Top 7 is a tough list to crack (That's 10 players already) No Order, but listed by tiers Chris Paul Derrick Rose Deron Williams Steve Nash Russell Westbrook Rajon Rondo John Wall Jason Kidd Stephen Curry Tony Parker Ty Lawson Jrue Holliday Jose Calderon Raymond Felton Andre Miller Ramon Sessions Mike Conley Lowry is nowhere close to the players in the top 5. I'm having hard time putting him in the top 10. This league is point guard heavy.
Kidd doesn't belong in that group, he isnt that good anymore. Last years Lowry is right there in the 10-11 range with Holiday. Lets hope he keeps up his good play. I feel like him and Scola might be shopped at the deadline though for one of CP3 or Dwill
Yes it is. You probably will have to add John Wall into that elite top 5 next year. Lowry at his best will probably be a borderline top 10 PG. But we have to understand that is awesome. PG isn't a "weak" position for us.
If your understanding of basketball is limited to Points, Rebounds, Assists, and throw in some FG% for good measure, then I can understand how you have so much trouble seeing what I am talking about. FYI, scoring what Brooks scored per game on average efficiency is not some grand accomplishment in the NBA. Plenty of average to below average players have done it. Andrea Bargnani Michael Beasley Tyreke Evans Corey Maggette Jamal Crawford Al Harrington John Salmons Mo Williams Nate Robinson Atoine Walker Ricky Davis Just to name a few. With Daryl Morey as your GM, I expect you to have a little deeper appreciation for the game than coming up with arguments 5 year olds on ESPN boards use: HE SCOREZ 20 POINTS A GAME!!!!1111
Nice for you to overlook the 45-37 record I pointed out with Steve as our best player. And no, Brooks that year helped us got to a 42-40 record. a WINNING record. So apparently those stats contributed to freakin' WINS - which is the bottom line in this league. Sure Stevie was not the superstar we hoped for, nor AB wasn't the all-star we wished for, but those guys PRODUCED. In the particular seasons that I pointed out where they were statistically very good, we won more than we lost. So what are you talking about again? Do you want to go into intangibles now?
Basically, this is all conjecture. What happened was that Morey knew that AB was not as good as his inflated stats made him seem to be and thus did not address him as such. We cannot base our arguments on what we assume might have happened - sure you might think that it is a reasonable inference, but you do not know that it would have played out that way or that Brooks was actually thinking that way. Brooks cracked under the pressure? I'm thinking more like he was openly belligerent about his contract situation which affected his play and his team's play which resulted in his departure from Houston. You cannot just judge a player by his points, assists (or lack thereof), and 3 pt FG percentage. Brooks straight up sucked on defense, was not a good floor general, and basically played like a shooting guard at the point position with no other playmaker on the floor. That's fine if he's coming off the bench ala JJ Barea. Not if he's a starting PG. Eventually, the better PG ended up starting and it's paid off. Just watch Brooks in Phoenix and tell me he's better than Lowry.
If you look back on Lowry's FA year, Morey pretty much did nothing either. Just like he didn't do jack squat with Brooks. They were treated EXACTLY the same. The difference was that Lowry sucked it up and played. Then he went out and found a contract, which Morey found acceptable and matched in a nanosecond. Had Brooks stayed, played well, and wasn't being a cancer, Morey likely would've done the same thing by asking him to find an offer before deciding to match or not. Of course, this is assuming Morey's not basing his entire strategy on 2012 FA market, in which case he'd likely have dumped Brooks regardless. Morey basically overpays for exactly one kind of player: STAR. He would've overpaid for DWill, Melo, Bosh, and even Amare if Amare wasn't such an injury risk and wanted a super-long deal. Lowry, Brooks, Landry, even Scola got the same treatment more or less.
Morey publicly stated after that season that Brooks was a championship-caliber starting PG. That came from Morey, not me. Look, I don't mind if people want to say Lowry is the better choice or whatever (I was happy with the 09-10 Brooks, and what I saw last year from Lowry for the most part). I didn't consider our PG play a weakness in 09-10, and I don't consider it a weakness now. A PG nowadays does NOT have to be a pass-first PG for that player to be an effective PG. But apparently on this board, most believe he has to be a pass-first PG for him to be effective one. If I understand the landscape of the PGs in today's league, 2 of the top 5 PGs are shoot-first PG (Derrick Rose and Westbrook--and those guys take it to the extreme). Obviously those guys are much much better than Brooks, but at the end of the day, Brooks was an impactful player for us that year, and he helped (along with other players) made us into a playoff contender. Brooks was just LEARNING to be a PG that year (that was his first year as a full-time starter) and he played awesome. He had flaws, as Lowry has his own flaws. And what he did that year allowed us to be over .500 (without Yao, and without Martin except for 22 games), and thus he was able to win MIP. What happened to Brooks was unfortunate b/c he did crack under pressure. He was young. He thought he had a great individual season, and thus deserved a pay raise, and didn't get one. He couldn't withstand the hardball that Morey played with him. Brooks is playing behind a top 5 PG in Phoenix. I'm sure he won't have the chances to show what he is truly capable of (just like Lowry for several years in Memphis). The league is about opportunity. Brooks wasted his chance with us, but I'm sure another one will come up b/c he's a talented player. Ultimately, I just don't like the fact that many on here simply like to dismiss what Brooks did in 09-10. It's really mind-boggling to me. He's not a superstar, nor was he paid like one that year. He EXCEEDED expectations that year individually, and our team as a whole. And yet people still don't really respect what he did that particular year. I'm happy with Lowry, as we all should be b/c he's a very good starter. But let's not belittle what Brooks did in 09-10 now. Lowry averaged 9 points, 4 assists on 39% shooting the year he went into FA. I'm sure Morey knew the relative asking price for Lowry, and it was not going to be high. Brooks came off an MIP year, had the hype in the league, and thus his asking price was higher. I'm not going to guess what if/shoulda/woulda. You're right, Brooks didn't suck it up and play with a chip on his shoulder. In any sports, you're not rewarded for a "flash" of good play, but consistency. Morey, being the smart GM that he is, isn't going to overpay a guy that may have played over his head for one year. So I completely agree with you in terms of how Morey negotiates. But Lowry was a different case, b/c his asking price wasn't the same as Brooks'.
The Brooks vs. Lowry comparison is an interesting from a traditional stats v. advanced geek stats perspective. Brooks supporters typically talks about his 20 points and 5 dimes per game in 2009/2010 as evidence that he played "awesome" because it is better than Lowry's 13.5 points and 6.7 dimes. However, Brooks' advanced numbers were generally mediocre to bad: ORtg (108, about average), DRtg (112, well below average) TS% (.549, slightly above average), WS/48 (.91, below average, which is .100). Lowry's numbers other than TS%, by contrast, were significantly better both in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. ORTG: 113 and 115, DRTG: 109 and 110. TS: .536 and .550. WS/48: .126 and .130. Lowry also had better +/- type stats. While the Rockets management likely don't use these specific stats -- they got more detailed proprietary stuff -- we do know they fall far more toward the latter camp than the former.
For one, a starting PG on a championship team does not mean much. This can mean anyone from Kenny "Can't Dribble" Smith and Derek Fisher to someone like Rose. Brooks was not a PG. He was an undersized shooting guard playing in the 2 spot. He was scorer and when away from the 3pt line, not a very efficient one either. His stop and pop would have been effective if he was more consistent with it and used it more, especially off screens. Don't even get me started about his abilities to finish after penetrating. Crossing the finish line is just as important as penetrating defenses, if not more so. We desperately needed a scorer during his breakout year with one of our primary scoring options being Ariza. He stepped up to the plate and fulfilled that role well enough, but if Brooks is the primary scoring option for ANY team, that team is in big, big trouble. Once we picked up the drastically better scorer in Martin, AB should have stepped back in his scoring and focused more on ball distribution. All of this is simply taking a look supposed strong point, being a scorer. Let us focus on his actual weak points now. He could not play D for one, either because he was too slight/small, did not want to, or did not know how. Guards regularly blew by him on a game night basis. He is not a playmaker, typically passing to try to bail himself out of trouble. His mentality was: - Score first - Score second - Score third - I am in trouble, who can I pass to? This is fine in a PG that's role is also the primary scorer on the team. This means Rose, Paul, etc and even those players usually look to make a play happen before looking to shoot first themselves. A passing PG or a PG who passes well is important, because it establishes the offense and rhythm of the team. It is undeniable that when a real PG takes the floor, it feels like a totally different game. There is discipline and a distinct rhythm to the offense. Don't get me wrong. Scoring PG's can be great, but on a team with scorers like Scola and Martin, who are both more efficient at scoring, Brooks scoring mentality was not needed. I am not discounting AB's achievements, simply bringing the perception of him as a scorer back to reality. A lot of people seemed to still be blinded by illusions of how good they thought he was and in all honesty, we all do that sometimes. He was a scorer and an undersized shooting guard, not even a top one at that. Hopefully he can appreciate the PG role while sitting on the bench behind Nash and learn from it. All I know, is if he does not rapidly develop his game, he will end up as only a starter on a bad team and "career backup" on a truly good team.
One of the things I disliked most about his game was his McGrady-esque tendency to walk the ball up after each defensive stop and kill any chance of transition offense.
where was this? all I remember was dadakota having in his signature that Daryl stating that brooks could be a starting point guard on a championship team could be and is are two entirely different things the former is saying that a team could have him as a starting point guard if all the other players fall into place in a great/perfect scenario and with some luck -- much like how Rafer Alston, Derek Fisher, Avery Johnson Eric Snow were all point guards on NBA Finalist teams Saying he 'is' means that he would be a primary component of a NBA finals team much like Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, Chauncey Billups, Jason Kidd were. And as the saying goes a man's actions speak louder than his words...when Lowry was a RFA there was no trade made or anything, Lowry played through it all never was visibly upset that nothing was done during the season and as soon as a contract was offered - a contract that many here felt was overpaying Lowry - Daryl and Les matched it right away. Contrast that with how the situation with brooks was handled and Daryl traded brooks for Dragic who by all accounts isnt as talented as brooks (so far) shows to me at least what Daryl actually felt about brooks and brooks' career long term with the rockets.
Or you can look at wins, and overall performance. Look what Brooks did in 2008 playoffs, and how we over-achieved in 2009-2010 season. What we achieved in 09-10 was basically the same as 10-11. You can use ANY stats to favor Brooks or Lowry. They are both very good players, depending on what you want. "All Alexander is said to care about is winning championships and his right hand man is on record saying Brooks is a championship-caliber point guard. Those are hard to come by, so if the organization believes that to be true, then why on Earth hasn't a new deal been inked?" Look, Brooks handled the situation wrong by sulking/pouting/whining and that was inexcusable. I didn't mind what the team did to him. He deserved to be traded for crap by doing what he did. No player, in my opinion, deserves a pay raise for ONE season of good play. Players should get a pay raise by consistently good/great play. If Brooks didn't pout/sulk/cry and continue to play hard and produce, I have zero doubt that Brooks would still be the starter right now. I think he was going to offer Bosh the max last year. He plays the PG position; he dishes out assists. That's a PG. He may be shoot-first, but he was a PG. Nobody said he was a great PG, but he was a starting-caliber PG in my opinion. The guy has flaws; I never said he was a PERFECT player, b/c he is nowhere close to that. People!!! I'm just simply trying to say Brooks put in work for us that year! The guy played hard, and he deserved some recognition b/c he overachieved, along with our team that year. But instead, this thread has become a thread that basically just trashes all of his flaws. And primary option? Brooks can't be one. Lowry can never be one either on a great team. What are you trying to say? AT best, those guys are the 3rd or 4th best player on a real championship contender. Again: As I stated in 09-10 when many thought Brooks would be an all-star player, I disagreed with that. I thought he was a very good starter, the same feelings I have for Lowry now. Both guys aren't all-stars, and most likely will never be one. But they're good players, and our PG was and still isn't a weak one. Please don't have this illusion that I think he was this great player or an all-star type player, when I really know his real potential: he over-achieved in 09-10. That was one of his biggest weaknesses. With his speed and quickness, it was inexcusable at times when he did that.
Actually, no. Not from an "advanced stats" view. The Rockets were ranked 17th in the "power ranking" type stats (point differential, etc.) in 09/10 and 11th in 10/11. What this indicated was they lucked into more wins than they should have in 09/10 and had worse luck in 10/11. Also, even back in 09/10, the Rockets were playing significantly better whenever Lowry played than when Brooks played. Lowry arguably contributed more to the winning 09/10 season, at least on a per-minute basis, than Brooks did.
You realize basketball is a team sport, yes? Bringing up season records to evaluate an individual player on the team doesn't make an ounce of sense. A theme you have perpetuated in this thread: an utter lack of common sense. Carl brought up WS/48 and +/- type stats, the purposes of which attempts to isolate and measure an individual's contributions to winning. They may not be flawless metrics, but they sure beat the hell out of "freakin' WINS" alone.
Yes, AB was our starting PG of that team and he played 36 minutes per game that year. Are you telling me he didn't "help" the team? So now we're talking about "luck." Great! The reason we "lucked into a few wins per se was that Brooks that year had an uncanny ability to hit some shots down the stretch. Stats are not the end-all be all in terms of team stats for sports. Look at the SD Chargers last year. They were top 2-3 in offense and defense and they were nowhere close to a championship-caliber team. It's fine if people believe Lowry is the better player. I have no problem with that. I just have a problem with some on here disparaging what Brooks did in 09-10 like it was nothing. That's just pathetic.
