Better Scorer: Brooks or Nash?

Perhaps after Brooks wins at least one MVP award we can start having this discussion.

 

Its too early to discuss the two, now of course Nash is much better at almost every aspect, shooting, free throws, assists. Also now comparing AB with nash is unfair to Aaron

 

can you give me an example of a player similar to scola who nash played the two man game well with consistently? I cant think of anyone really, most of the 4s he played with have been athletic or shooters. Landry may fit the mold, not sure about Scola.

 

The problem with that comparision is that pretty much EVERY point guard in the league who was a starter in their 3rd year equaled or exceeded Nash's 3rd year production. Nash was being booed in Dallas in his 3rd year. So out performing Nash in his 3rd year just shows what an exception to the rule Nash has been rather than a good measuring stick of what is likely to come for any one else.

 

nash LOVES the pick and roll. and scola is the perfect player to do that with (along with landry). though scola isn't as athletic as amare, but he's still a pretty darn good finisher around the rim and can easily make that 15-18ft jumper consistently.

and DD, you can't compare year by year stats. that's not how it's done. nash was fortunate to go to dallas to play with don nelson, than with d'antoni... so now everyone knows what kind of style he likes to play.

aaron brooks fits the same type of offensive style (quick, fast, rather than halfcourt). i think he'll be a better scorer than nash, but nowhere close the impact b/c brooks really is just a scorer. if his shot is off, he has very little impact. i don't think that's going to change much throughout his career.

 

I like Brooks but come on Nash is the better offensive player.

 

Oops meant scorer.

 

I don't think it's even close for Nash to be considered better - he is one of the greatest and most underappreciated pure shooters of the last 25 years. He has been deadly from 3 point range for nearly 15 years, shooting over 40% in every single season except for one of his early years, where he dipped only to 37%.(That combined with his pull up make him a way better scorer than Brooks.

Edit, I see DaDakota cherry picked this year in order to make his case... Please note this is coming from the same dude who repeatedly compared Vasilis "Can't hit the Hayloft with a Ladder" Spanoulis and his 18% shootining to Nash. DaDa - if there was a lifetime achievement award for "Most Inapt Comparisons to Steve Nash" - the trophy would be a bust of you at your keyboard.

 

Nash was a better shooter in year 1 or 2 than Brooks will ever be, ever. What happened is that DaDakota purposefully picked the strike-shortened 99 season because he is trying to mislead people by picking a statistical outlier and claiming it represents a progression.

 

No, I picked their first years as starters to compare....where they are the same age.....

Nash did not play all that much in year 1 and 2, and Brooks didn't either.

Thus in their FIRST YEAR as starters....Brooks with 39 games and Nash with 40, the comparison is apt.

Please note regarding VSpan and Nash, that I was quoting YAO MING who made the comparison......

And if you go digging Sam, please make sure you post the link to the thread instead of just the post, so that people can see how you take stuff out of context to make a point.

DD

 

No, you picked the worst year of Nash's career in the shortened mini season and are trying to argue that they are comparable shooters - they are not. Nash had one outlier slump in the shortened 1999 season - that's it. Other than that he has been a deadeye shooter for his entire career on a scale that Brooks can't, and will likely never, touch.

Yes, I am aware of this . . . you would not only argue that Spanoulis was similar to Nash, but then you would solemnly invoke the authority of notable NBA scout Yao Ming (usually in ALL CAPS!) in order to bolster this shiny bit of poop.

Worked out well for you.

 

I won't argue it was his worst shooting year, maybe that was because he was JUST BECOMMING A STARTER.....

I picked their 3rd years because they are both in their 3rd years......I had no idea when I went to the site to check, it just so happened it was that.

I still like VSpan, and find it funny that people gave up on him in his rookie year when he was adjusting to a new culture under an unforgiving coach.

I hope he comes back...

:grin:

DD

 

Nash is actually a pretty underrated scorer. When you think of him, you think of nifty assists, but his jumper is extremely efficient. You can tell he works hard on his jumper night in and night out, even when he's covered tight, he will still drop the fadeaway and surprise you.

 

what is brooks going to add to his game that will allow him to become that level of scorer?

 

Who the better scorer is? Thats easy, its Brooks. First off Nash is 36

that is old as HELL and proves just how good this guy is. But nash probably

has the 2nd best court vision of ALL TIME only behind magic.

It is true that Nash might be somewhat of a product of his system but I can

tell you stockton was probably more of that too. That being said the reason

I said Brooks was the better scorer was because he can almost get to

the rim at will with his speed and young age and Nash is old and slow at this

point. Nash 2-3 yrs back would clearly be the better scorer.

The better PG overall? Nash.

 

i know he loves it, but what does that have to do with the ability of others to play it, or how well nash can use them? Nash can only do so much. There's a reason why the suns keep surrounding him with versatile players. He'll be solid with any type of player, but to be "steve nash the MVP" he needs those versatile players and not just one or two. Scola is one guy and he's not going to be as effective with nash as Amare was. When you factor in the other guys on this team that cuts back on Nash's effectiveness also. That'll be the difference between him getting 12 asst/game and 7 or 8.

 

Sure, Brooks might be faster than Nash, but Nash has the nifty footwork that makes him so deadly.

Aside from putting the ball in the basket, Brooks doesn't have the vision that Nash has; They both might have the same amount of assists playing in a single game, but the difficulty of Nash's assists are much higher than Brooks'.

 

I don't think it is fair to compare a young player to an accomplished veteran. But from what we have seen so far, I think they are about even in terms of being a pure shooter. Brooks is a bit streaky, and Nash is as consistent as you can get. That might be due to Brooks' inexperience though.

What separates them is playmaking abilities, which affects their scoring abilities. I think Nash's low assisted number tells us that he "assists" himself a lot more than Brooks. The reason, I believe, is that defenses have to respect Nash's passing. You just can't double him or he'll burn you by finding the open teammate. When he drives to the hoop, you know he is as likely to dish as he is taking a shot. That keeps the defense hesitant to collapse on him. When Brooks drives, you know he is going all the way. That's why it makes it a lot harder for him to get through traffic.

A great PG has to be good at both shooting and passing. Your passing gives you open looks to shoot. And your shooting gives your teammates open looks for you to pass to.

 

Nash makes every teamate a better scorer including himself. AB is a better scorer one on one.