You don't think it is easier to fill in teammates with which Nash can excel than it is to fill in teammates with which Brooks can excel? I mean, this is a stat I refer to often, but I just think it is so compelling. Since Nash took over as a full-time starter, his team's ranking in offensive efficiency: 2001: 4th 2002: 1st 2003: 1st 2004: 1st 2005: 1st 2006: 2nd 2007: 1st 2008: 2nd 2009: 2nd 2010: 1st And that's not just simply the same personnel year after year. He joined the Suns, and they go from 21st in offense to 1st. The Suns lose their top scorer, and they remain 2nd in offense. Even last year, with all the struggles integrating Shaq, they're still 2nd. And this year, when no one expected the Suns to be that good, they are 1st! Is this the sign of a "system player", or just a damn good player? I have to give Nash the lion share of credit here. Yes, he's had some good teammates, but maybe he's been the major reason why they were so successful on the offensive end. I think his teammate's scoring benefits more from him than the other way around.
the question was how nash would do with this same team, that's what i was refering to....i'm not implying nash would suck without a running system and versatile players, but that on this rocket team that doesnt have as many versatile players and athletes he wouldnt have mvp stats. His stats would stillbe good and efficient, but not what they are now. I think right now he's a damn good player, in a good system that fits him best, with the best possible players for that style. That maximizes his stats/performance. Here he would be a damn good player, in a good system, with good players, but not the best possible for that style, therefore lowering his stats and possibly his efficiency.
topic starter is so funny.., eventhough brooks scores a lot in his game he suddenly compare him to steve nash.., steve nash is a mvp holder.., no offend for brooks but look the topic starter is so funny comparing is not the greatness of a player in a single game to a greatness of a player all time!!!
Nash isn't an MVP for his scoring, and the question wasn't "who is a better PG", if that helps you any with the comparison. Brooks is a scoring PG. Brooks is scoring about the same PPG as Nash this season. I think it's a fair question.
no way!!! brooks can score a lot only a few games no offened to him nash is a consistent passer scorer and leader. dont compare people who made a big night for just a night to a man like a big night every night. no flames!
Before replying to a question like this maybe you should try to understand it better. I realize english isn't your first language but here is what Dr. Of D was trying to say. 1. This comparison is strictly on scoring. 2. AB is avgin 19ppg and Nash is avging 20ppg. 3. That is why its a fair comparison, we all know Nash is better overall but its just on scoring.
As per NBA.com, we can see that: Aaron Brooks is averaging 18.8 pts/game. Steve Nash is averaging 20.0 pts/game. So, Nash is the better scorer, as of 1/16/10. /thread.
It isn't fair to put Brooks up against Nash. Nash is one of the most efficient scorers in NBA history, creates his own shot at will and scores from pretty much everywhere. It's hard to think of him as a great scorer because he's such a pass-first guy, but I'm willing to bet that if the Suns asked him only to score he'd get 25 a game without too much trouble.
I don'tk now about that. Nash gets to the rim more than Brooks and finishes way better than AB around rim.
It's hard to say because Nash doesn't have a scorer's mentality. He is more of a creator while Brooks is more of a scorer. That being said, I would say that at least for now you have to say Nash is a better scorer because despite his pass first mentality he is still averaging more points per game than Brooks. Brooks is still young and may develop into a better scorer that Nash. However, I don't know if he wil ever be a better creator or passer than Nash :grin: .
Sorry but WTF? Look at Nash's shooting stats for his career. He is among the great pure shooters in recent NBA history. Brooks, thru a half season, is finally hitting above 40% from distance....now he is about even in terms of shooting? Sorry but it takes more than just that.
Nash can put up 20-30 at will but he doesn't. He is more of a passer than a scorer. He only takes over late
He is the only guy in nba history to put up 50-40-90 4 times in a career. He is one of the most efficient scorers in nba history.
That's why I said it's not fair to compare them because Brooks is just beginning. And I did say that Brooks was streaky and Nash was very consistent. But I do believe that Brooks has shown signs of being a great shooter with great range. Brooks was supposed to be a very good shooter coming out of college. We were disappointed to see him struggle during his rookie season. He has really picked up his shooting since he became a starter halfway through last season. So let's see how he goes from this point on. Nash is obviously a much smarter player who knows when to shoot and when not to. And the amazing thing is, Nash's percentage actually improves after he aged past 30.
The best single indicator of pure shooting, in my opinion, is just looking at the FT%. Nash is a career 90% shooter. Brooks may get to that level in time, but he's not there yet.
Brooks is a very good FT shooter, not to Nash's level. I've always thought that looking at BOTH 3pt % AND ft% would indicate how good a shooter the guy is. FT shooting is not necessarily "pure" due to the "nerve" factor. Sure, it takes out noises like shot selection and defense. But it is not an instinctive skill as jump shooting is, if you know what I mean. FT shooting is as much about poise and concentration as about shooting ability. I don't know what to do with people who are very good FT shooters but do not shoot 3pters very much. Yao Ming comes to mind.
