stats by position. However, it must be pointed out that this data is based upon a very small sample size (around 10 total minutes of Brand at C). Take with large doses of salt.

If you buy either of these variations of Theory Two, Brand’s possible career trajectory is much rosier. The solution to the Elton Brand conundrum is simply adjust the offensive scheme or give Eddie the boot. Installing a system more suitable to the 80 million dollar man would correct a lot of the problems with Brand this season. If you fall into this camp and do not buy Theory One, Brand is a serious buy low candidate (depending upon your outlook for Jordan figuring it out or getting the axe).

Conclusion

Depending on which theory you buy into, last season’s marquee offseason signing, Elton Brand, ranges from a decent signing who has had a rough start in the City of Brotherly Love to a mediocre player with an absolute albatross of a contract. With such a large contract and these being tough economic times and all, Brand’s huge contract means he is most likely staying put for better or worse.

In the end, no one except maybe Elton Brand himself really knows whether Theory One or Theory Two is true. We each have the burden of examining the facts and interpreting them based upon our own personal observations. In the end, the onus is on each fantasy manager to come to his own conclusions for the reasons for Brand’s disappointing play and his possible career trajectory.

As a result of his disappointing play, Brand is catching lots of flack for his paycheck versus his production. Really, the blame for this unfortunate situation falls squarely on the Sixers front office for giving him so much money after a devastating Achilles injury and without seeing him play at a high level for a sustained period. For this reason, Brand should not be remembered for his Achilles but rather for his role as Atlas, destined to carry the load of the Philly faithful or to be crushed trying.