Which player do you consider to be the superior scorer? A few numbers to consider: Nash scores 20.6 points per 36 minutes, Brooks scores 19.4 points per 36 minutes (almost the same when accounting for pace) Nash has a TS% of .655, Brooks has .559. Brooks gets assisted on 44.3% of his makes. Nash gets assisted on (amazingly) only 9.6% of his makes. Nash shoots 80% on shots at the rim (and is only assisted on 4.5% of them). Brooks shoots 50% on shots at the rim and is assisted on 29.5% of them. More numbers from hoopdata: http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Aaron Brooks http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Steve Nash Here is their shot charts: What do you think?
I don't think it is a fair comparison. It took many years for Nash to hone in his unbelieveable skills, while Brooks is essentially in his second year as a starting pg. Give Brooks 3 more years of seasoning and the comparison could be more equitable.
Ab has become a very good scorer. But Nash would score a lot more if he isn't commited to getting teammates involved.
It's all the other things that Nash does, beyond scoring, that makes him the better player. As a scorer they're pretty tight, it really is hard to say, and if Brooks continues to grow he could eventually edge Nash, but I would say Nash is the better scorer right now.
If Nash had a score-first mentality, he would probably be a top scorer IN THE LEAGUE. Don't overrate Brooks here.
By coupling common sense with the stats you posted I don't see how anyone with a brain in their head can choose Brooks.
Are you kidding me? Nash is one of the best PG scorers in the league. His 55% FG is just mind-boggling. Brooks can't get his FG% above 45%, as a first option or otherwise.
Right now, Nash is the better, more consistant scorer. Give AB the seasoning that Nash has had & I believe he'll be better.
Nash can be a ridiculous scorer if he wants to be. You'll see it in certain games when his team mates aren't hitting their shots. AB is explosive but not nearly as consistent.
All I know is who I would pick first. Brooks is a nice player, crucial to the Rockets. Nash is all-world.
So far, 28% of the poll respondents think Brooks is a better scorer. I'm curious why they see it that way.
I don't get why, after the stats you put up, would even consider this a debate. You've alreadyproved stats that show Nash is more efficient and creates for himself more. Is there something I'm not seeing here?
If you were on a team right now that had all the pieces in place to shoot for the title (or give it a good go), would you rather have Brooks running the show or Nash? Without question, Nash should be the guy. Brooks has the energy and nerve and exuberance of youth (as well as the inexperience of youth), but Brooks doesn't have the kind of smarts-by-experience (or -- debatable, of course -- what might be called the smarts-by-nature) that Nash has. Just my opinion, of course....and I love much of what I see from Brooks, both now and potentially in his future.
