Why is +/- for one game not relevant when one player supposedly lost the game for the Rockets ("When Brooks sucks, he loses you games")? Why do we need to look at sample size when tonight's game was supposedly a perfect illustration ("Tonight's game perfectly illustrates the difference between Lowry and Brooks")? None of this proves anything. I could say your 'leveraged moment' was only possible due to the starters and Lowry sucking so bad the bench had make up for it. Yawn.
How does one player losing the game for a team have anything to do with +/-? Are you ignoring the fact that his teammates could be carrying the load that leads to that positive +/-? He stated that tonight's game was a perfect illustration, he never said that a very misinterpreted statistic (+/-) was a perfect illustration. You could say that it was Lowry's fault, but then you would just be ignoring the fact that Brooks made terrible plays at the worst times.
I can do nothing for you if you cannot step outside the boundaries of your limited and rudimentary understanding of +/-. But because I am a very nice guy, I will try nonetheless. Many things contribute to a player's +/- for any particular game. Namely, the 4 other players you are playing with, and the 5 other players you are playing against. This is why for one game alone, there are way too many variables to make any conclusions. However, if a player has a consistently positive/negative +/- over time(sample size!), then we can isolate HIM as a key contributing factor. This is how Brooks can have a relatively tamer +/- tonight, and still be a key catalyst in shutting the door on our failed comeback. I am in no way blaming the loss entirely on him. Just pointing out the fact that his 2 dumb, costly turnovers leading to breakaways put the nail in the coffin. Lowry's poor game on the other hand, contributed neither to winning nor losing. As someone put it, he was "invisible". I never said we need to look at sample size for tonight's illustration of the difference between Brooks and Lowry. In fact, the mere idea of an illustration or example precludes itself from sample size: it's just one example! You are confusing an argument for the proper use of +/- statistics, with a simple illustration of a difference between players that is founded upon a career of examples. Again, reading comprehension. Look, I don't have time to get into drawn out explanations of rudimentary basketball statistics that even your casual fan should understand. The moral of the story is, before calling other people's posts "crap", make damn sure that your counter-argument isn't based on a flawed logic(and statistic) that even a 6 year old can "crap" all over.
larsv8 is not to be taken seriously at this point with his Brooks at all costs agenda. At least DD's sanity has returned regarding Brooks. Having said that, I think Brooks ran into a guy who was having a career night offensively...not much he could do against that. What angered me was how he let the guy out-hustle him. Brooks will win us games all by himself in the future but his on court demeanor when things are not going his way is disturbing. Brooks is the ultimate 6th man if he will accept that role willingly.
Over the last 5 games or so, Lowry's role in the offense has diminished (and I tend to think it's his own fault since he's the PG). Instead of trying to dribble and create something (which he was doing more of when he was on that hot streak), now he just dumps the ball into the high post after bringing it up on most possessions. Is there a reason for this? Playing against better defenders? Playing against better transition D? Mentally, just not as aggressive? The team desperately needs someone who can create (collapse the defense, beat his man, anything), and a lot of that needs to come from Lowry or Brooks.
^and of course I don't mean do it on every possession. A lot of the offense will still start with Scola/Miller, but we need more variation, especially when Scola is struggling.
Both Kyle and AB have struggled lately, Kyle is not shooting as well and has become less aggressive, and AB is shooting worse than CBud....which should tell you all you need to know about that. Usually the team can win when one PG is doing well, the Toronto game was the first one I can remember where both AB and KL sucked, and the team still won. In order for the Rockets to win, ONE of them has to be playing well.....doesn't matter which, but one of them does.... And please stop with the +/- bull****, that is one worthless statistical measurment. DD
For some reason, when Kyle is not shooting well, his aggression wanes, and when AB is not shooting well, he shoots MORE..... It is bizzare, like a character flaw for both of them. DD
Not so strane, Kyle is a PG by nature, so he looks for others. AB is a SG by nature, so he looks for his own shot. Amazingly TWill might be able to salvage AB in Htown, he has the vision to play a point-forward role, and that could put Brooks off the ball and free to play SG.
it's cos his minutes have gone down with Brooks coming back. He has less time to get a feel for the game. Notice that his best games are always when he plays huge minutes this season.
When DaDa says "aggression", I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean shoot more. He means try and drive to create something. When he's with the starting unit, Lowry is by far the best ball handler.
He played great last year in limited minutes, had plenty of games where he was awesome. Maybe his hot streak has ended. DD
You're right about accepting-the-sixth-man role, but he won't. And the fact that he didn't get his payday is affecting his game. I'm not an AB hater, but I still can't help but think he'll be dealt to Sacramento or some other team with a playmaking 2 or 3. Pairing him with Kevin Martin is a disaster, defense-wise. But leaving him in "demotion" 6th-man limbo (granted, he's coming back from an injury) will simply exacerbate his lack of focus.
