I am actually a big Rockets fan and admire Daryl Morey's (the GM) advanced methods of player evaluation. Beyond traditional scouting, Morey's staff uses complex quantitative analysis and are able to identify characteristics of performance (defense and ability to draw fouls) that are undervalued relative to cost. The situation with Dunta brings back a frustration of mine regarding football. Lots of folks here say Dunta's not worth the tag, Dunta's average but still our best, and on and on.... These observations might be right but is there a real basis for these opinions? For example, my own eyes seemed to tell me that there's no real difference between Glover Quinn, Jacque Reeves and Dunta. All of them appear to be pretty average CB's that sometimes made plays defending the pass and Quinn and Dunta being somewhat better against the run (but Dunta has declined in that area the most). Reeves and Quinn look faster, but Reeves lacks instincts to make plays on the ball. For those reasons, I don't think Dunta leaving makes that much a difference, unless you expect that he will "Return to form" another year removed from surgery. In football, how do talent evaluators compare these three. What are the criteria, whether subjective or objective?