We saw that Brooks for 7 games in 2009, but for the last two seasons he's been a negative influence on this team.
This is the thing. NBA players all have a great deal of talent and can get really hot and change a series or playoff run. That lightning in a bottle happens all the time. However, It is oftentimes "Lightning in a bottle", and it does not mean that player will ever perform that way consistently or even again. I mean even players like Bonzi Wells and Jerome James played amazing in 1 playoff series, but they were not much before or after that. Matt Maloney and Trevor Ariza were nails during deep playoff runs, but never duplicated that success. Continually going back to the "He was amazing against Portland or LAL in 2009" is not a legit argument in my book to prove that Aaron Brooks is an above-average PG in the league.
I see we have moved from targeting Brooks to outright rewriting history. I'll be the first to admit that Brooks has been bad this year but to say that about last year is just flat out wrong.
How so? He had a good season last year. Like him or not, he is one of the few Rockets players that can create his own shot. Sooner or later he will start playing like his former self again.
I realize he posts the same things here, but it kind of rubbed me the wrong way to see it on another team's board. Much like larsv8's sentiments that AB is still our boy, KMart is also a Rocket and still our boy too. Just thought it was in sort of poor taste to talk negatively to another team's fans about a Rocket who has been nothing but professional and is doing his job remarkably well. But that's just me. I also HATE the notion of "empty stats" and the assumption that it's Kevin Martin's fault that more of our losses don't translate into wins.
Naw, I'm just stating facts. I'd like Brooks to succeed, nothing is more fun than watching him when he plays well but that's just a pipe dream. He has been a negative for the last two seasons.
When you say he's a "negative", what do you mean by that? Surely, you don't think we'd have won more games last season if he never played.
Nice post. I'm too lazy to do it myself, but I'd like to see a stat comparison with six games before Miller's injury, especially the number of assisted shots for the second unit. As others have pointed out, the ball movement has really suffered without Miller as point center, and I think that really affects Lee, Bud and (to a less extent) Patterson who need to be set up for their shots. Without Miller, the offense probably relies more on Brooks and Hill to create for themselves. I don't think the solution is to have Bud and Lee try to change the way they play and create more of their shots. And while Patterson probably has some good low-post moves, I don't think the coaches are going to suddenly change their development plans for him this season. IMO playing Jared Jeffries instead of Hill could help the second unit right now. The Jeffries-Patterson combo is really solid defensively, and while Jeffries is no Brad Miller or Chuck Hayes, he is not bad passing from the high post.
Well, he deserved to be starting PG and all, but when he was on the floor the Rockets were a net negative, +/- or adjusted +/- is the stat I'm looking at. Obviously we would have won less games if he didn't play at all because that would have meant that we had one PG on the team... I'm not saying he's a horrible player or even doesn't belong as 20+ minute player on this team but please people stop acting like he had a good year last year just because the Rockets won more games. Players who have good years positively influence the game when they're on the court, not just shoot a high % on three-pointers. His play-making is subpar, his defense is extremely subpar, those are the two areas he needs to improve upon before he can seriously be considered a starting PG in this league.
Well, according to some knowledgeable people, he is the most improved player. What else do you want, an MVP?
Is it too much to ask for him play like he did when he won that MIP or for him to reapeat the same kind of performance? I mean normally good players get better as time goes along. They dont sulk because they didnt get extended, they play harder because of it. I read its because he is still not 100%. How long does it take to recover from an ankle sprain? I read its because his role has changed. Has his role really changed that much? Lets see he used to get the ball then beat guys to the rim or shoot it. What is he being asked to do this season thats so different - is he being asked operate from the post or is be being asked to play SF? Aldmean has given him ample time to find his form. Even though he comes off the bench, there has still been many instances where he has was on the floor with the 4 other starters like last season - Martin, Battier, Scola and Hayes. And you know what he still cant get it together. What other excuses are there that I am missing? Has he been abducted by UFOs and been anal probed?
Some guys have a really hard time coming off the bench. For the sake of the team, even if Lowry is the better player, Brooks might have to start. Our bench has been so damn bad, that it is amazing that we are even in these games. Lowry's skillset makes Budinger and Hill SO much better.
Was not an excuse Simply replying to a guy who said his MIP year is not a good year. So I asked what else does he want that year, an MVP? For this season, surely we want his MIP performance.
i think another big reason for the rockets lackluster season is that overall, the league has gotten stronger. When your an elite team that doesn't affect you but when you are a below average team and quite a few teams get alot better, than you will lose more games.
Well that just goes to show how ignorant most people are, much in the same way people think Melo is something more than a glorified role player(ala KMart) and Kobe is a clutch player. I mean, after the first few months of this season people were saying Scola for MIP except us Rockets fans can tell you that his game hasn't changed one bit from last season to this season. I choose not to base my analysis on others' flawed opinions and instead watch every play and look at the stats. Watching Brooks, he's always been a sieve on D and has taken more bad shots than good ones and rarely creates for others. The stats back this up. Hon
According to your stats, Patt made 10 FTs with his 13 FGAs, so he's getting more touches than your stats can indicate. You're probably going to have to get FTAs into your stat demonstration somehow.
Actually, upon further review, the last 6 games starting with your opening post timestamp, your Patt numbers add up wrong. In 72 minutes, he shot 10 of 21 FGs, for 22pts. That's 2.91 shots per 10 minutes. big difference I'm assuming you might have more errors. If so, you might want to redo this thread.
yep, sorry, your Courtney Lee numbers are wrong too. He was 14 of 32...in 93 mpg that's 3.44 shots per 10 not 3.08
