Brooks is not inefficient. His TS% of 54.9% last year was not bad. His problem is overdribbling, poor court vision, and lack of defense.
Yawn. He's right up there with such "winners" as Rudy Gay, Stephen Jackson and Tyreke Evans - AKA the chuckers I want nowhere near my team. Awesomeness! If you want a poor man's Monta Ellis, Brooks is your man! Maybe we should have dropped the max on Brooks and spent the next half dozen years competing with the Grizzles and the Warriors for the 8th seed. If your point is that Brooks is a "great player" like Stephen Jackson, then I concede. Points per game, Player Efficiency Rating, Team W/L: Brooks: 19.6, 16.0, 42-40 D. Williams: 18.7, 20.6, 53-29 Kaman: 18.5, 16.5, 29-53 G. Wallace: 18.2, 18.3, 53-29 D. West: 19.0, 18.9, 37-45 B. Lopez: 18.8, 20.1, 12-70 Billups: 19.5, 20.2, 53-29 Gay: 19.6, 16.2, 40-42 T. Evans: 20.1, 14.8, 25-57 S. Jackson: 20.6, 15.6, n/a D. Rose: 20.8, 18.6, 41-41 Joe Johnson: 21.3, 14.5, 53-29 Granger: 24.1, 19.8, 32-50 Nowitzki: 25.0, 28.4, 55-27 M. Ellis: 25.5, 16.7, 26-56 Wade: 26.6, 28.0, 47-35 Bryant: 27.0, 21.9, 57-25 Anthony: 28.2, 22.2, 53-29
PER includes other stuff like rebounding, assists, and steals. It depends on whether you are talking about just scoring as to whether he's efficient.
Unlucky number. Unfortunate fates for Steve Francis and Tracy while wearing it. Bobby Sura got injured too.
Why are you listing PER stats to defend your ignorant assertions that Brooks has "never, ever been an efficient scorer" and was "damn near the least efficient scorer in the league among people scoring that many points"? Are you not aware that PER is not used to measure scoring efficiency? There's been an awful lot of attitude in your posts in this thread for someone who doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.
I don't know if you actually read what I wrote from the beginning, or if you think smug derisive snottiness is an acceptable substitute, but my point from the beginning has been his lack of PG skills, and his stature-induced lack of defense limit his real world value. But if you'd like to just focus just on the scoring, here is points per attempt, which puts him in the same territory as "awesome scorers" like Rudy Gay and Stephen Jackson: Brooks: 19.6, 1.205 D. Williams: 18.7, 1.348 Kaman: 18.5, 1.171 G. Wallace: 18.2, 1.470 D. West: 19.0, 1.257 B. Lopez: 18.8, 1.366 Billups: 19.5, 1.483 Gay: 19.6, 1.217 T. Evans: 20.1, 1.245 S. Jackson: 20.6, 1.176 D. Rose: 20.8, 1.179 Joe Johnson: 21.3, 1.168 Granger: 24.1, 1.314 Nowitzki: 25.0, 1.355 M. Ellis: 25.5, 1.160 Wade: 26.6, 1.353 Bryant: 27.0, 1.256 Anthony: 28.2, 1.294
I've only read what I've quoted from you near the end of the thread, where incidentally YOU focused on scoring. I had no desire to go through 15 pages of "Aaron Brooks is a midget who needs to die". As far as PPS, it also puts him ahead of guys like Derrick Rose, Joe Johnson, and Monta Ellis. The other guys ahead of him didn't have Ariza, Battier, and Hayes in the lineup with them. I don't think anyone expected Brooks to be paid as much as most of the guys listed.
Stephen Jackson is a winner. He's won everywhere he's went. He won in San Antonio, He won in Indiana, He won in Golden State, and he even took the Bobcats to the playoffs. Get your facts straight next time.
I honestly think Goran Dragic is more of what our team needs if we should get a Superstar. We dont want a player like Brooks taking shots away from him. He cant pass the ball to the Superstars. Since we dont want that? Decent move. Brooks cant pass real good or play defense at his position. I would say he is the worst defender in the NBA and much worse than Kevin Martin. So I think the big contract he will get is totally unecessary for what we need moving forward. Morey actually is making great moves that are smart in this regard. He is holding off and holding off making bad moves until he can land a Superstar. At least money wise he is holding off.
Brooks isn't the worst defender, Scola is worse. But I do agree, Goran is what we need and I believe if we don't draft/trade for another PG, Goran will be and needs to be a starter over Lowry. I really like Lowry but I like Goran better in the starting line-up.
Watched parts of the Suns game today to see how Brooks was doing. His negative impact on the game is still very evident. For example, Suns are up by double digits going into the 4th, and Brooks comes in. In the 2:30 min he played, he dribbled dribbled dribbled and put up 2 bad offensive shots (easy misses or ill-advised shots) and also gave up 2 jumpers to the man he was guarding... (to AJ price who seemingly burst full of confidence once he realized who was guarding him). Alvin Gentry calls time out. LOL. another bad pass by brooks and another jump shot by aj price. This is who Brooks is. I liked the guy but he bettered our team by leaving it. I've watched every Rockets game this year and I'm pretty sure that playing Brooks has cost us 4-6 wins this year.
Lol at Suns fans "Remember how Nash goes out of the game, and we start getting raped by the other team? Remember how that keeps happening every game this year? This will not happen any more with Aaron Brooks on the team. Brooks is a scoring machine. He may be a little ginger for his first few games as a Sun, since he's still getting his ankle back to 100%. But our amazing training staff will have him in top shape in no time. This guy is instant offense. He can score in bunches, WAY better than Goran did." "things to watch aaron for - will he be a defensive drop off from nash? dragic was a defensive plus. will he punish the traps? indy got back in this 'cause aj price (brooks' man) got going, and 'cause brooks couldn't handle the trap (as bad as dragic is fear mode). he doesn't know the team mates yet at all, so time will tell..."
You are right. It was all Jackson in San Antonio. It had nothing to do with Parker or Manu or some loser named Duncan. Jackson was clearly the feature player on that team. Same with Indiana. Nobody ever heard of Jermaine O'Neal or Ron Artest or Peja or Reggie Miller. That was all Stephen Jackson, amiright? As stated, if you want Brooks to be your third or fourth scorer and a part timer like Jackson was for those teams, you will be fine. He is a great player for that role. Better than Jackson, in fact, because he's not a selfish quarrelsome dick and he at least tries on defense. Alternately, if your definition of "being a winner" is to challenge for the #8 seed and a .500 record every year featuring him chucking the ball as your main scoring threat and getting into fights with coaches and teammates, then you are right, Stephen Jackson is pure awesomeness! If Brooks aspires to play for 6 teams in 10 years because nobody can stand the dude, then yes, he should do his best to be a "winner" like Jackson.
You have no idea what you're talking about. No wonder you've been embarrassed in this thread. Jackson doesn't try on defense? Lol, where did you get that one from? Jackson is a very good defender. Jackson is also clutch but I wouldn't expect you to know that either. Jackson was just as important as Parker and much more vital to the team than Ginobili when he helped the Spurs win a championship in 2002-2003 with his scoring, clutch play, and great D. Jackson was the heart and soul of those Pacers teams that went deep in the playoffs. Do you want me to pull up the video of him destroying a 67 win #1 seed Dallas team with his 7 three pointers in an elimination game in the playoffs when he was with Golden State? He also took the freaking Bobcats to the playoffs. You can call him all the names you want and make all the disparaging remarks you want, but he's won everywhere he's went and he's always played a significant role in the process.
Cherry picking passing lanes, gambling, and being long ≠ good man defense. He was a better defender half a dozen years ago when he was a secondary player. You are correct, however, that he does put forth effort so I misspoke. He is still a crazy @sshole that manages to get kicked to the curb everywhere he's played and an inefficient offensive player who can't win unless he's 3rd or 4th option. You certainly don't build your team around him consistently bearing the scoring load like people seem to think should have been the case with Brooks, unless you like mediocrity, drama, and first round playoff exits. He's definitely not a "winner" unless you surround him with Duncan, Manu, and Parker in their primes. Hell, Dave Jamerson hit a few big playoff shots for the Rockets when "The Duck" was the head coach. Do you remember that? Does that make him a winner? If that is the definition of winner, then there are a whole lot of them out there. If you put Brooks on that team in place of Speedy Claxton, then you could call him a winner, too. But when I use that word, I'm thinking of something a bit more selective - someone who can consistently carry a team deep in the playoffs. If you think Brooks would have been a "winner" at $8-$9 million and the #1 or #2 option getting 40 minutes a game, you are wrong. Again, I'm much more fond of Brooks than it seems here. It's just that he's not a #1 or #2 option playing 40 minutes a night on a winning team, like most of you fanboys seem to think.
He's not as bad as you make him out to be. He was the starter and 2nd-best offensive player on a team that won 20 of their last 28 games and won 7 playoff games. He was a strength of that team, not a liability. All of that flies in the face of the conventional 'wisdom' around here that has somehow become fact, that tells us Brooks can't play an important role on a good team. It's complete crap and a result of the stereotyping of what a point guard should be and disregards what wins in the NBA. And no, I never said anything about 'building around' Brooks or giving him some exorbitant contract.
