Much has been made of Eli's leadership abilities, and the role he plays in ensuring that Michigan's offense and defense execute smoothly and effiently. Still, leaders and role players rarely make all-conference teams, unless, of course, you are Aaron Craft, and have guys like Dick Vitale and Dan Dakich gush over you as if you were their blood child. Eli was our fifth offensive option last year, and, although very, very good on defense, not as good as Franz Wagnr, and like Franz, not considered worthy of being selected to the All Big Ten defensive team, despite being a leader of unquestionably the conference's best defensive team. So what would prompt anyone to think that such a role player could even be considered as a potential top 15, or even top 25 (with Honorable Mention selections) pre-season pick?
The simplest answer is that Eli Brooks led the Big Ten last season in plus/minus stats--not just in plus/minus per game, but in total plus/minus number, despite the facts that (a) Michigan played only 17 games as against others who played 19-20, (b) the 3 games which Michigan didn't play were against non-NCAA teams, where Eli and other Michigan players would likely have added to their plus/minus totals, and (c) Eli missed all of 1 game and approximately 90% of another in the Big Ten games Michigan did play. Of course, Michigan lost both games that Eli missed...and only 1 Big Ten regular season game of the 15 he did play. Now plus/minus stats can be deceiving--the sixth best guy on a great team is going to score better in that category than a great player on a mediocre team, the numbers can be skewed by the lineups you play with, team depth, minutes played, role on the team, etc., and in some cases, luck can be involved. No one, for example, would have voted Eli to an All Big Ten team over Franz or Hunter Dickinson or Isaiah Livers last season, because plus/minus isn't the only statistic to be considered. I agree with stats people that too much can be made of "intangibles" which aren't backed up by quantifiable stats, but here, there is a quantifiable stat, one which, while flawed, is at least useful as a measuring tool, and kept by statisticians. And Eli was the best in the entire conference, even operating at a substantial games handicap, in that statistical category.
Maybe I'm being a homer. Maybe I'm overrating the plus/minus stat. Maybe I'm misdefining what being an all-conference players means, and it should be the most talented or highest points/rebounds/assists guys on whichever team, regardless of who is around them. But to me, making your team better matters a lot. And it would be virtually impossible to argue against the proposition that Eli Brooks made Michigan substantially better last year when he was on the floor. than it was when he was not
Thoughts?
The simplest answer is that Eli Brooks led the Big Ten last season in plus/minus stats--not just in plus/minus per game, but in total plus/minus number, despite the facts that (a) Michigan played only 17 games as against others who played 19-20, (b) the 3 games which Michigan didn't play were against non-NCAA teams, where Eli and other Michigan players would likely have added to their plus/minus totals, and (c) Eli missed all of 1 game and approximately 90% of another in the Big Ten games Michigan did play. Of course, Michigan lost both games that Eli missed...and only 1 Big Ten regular season game of the 15 he did play. Now plus/minus stats can be deceiving--the sixth best guy on a great team is going to score better in that category than a great player on a mediocre team, the numbers can be skewed by the lineups you play with, team depth, minutes played, role on the team, etc., and in some cases, luck can be involved. No one, for example, would have voted Eli to an All Big Ten team over Franz or Hunter Dickinson or Isaiah Livers last season, because plus/minus isn't the only statistic to be considered. I agree with stats people that too much can be made of "intangibles" which aren't backed up by quantifiable stats, but here, there is a quantifiable stat, one which, while flawed, is at least useful as a measuring tool, and kept by statisticians. And Eli was the best in the entire conference, even operating at a substantial games handicap, in that statistical category.
Maybe I'm being a homer. Maybe I'm overrating the plus/minus stat. Maybe I'm misdefining what being an all-conference players means, and it should be the most talented or highest points/rebounds/assists guys on whichever team, regardless of who is around them. But to me, making your team better matters a lot. And it would be virtually impossible to argue against the proposition that Eli Brooks made Michigan substantially better last year when he was on the floor. than it was when he was not
Thoughts?
