His TS% was down by 1.2% compared to last season, but his turnover rate decreased by 2.6% and his usage rate is up by 4.7% (from 22.7 to 27.4)
How is that a lie? Last season Scola had a TS of 0.55 while AB had a TS of 0.549. Are you naive enough try to use this year's TS where AB has a sample size of 8 games?
Meh -- Aaron Brooks TS% is lower than it was last year, so using this year's stats would actually be to your advantage. If you're arguing about who should get more shots, I don't know why you're looking at a stat that includes FT shooting as TS% does. Effective FG%, which takes into account Brooks 3PT shots, would seem to be a better comparison.
Poor poor thread rating. Always so misused. Article about how Brooks is having to shake off the rust after coming back from injury and it's rated 2 stars. Yeah, he should come back magically and be in top basketball shape. That'd get it 5 stars. Or maybe he should have stayed injured and gone away into a bathtub and cried. That'd give it 5 stars. The only other player I have seen treated this way returning from injury is T-Mac. And he did a LOT more to burn the fan base than Aaron could ever do.
I didn't use this season's stats for AB and Scola, due to the sample size. I don't care if it is advantageous or disadvantageous, because it simply wouldn't be a valid comparison. I used TS, because that appeared to be what this AB fanboy is going by. Even discussing adjusted FG%, Brooks is still behind.
Well... I gave it up a 5 star rating and bumped it up to 3. The only player I would consider rating low for something like this would be either Pippen or T-Mac.
The only reason I responded to you in the first place was to point out your lie. I wouldn't be surprised if I've been posting on this site longer than you've been alive, which would be before Aaron Brooks joined the Rockets. Responding to me in the future would be futile.
I'll return your same sentiments. I have no interest talking to people who think so highly of themselves that they try to portray their opinions as facts, especially when evidence states otherwise.
By all means, have Lowry in there at the end of games when we arent running the motion offense, but the fact remains that we always begin the game with it and we always start the second half with it. I am simply not talking about who plays in all that other time. I am talking about who starts, which implies they will 100% be playing the first 8 minutes of the game and usually the first 8 minutes of the second half. The offense runs a certain way in that time and that style is better run with a PG who is a spot up shooter. People keep claiming that Lowry makes people better and this and that. That may be true, but it is NOT true for the first 8 minute of each half. It just isn't. He plays spot up shooter role, he does not create anything outside of 1-2 transition buckets. If you want I will do the exact same thing for second half, but I can assure you its the exact same story. Conversely, the bench crew is not nearly as effective with "Mr Spark off the bench" because there is no one in the bench crew that can create and no set system that can create for them. Thats why it looks so stagnant. People, on a witch hunt, immediatley point the finger at Brooks claiming he isn't a great PG, but he the reason is he isn't being utilized properly in that role. Having Brooks in the starting lineup and Lowry with the bench group makes both squads better. The reverse makes the starting crew less potent and the bench group way worse. As for who closes games, I dont care who closes games. Hopefully Adelman picks whomever has been most effective that night. Its all about allocation of resources. Why waste Lowry's energy in a situation where he can't be as effective and it isnt utilizing his strengths as a player? Why would you ask Lowry to play spot up shooter in one role and Brooks as playmaker in another role, that doesnt make any sense? If Lowry continues to shoot at 40% three point clip, then yea, it makes sense for him to be in there, because he is brings more. But Lowry isnt a 40% shooter, he is a 29% shooter, he is just streaking right now. He isnt actively contributing in the high post offense. As I showed he rarely sees the ball and is by far the least active member of the five in those 16 minutes. His defense is good, and thats a valid point, but whats the difference between being a strong defender in those sixteen minutes vs the rest of the game? If anything you would want Brooks with Shane and Hayes since they are far and away our two best defenders and they can cover his mistakes. How about that the bench crew isnt good without him? Isn't that a good reason? And the defensive factor is still a big deal. Let me see how effective Lowry has been when we have played good defensive teams and the outcome of the game. According to hoopsdata, the best defensive teams (top 10) we have played this year with Lowry starting have been Chi, Dal, Indy, and Mil. We are 1-4 against those teams. Here are his numbers: Mil: 4-15 shooting, 3 assists, 2 turnovers - Loss Chi: 5-17 shooting, 4 assists, 2 turnovers - Loss Dal: 3-7 shooting, 5 assists, 2 turnovers - Loss Chi: 3-5 shooting, 7 assists, 4 turnovers - Loss Ind: 5-10 shooting, 7 assists, 4 turnovers - Win It is still a VERY valid point that Lowry is not nearly as effective as Brooks against good defenses, specifically when you are more likely to face them in the playoffs. Chicago, Mil and Indiana arent even world beaters but we have had huge trouble with them this year. I guess people think that starter is some sort of title that people earn or is a reward for playing good. It isn't, its about fit. Thats why Adelman is going to put Brooks back in the starting lineup and Lowry will be with the bench group.
No matter how you define it, Scola is the more efficient offensive option right now, over Brooks, because Brooks has been hurt and he is not "back". And at the start of the season before Brooks got hurt, Scola was proving to be the more efficient offensive option as well. Very simply, Brooks does not draw enough fouls because his shooting is tilted towards the outside shots. Brooks is your prototypical "outside-in" player. When you look at his shot distribution, using last year as his "break out" season and the season that really defines him so far, 39% of Brooks shots were from the three point line and 55% of his shots were outside of 15 feet, while only 30% of his shots were at the rim. This means Brooks is looking and taking the outside shot first. By contrast, only 29% of Lowry's shots were at the three point line, and only 41% of his shots were outside of 15 feet, while over 47% of his total shots came at the rim. Lowry is your ptototypical "inside-out" player. He thinks in terms of getting the ball to the rim first, breaking down the defense, taking more of his own shots, the closer he gets to the bucket. And then on that penetration, he finds guys that can shoot the ball for the wide open jumpers with their feet set and squared up to the bucket, which automatically increases an NBA shooter's effectiveness probably close to 10%. Now if you want to look at the measures of efficiency for this season, the statistical metrics show that Scola is the more efficient scorer over Brooks. But we can write that off simply because Brooks has been hurt. However, Scola did start this season hotter than a firecracker and has since cooled off slightly, probably mostly due to teams concentrating on stopping him. But if you want to go back to last season even, and look at Scola's scoring and efficency stats and compare them to a full season of Brooks, you can still see the contrast. You could perhaps make the argument both season and last season that Brooks was "as efficient as Scola". But you cannot make the argument that Brooks is more efficient than Scola either this year or last year. And even at equal efficiencies, I still take the guy going to the rim and creating fouls, free throws, and the bonus situation for the team over the guy shooting the long ball every time. But....Brooks is a good shooter. Championship basketball is played "inside-out".
Don't you love the fanboy's petty accusation? He offers no logical arguments, no proof, no statistical evidence, and simply accuses people of lying like a broken record. It's really hilarious.
This is not a game of fantasy basketball, it's not a question of comparing stats between the two. How does the team do under brooks and lowry against top 10 defenses? We already know what brooks will do, we have a whole season of evidence, he is much more likely to operate outside the offense and go into hero mode, most likely jacking up jumpshots. Sometimes it works, most times it doesn't. Lowry on the other hand will try to run the offense, try to create shots within the offense. Of the 5 games you mentioned, Chicago, Indiana and Mil, the offense is was fine, the games were lost on defense. The first chicago game, offense stagnated in the 4th. Dallas was a blowout.
What is a valid point is that against the top defenses we do not have enough offense on the floor. I don't see that as a Lowry problem. I see it as a Shane/Bud and Hayes/Hill problem. We need to upgrade the SF and C spots with two players that can shoot and score better than Shane/Bud but still D it up, and are better scorers than Hayes/Hill but give us good interior defense. Put those two together with Lowry and you have a 10 assist per game PG and a team that is not lacking in offensive punch when we play the big boy Celtics, etc. However, running the same guys out there minus Lowry and plus Brooks only gives our opponents an even easier time defensively.
lars, Just know, that we have the EXACT same offense.. not similar, the EXACT same offense.. in our second unit as we do our first unit. If the second unit looks stagnant, it has nothing to do with a lack of Lowry -- we're still running the high post with Brad Miller and finding cutters. The only reason our 2nd unit would look stagnant is because Budinger can't make a shot to save his life. The second unit doesn't magically depend on a ball distributor while the first unit doesn't. If you made me trade Lowry or Brooks, I'd probably say I'd want to trade Lowry. Lowry to me is the better all-around player, but Brooks has the offensive potential that is something I'd like to keep in my bag of tricks. Does that mean Brooks should be starting? Of course not, for the same reason that Terry or Ginobli weren't starting when their teams were trotting out lesser talented players in the starting unit at their position. Lowry's 'resources' aren't wasted by being in the starting unit. He improves our defense, rebounding, fast breaking points and team energy as a whole compared to Brooks. Do you honestly watch Lowry in games and think, "wow he's being forced to be a spot up shooter and having no other affect on the game"? I certainly don't, and I consider myself a pretty smart guy with a high basketball IQ. Lowry may not be a 40% shooter.. but he is right now. So why change? Because he MIGHT revert down to 30%? Why not just say, "Lowry should start as long as he shoots at an acceptable clip.. if his averages go down, we need a switch." You're not saying that -- instead you're choosing to assume that they will eventually plummet and are looking to bench him now. I just don't think that's right or what's in the best interest of the team right now. If Lowry was shooting 30% right now, you'd have a point.. but he's not and yet you're still trying to hammer on that point. Lowry not getting many FGA isn't a sign of him 'not contributing' to the offense. He generally gets a few offensive rebounds and steals which equate to extra possessions. He's shooting nearly 40% from downtown when he does get a spot up opportunity, which also contributes to the offense. He pushes the ball on a more consistent basis which puts the defense on their heels, which also contributes to our offense. He does a lot.. it doesn't have to be measured in assist or FGA totals. The stats against good defense teams you brought up.. he played poorly in 2 out of the 5. You're telling me he doesn't deserve to start because he does better against weaker defenses than he does against good ones? Uhh.. who doesn't?!? Was Lowry the reason we lost any of those games? The only thing those stats show me that I would be upset with Lowry about is his FGA -- he should never lead the team in the FGA or close to it. That's not where his strengths are. Further, listing the outcome of the game is silly -- we didn't have Aaron Brooks, who is supposed to be a key component of this team. If you want to judge Lowry on the outcome of games, why don't you wait until we have a healthy roster? Should we punish Brooks, while Lowry/Martin were hurt, and we lost games against the better teams? You would be screaming at people that it wasn't Brooks' fault because he didn't have Martin or Lowry to help run the team when he sat. Why isn't it the same with Lowry? Brooks is a big scorer in this offense that can get off his own shot whenever he wants -- we NEED him. Showing me W/L stats of the Rockets games when we don't have one of our better scorers isn't really a good argument to me, sorry. You're right -- being a starter is about being the best fit, which is why many people prefer Lowry. Lowry-Martin is a good mixture of defense-offense just like Brooks-Lee is a good mixture of offense-defense. As far as TheFreak goes, he's just a grumpy old man. He keeps trotting out TS% like it's the end all to the debate -- effective FG% is what he should be looking at and Scola is clearly the more efficiency scorer in that regard. Of course, just by saying that, I'm sure that I'm a liar. I don't think I've ever seen an old man blatantly accuse people of lying as TheFreak has.. you'd think with his old age would come a sense of respect. I guess not.
Why don't you provide evidence. Their TS is the same this year and last year. Not hard to look that up.
Why should we look at eFG over TS to compare Scola and Brooks? Should we also leave out free throws when looking at Martin's scoring? Enlighten me on this please.
Study basketball efficiency. TS is simply a measurement of how good of a shooter a player is. It is a measure of the player's overall shooting accuracy. It is not a true measure of efficiency. Oh, and by the way, NOW you are saying their TS is the same. I stated that you could make the argument that Brooks was as efficient as Scola. But you really couldn't make the argument that Brooks was more efficient than Scola. You seem to be acknowledging that I am right with this latest statement.
