Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

The Bruski 150


LuSamSiam

Recommended Posts

Are people really trying to blame Bruski 150 list for the bad season they are having? The list gives an idea as to where HE thinks the players will finish at the end of the year, not where you should draft them as far as I remember.

I personally wasn't blaming Bruski; I don't believe in blindly following anybody's advice without doing your own research. I was merely pointing out Bruski is not infallible and his hubris makes him someone tough to trust, esp given the context it can affect those who blindly trust him. I would never and I hope for everyone else's sake follow what someone tells you to do with little to no personal interjection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Part of the excitement of fantasy sport, and particularly NBA is that it allows for a multitude of opinions, team structures, theories and whatnot, and any or all could be successful. I love reading the opinions of any and all fantasy experts, eagerly devouring everything that an expert has said, even going back to what i reckon was the apogee of fantasy sports reading, the Brandon Funston Big Boards of the mid 2000's.

In saying that, over time you do let your own hunches, feelings and theories sort of guide your side. Every fantasy expert's writings represents an opinion, some with more ready access to facts, but they are mainly informed opinions. No fantasy coach should really totally blame one of these pieces as a reason for their failures in a season. Luck plays a huge role, as does a bit of nous and derring-do.

The excitement in NBA particularly is the variety of players you can have, the more consistent outputs and rotations (compared to fantasy NFL where you live or die by what your QB chooses to do, either hand-off or throw) and there is always a pool of players whose fantasy output waxes and wanes within the season. It's just a matter of hopping aboard the right FA's when they get hot, and knowing when to drop someone as they trend down. It's intoxicating for our group, we've played in our friends league since the '04-05 season. It's great fun and that's the best part for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are people really trying to blame Bruski 150 list for the bad season they are having? The list gives an idea as to where HE thinks the players will finish at the end of the year, not where you should draft them as far as I remember.

I personally wasn't blaming Bruski; I don't believe in blindly following anybody's advice without doing your own research. I was merely pointing out Bruski is not infallible and his hubris makes him someone tough to trust, esp given the context it can affect those who blindly trust him. I would never and I hope for everyone else's sake follow what someone tells you to do with little to no personal interjection.

I don't think anyone is blaming Bruski for their bad season (and that's assuming they're even having a bad season to begin with)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the excitement of fantasy sport, and particularly NBA is that it allows for a multitude of opinions, team structures, theories and whatnot, and any or all could be successful. I love reading the opinions of any and all fantasy experts, eagerly devouring everything that an expert has said, even going back to what i reckon was the apogee of fantasy sports reading, the Brandon Funston Big Boards of the mid 2000's.In saying that, over time you do let your own hunches, feelings and theories sort of guide your side. Every fantasy expert's writings represents an opinion, some with more ready access to facts, but they are mainly informed opinions. No fantasy coach should really totally blame one of these pieces as a reason for their failures in a season. Luck plays a huge role, as does a bit of nous and derring-do.The excitement in NBA particularly is the variety of players you can have, the more consistent outputs and rotations (compared to fantasy NFL where you live or die by what your QB chooses to do, either hand-off or throw) and there is always a pool of players whose fantasy output waxes and wanes within the season. It's just a matter of hopping aboard the right FA's when they get hot, and knowing when to drop someone as they trend down. It's intoxicating for our group, we've played in our friends league since the '04-05 season. It's great fun and that's the best part for me.

That is pretty much what it is. That, and coming up with your own quantitative analysis, so you are not at the mercy of the data others create.

Thinking about it more. I think some posters are in the opinion that Bruski doesn't deserve to make a living forecasting player's values. And I respect that. Understanding that Bruski is flawed in certain areas, like being stubborn, is helpful for doing stronger analysis. Like you, I love eating up what the pros have to say. I just try not to take their opinions as gospel. Merely using their columns to extract good information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That he's been nominated for "best" anything speaks to the need for better fantasy writers, not anything to do with his actual quality.

this^. bruski's nomination for fantasy bball writer of the year is more of an indictment on the fantasy bball expert community than anything. however, the dearth of competent expert analysis is part of why i like fantasy bball more than football and baseball. the latter two games are saturated with high-end analytical tools (e.g., writers and projection systems), so we have reached the point where a passive player can be highly effective just by following expert advise, etc. that's not the case for fantasy basketball, however, which opens up big profit opportunities for diligent players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

From Bruski's "Reviewing the Bruski 150" posted today:

"Kyle O’Quinn deserves his own paragraph, not just because of the awesomely bad Photoshop floating around here with my head on his body, but because he was easily my biggest miss of the year. The worst part about it is that Orlando is such a small market, including a history of not reporting major injuries, that we have no real idea what happened there. I saw with my own eyes that he was terrible and even very terrible at times, but this was a guy that put up consistent numbers for 2-3 months the year before and just fell off a cliff. And there are still folks around the league that think he is a diamond in the rough find for the Knicks. Was he injured? Was he pissed off at the low playing time and uninspiring team environment? I don’t know, but you guys know I don’t pull any punches with my lists and I basically knocked myself out here so fire away."

Bruski bro, I agree it was terrible. I used Microsoft Paint and I'd had at least three glasses of wine when I did that. You can't say you didn't deserve it doe. ;)

Bruski2_zps9200a512.jpg

:lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That he's been nominated for "best" anything speaks to the need for better fantasy writers, not anything to do with his actual quality.

this^. bruski's nomination for fantasy bball writer of the year is more of an indictment on the fantasy bball expert community than anything. however, the dearth of competent expert analysis is part of why i like fantasy bball more than football and baseball. the latter two games are saturated with high-end analytical tools (e.g., writers and projection systems), so we have reached the point where a passive player can be highly effective just by following expert advise, etc. that's not the case for fantasy basketball, however, which opens up big profit opportunities for diligent players.

Gimme the Redrock guys over this Bruski guy anyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rankings are just another form of entertainment. When three or more of the top writers/gamers get high on a breakout prospect then my attention span perks up, ala Draymond, Gobert, Markieff, Dieng, and even R-Jacks. They offset the busters Batum, Faried and Noah who were all better '13-'14 season. When last player picked don't work out, no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with pundits is that they make names for themselves taking big risks. When they pan out, they are quick to point to them with flashing lights to highlight their skill, but when they don't pan out they tend to hide them. Bruski at least has the balls to review his rankings each year, which I don't see a lot of pundits doing, even if his review is completely self-serving. I also think some of the criticism of his self-assessment focuses on the wrong issues. For example, you are quick to point out how badly his projections misses on LMA year-after-year but it's almost irrelevant because it's not harmful. If you follow his analysis, then the worst that can happen is that you don't draft LMA but draft someone just as good in the second round. He also missed badly on Kyle O'Quinn. But I hope no one reached for him earlier than the 11-13th round. Players picked past the 10th round in standard 12 player roster/12 GM leagues are just streamers. If you drafted O'Quinn in the 13th round and he didn't pan out you can just replace him on the waiver wire. So his analysis regarding LMA and O'Quinn was not harmful. He did tout Gobert early in the season and struck gold. I didn't draft Gobert because he told me to do so but reading pundits such as him and others caused me to take a look at Gobert and when I saw film of Gobert I knew I would draft him. Personally, I never took his analysis regarding O'Quinn seriously because I live near Orlando and I barely even know who he is. If he had bothered to pick up the Orlando Sentinel, he'd know he was barely even on the radar. I also ignored his advice re LMA as just hollow noise. But he caused me to look at Gobert. With these guys, you have to take what works, and disregard the rest. If you just get one helpful tidbit from each pundit you read then you'll be a better GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the whole premise of his "review" of last year's list because it seems more like an opportunity to point out he was right than an actual objective attempt to analyze his list...but then again the number of us who don't brag about our drafting prowess are few and far between so whatevs.

Hitting on Gobert was one of my personal favorite picks. I based it completely on him showing out against Ibaka/Gasols and beating them in the FIBA cup, if he can beat a team with those 3 I figured there aren't many front courts he wouldn't feast against if given the minutes.

P.S: James Johnson and Pat Bev are two other players RW overhyped entirely too much. They made Bev sound like a PG version of Kawhi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose, who would you predict that person might be? Bruski nailed this one.

https://twitter.com/aaronbruski/status/653699768909037568

You didn't read what he said properly. He said Norris Cole is one guy they cannot afford to lose. He did not say Norris Cole is the one guy the Pelicans can't afford to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose, who would you predict that person might be? Bruski nailed this one.

https://twitter.com/aaronbruski/status/653699768909037568

You didn't read what he said properly. He said Norris Cole is one guy they cannot afford to lose. He did not say Norris Cole is the one guy the Pelicans can't afford to lose.

Show me the "the" in my comment.

Either way: Any team can afford to lose Norris Cole, for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose, who would you predict that person might be? Bruski nailed this one.

https://twitter.com/aaronbruski/status/653699768909037568

You didn't read what he said properly. He said Norris Cole is one guy they cannot afford to lose. He did not say Norris Cole is the one guy the Pelicans can't afford to lose.

Show me the "the" in my comment.

Either way: Any team can afford to lose Norris Cole, for the most part.

?

Not to mention your capitalization of ONE GUY preceding the Pelicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose, who would you predict that person might be? Bruski nailed this one.

https://twitter.com/aaronbruski/status/653699768909037568

You didn't read what he said properly. He said Norris Cole is one guy they cannot afford to lose. He did not say Norris Cole is the one guy the Pelicans can't afford to lose.

Show me the "the" in my comment.

Either way: Any team can afford to lose Norris Cole, for the most part.

?

Not to mention your capitalization of ONE GUY preceding the Pelicans.

That wasn't the point. I didn't say "the one guy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose, who would you predict that person might be? Bruski nailed this one.

https://twitter.com/aaronbruski/status/653699768909037568

Bruski's comment was "Norris Cole is one guy the Pelicans cannot afford to lose". That means Cole is one among a number of guys that the Pelicans can't afford to lose.

Your comment was "If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose..." That means that Norris Cole is the guy that, more than the other players, the team can't afford to lose.

It's a matter of semantics and not really worth the time to discuss, but it's clear why people interpreted what you said the way they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose, who would you predict that person might be? Bruski nailed this one.

https://twitter.com/aaronbruski/status/653699768909037568

Bruski's comment was "Norris Cole is one guy the Pelicans cannot afford to lose". That means Cole is one among a number of guys that the Pelicans can't afford to lose.

Your comment was "If there's ONE GUY the Pelicans can't afford to lose..." That means that Norris Cole is the guy that, more than the other players, the team can't afford to lose.

It's a matter of semantics and not really worth the time to discuss, but it's clear why people interpreted what you said the way they did.

It's absolutely not worth the time to discuss, and yet it keeps being discussed. I'll be resigning from the conversation immediately after this comment, because for some reason a one-line quip has now generated far more conversation about a tiny semantic question than any other one-line quip in my Internet commenting "career."

If I thought Bruski said "THE one guy" I would've used the word "the" before "one guy." I know what he said. His comment, to me, was goofy -- there are a good half-dozen guys on the Pelicans roster, IMO, who would be more likely to make a list of "one guy(s)" that the Pelicans can't afford to lose. If he said "Tyreke Evans is one guy the Pelicans can't afford to lose" it would be more valid and because he was one of several who were essential (there is only one contender for "THE one guy" the Pelicans can't afford to lose, and he has an awesome unibrow). Norris Cole doesn't rise to that level of even quasi-essential for me. I would've guessed several other names first if someone had given me a sentence that read "_____ is one guy the Pelicans can't afford to lose." He strikes me as pretty replaceable. Thus, my comment.

To your point, yes, I would understand if the initial person read my comment and thought I meant otherwise, but you'd think that I've indicated the opposite -- repeatedly -- would be enough reason to accept and move on. So I'm gonna move on on my own, and just let the Internet carry on misinterpreting if it wants to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...