Yes, he understands bball more than internet posters. But that ain't saying much. He still made too many poor decisions and didn't run the point like Kyle Lowry can. IMO.
AB's talent is nowhere near "amazing." Some people associate "good" player with "great" expectations. So now, a "clean" play is a "good" play? What has the world come to? AB has to be PERFECT on a play to get credit from you. And you're not going to give the guy "some" credit b/c that team made a mistake defensively? Maybe, just maybe, Pierce left his man b/c he feared AB's penetration? I mean, every coach in the world teaches basic fundamentals of protecting the paint (Thibs was Boston's D coach that year, and that is the basic defensive fundamental he preaches). I bet you must dislike watching Yao then since he gets "stripped" quite often, and the play isn't perfect.
I would say his speed combined with his shooting and finishing ability is pretty amazing. If he had the brain of, say, Steve Nash, he'd be pretty deadly.
A weakness of Brooks is his ability to finish around the rim (a huge weakness in fact) He's very good with his shooting, and ability to make shots on the perimeter, but not amazing. Allen Iverson was amazing at that. Derrick Rose is amazing right now. That's amazing, b/c they can shoot from anywhere over anybody. The only amazing thing about AB was his speed. Nobody in their right mind would ever think AB could/would be an all-star, even after 09-10, unless they were homers. "Amazing talent" is what Allen Iverson or Stephon Marbury had. They could literally do everything on a basketball court but dominate on the boards and block shots, if it all clicks (and it mostly did for AI). "Amazing talent" + IQ is what Chris Paul/Dwill/Drose have. This is why some people keep expecting AB to be better than what he really was. They thought he had "amazing" talent, and he really didn't. Once people learn to accept that, then they'll learn to appreciate AB for what he was for us: a good player.
In 2009-2010, here are his shot charts from hoopdata At rim: 2.1/4.4 = 48.6% 3-9ft: 0.5/1.1 = 44.7% those are pathetic numbers. You rather him take a long jumper than try to drive among the trees. http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Aaron Brooks
This has been an entertaining thread. Great post to start out, good follow-up by the OP, then slowly but surely it devolved into a pointless argument, probably started in other threads a while back, over non-issues: "You must recognize player roles!" "Advanced stats only go so far!" "Most people use 'raw' numbers!" "You have to watch the games!" All of these are painfully obvious and tired talking points. At the same time, some seem to be laying into AB a tad too much. I don't think it's controversial to say: - Brooks had a good year for us, then had a bad year for us. The good thing to do was to trade him. - Lowry can run an offense, play competitive D, draw fouls, and (if last year wasn't a fluke) can hit jumpers. He also does well on TS%, and I don't see how anyone can knock TS% as a useful statistic. - No statistic is THE statistic, and I don't think anyone using so-called "advanced" or "raw" statistics has claimed that. They all have their flaws, but most of them can still be beneficial to understanding a player's impact and efficiency. But then again threads like these do make my work mornings more enjoyable,.
Wow, that is a cool site. But first, 44.7% on 3-9ft is not bad at all. Look up guys like Nash, James, Wade, etc. He's actually better than Lowry at that distance. Yes, his at the rim numbers are a bit low (though they improved markedly in limited time in 2011). I wouldn't call his percentage "pathetic," but certainly not good. I believe his at the rim numbers are low because he doesn't draw fouls. Instead of going for the contact, he will avoid it and put up a difficult shot. If he would just go into contact he would miss fewer shots and have a higher %.
Wow! Those are cool stats! I think you are dead on. To me, the amazing thing about Brooks has always been his speed. He should be able to get by anybody. That's why he was one of my favorite players. The problem is his lack of finishing and inability to draw fouls negates the enormous asset of his speed. That's a shame and one of the reasons that finally got me to accept the trade. He probably never will be that All Star I hoped he might be.
I would rather him go for contact instead of jacking up circus floaters when driving in like he typically does. You know what good scorers do when their shots don't fall? They find other ways to attack the basket and at least tries. You know what AB usually did? Jack up more shots. I am not asking AB to pass more. I've honestly accepted that he just sucks at passing. What I do expect for him to do more is look to setup plays more instead of shooting the ball being the only thing in that small head of his.
AB does have a small head? He is a small guy. It is the same way of how people say stuff like "Bless his little heart" and stuff like that. I understand that you have your own personal agenda, but please stop trying to add your own bias to other people's words. If you want to talk about his intelligence however, then it would still be a valid point. AB is not a smart player and definitely not a smart PG.
Tony parker would like to disagree with you on your first point. Small guys in general MUST have a good floater to be effective finishers, unless you were Iverson who could get to the linr at will. Nowadays, Rose, Paul, Parker, Curry and more have great floaters, which open up their game. AB suffered the injury so early in the season that messed up the past year for us to see if he added any new things to his game. From a small sample with the Suns, statistically, he finished around the rim and passed better. Hopefully next year he will be better. And btw, he did not suck at passing. He may be mediocre at this aspect of his game, but I guarantee you with more experience, he will be pretty decent. Brooks will always be a scorer first, and you cannot knock that.
He certainly did not run it the way Lowry does because he was not asked to run it that way, he was asked to run it a different way that catered to his strengths. Same with Kyle. Both can be and are effective.... DD
100% spot on....this conversation is not really about AB, but peoples viewpoints about how they think the position should be run. And the truth is there is no "right" way to run it. The Celtics won in the 80s with Ainge and Dennis Johnson at the guard positions, they didn't have a PG. The Rockets won it without a true PG either, as Kenny Smith was more of a 3pt shooter. The Jazz had a traditional PG and didn't win it, the Celtics currently won it with a traditional PG as did the Mavericks. But the Lakers were back to back champions without a true PG. There is more than one way to skin a cat, the people here are just bashing Brooks because of their own bias about how the position should be played. They are taking a very myopic view of what has been happening in the league in like...forever. DD
Dennis Johnson completely changed his role to suit the Celtics. He truly became a traditional PG that ran the offense. DJ is not a good example of someone whose playing style can't change to suit an offense. That said: I agree that you can win with different types of PGs. But that's true for every position in the game, so looking through history to say you can win without prototypical players at any given position doesn't say anything significant about the PG position. I think people are talking about what was good for the Rockets at that time.
I have said this many times; it is OK to have a scoring PG when the team already has a primary and possibly secondary scoring option as well as a ball distributor. Let's go over some of the teams you just mentioned: - Celtics didn't have a PG because they had a defined scorer and very good ball distributor in Bird. They also had McHale and Parish. - Kenny Smith was OK for the PG as a shooter because again, he was not a main scoring option or the distributor. The scorers were Otis Thorpe and Hakeem the first championship. The offense started and typically ended with Hakeem so he was also the key distributor and a damn good one as well. - Fisher plays on the bloody Lakers. Do I really need to go into this? It seems like a lot of you AB fans still don't get it at all. We are not wanting AB to be Lowry, Nash, Parker, or anyone else. That is not the reason we are hard on AB and criticize him. We criticize him because he is a undersized guard who fancies himself a scorer when he only has a single weapon as a scorer. If he utilized and developed his speed better, he could easily become a much better player. He also needs to understand that the PG's primary role is to initiate the offense. Even though Kenny Smith was predominately a shooter, he still looked to get the offense started by getting the ball to Hakeem after he brought the ball up. Same with Fisher and Ainge. AB had trouble understanding his other duties of being a PG. Scoring was all that was ever on his mind. If he wants to be a primary option, he needs to develop his offensive game beyond shoot the ball. If he wants to be a PG that is not the primary option, he needs to understand that he is playing a positional role where he still has to initiate the offense by passing to the primary and possibly secondary scorer. It is not wanting him to be someone else. It is a matter of him understanding how he wants to develop his role and what the team needs from him. AB is very bad at fulfilling team needs if it involves anything else aside from him scoring himself.
