Better Scorer: Brooks or Nash?

People are either r****ded or blind homers to think that Brooks will ever be as good as Nash.

"Brooks has the upside"?
"Give Brooks a few more years and he'll surpass Nash"?

What the hell are you on? Ask yourself if you honestly see Brooks getting the season LEAGUE MVP for three times or more, now or ever.

I know the discussion is about who scores better, because between Brooks and Nash there's no comparison there in the passing contest. But just watch some Suns games and you'll see Nash's scoring, both realized and potential ability.

 

Nash is probably in most aspects, a superior player to Brooks. The only thing Brooks would have over Nash is foot speed, one-on-one skills (arguable), and clutch play. I think Nash is on definitely arguments among the greatest point guards ever, something Brooks is not close to as we speak. Yet, I think Nash's style of play and other teams' ability to slow him down in the playoffs is the reason I don't think he'll be the best (even with 2 MVPs). It seems like the best teams know how to take away his optimal production enough to beat the Suns in a series.

Brooks, I believe is more comparable to say guards, like Tony Parker and Kenny Anderson-lite (speed wise, more than anything). Though Brooks isn't as skilled in the paint as Parker (or Anderson), and can't handle the ball nor pass, like Anderson and lacks his athleticism and hops. While, Brooks is a better (outside shooter) shooter than both guys.

Is Brooks even as good as those guys? I think we might want to wait on the Steve Nash comparisons. A more fair argument would be Nash vs. CP3.

 

Nash is better than Brooks in every way, except quickness..

 

it all goes back to his teammates. Nash has the ability to use his teammates in ways Brooks cant. I just dont get why the comparison has to be Nash. He's never going to live up to that. I think the question is somewhat flawed. Some guys are seeing this the way i did, as the players, as individuals, who's a better scorer. Who's able to drive on his man and score on him? That's Brooks, but when yuo switch to a team setting there's no doubt it's Nash, but again, it's thanks in large part to his teammates influence on the D. I'm not trying to take anything away from nash by saying he uses his teammates to get his points, that is a skill, a talent, afterall...but in that context Brooks won't match him because he simply doesnt, and probably will never, play the style nash does. It's like asking who's the better scorer, Dream or Shaq? Shaq's numbers and efficiency top Dream, but one on one, without teammates, Dream rules. there would be no fronting, no alleys, no off rebounds....it's just a bad comparison because the question seems to ask to look at them individually, but the only stats available involve their teammates' influence.

 

I don't intend to derail this thread but:
a)They did not slow the offense much for Shaq they were still a fast paced team.
b)D'Antoni left and then they went back to play his style.
c)If you believe he was the same player in Dallas as he is in Phoenix, I completely agree.

Well, what sets Nash apart as a scorer is what goes on before he gets to the basket and the fact that opposing teams are still thinking about his pass at that point.

 

I don't know, but I'm not paying for Rafer's therapy.

 

I'll beat out the Rafer-haters and say: They would tie, because neither player would miss.

Actually, I'd love to see the same contest but with Kyle Lowry as the defender.

 

Nash's early years are a bit of an aberration.

1) He was playing behind Jason Kidd and Kevin Johnson (ok, and if you want to throw him in there, Sam Cassell).
2) Nobody with the exception of maybe Donnie Nelson knew how good the guy really was or could be even though he was being groomed as the heir-apparent to Kevin Johnson.
3) He was injured often and had the stigma of being injury-prone attached to him. After he came back from either playing injured or missing a lot of games with the Mavericks, his game took off.

Even in this comparison, you can't compare any particular years because Nash wasn't really ever the focus of his team's offense - he was often a bench player or a #3 option in his early years. Aaron pretty much has a green light to gun because he has to and that's his game.

Nash is a deceptive scorer and athlete. He's downright silly in the ways he can get his shots up and how off-balance he can be and still take a legit shot at the basket. I haven't watched him much recently, but not too long ago, he was probably one of the most difficult players in the league to guard.

Nash is the better offensive player at this point simply because he can score, and if you stop him from scoring, you have to stop him from passing and finding the right guy in the right position to score. Go ahead and double-team him - he'll find the open man and kill you. He's a double-threat. Brooks isn't the passer Nash is - or at least hasn't shown himself to be that yet.

Aaron's speed and quickness will diminish, if he's like any human other than Nash. He'll have to figure out other ways to get separation and score. Who knows where his ceiling is. The other thing that would be interesting to do is define "scorer". Some would consider Nash's assists as being just as good as points. Even if you assign something like half-a-point for assists, he's a hell of a scorer.

But right now? For one year? I'd take Nash. If you take into account career-remaining and potential future, I'd gamble on Brooks since he's probably got a lot longer to go.

 

He doesn't have the natural talent that Nash possesses. That's why his upside his overrated. Aaron will get better,but he is never going to be able to impact the game like Nash.

 

Brooks. He'd be able to create space to get what he wants, a shot or drive, while nash wouldnt be able to do it as easily. And i think a player is more likely to make shots he wants or plans to take, rather than if it's a second option/last resort. Since Nash is a better shooter he'd probably hit more and/or a better percentage of jumpers than Brooks. However, i think Brooks wouldnt have to shoot many jumpers to begin with because he would get by Rafer most of the time. So basically it would become a battle of Nash's jumpers VS Brooks' layups. And as good as Nash shoots from the perimeter (let's say 50%), I can't see Brooks only making half his layups without any other defenders. Alston can't stay in front of him, and Brooks has shown the ability to finish one on one with only an inch of space, especially when he does his sweeping-one-handed, scoop layup. In the NBA it's usually only countered by help D, which in this case there would be none.

so for example, i'd say both make 90% of their layups...Nash may make like 50-60% of his shots, but brooks shouldnt be too far behind..but because the bulk of Brooks' attempts are layups, he'll score more.

 

I always thought Rafer is/was slightly above average. His weakness, though, was defending smaller, quicker guards like Brooks.

In a strictly one-on-one contest, I'd actually give Brooks a slight edge over Nash just because of his speed and superior first step. But what makes Nash so good is that he is just as much a threat to assist in a score as he is to score himself, and his defender has to adjust to that. So in real games, Nash has a great advantage over Brooks even in isolation plays.

 

A lot of people, including myself, felt that Brooks' trade value after the playoffs was the highest it would ever be.

If nothing else, I believe a lot of us were wrong in that he has probably increased his trade value a little bit so far this season, primarily due to the way he's been able to score the ball.

 

I think Brooks is only going to get better. Soon he will start to get respect from the refs and get more trips to the line which will really open up his game. Its dissapointing he doesnt really have a mentor type PG to help him improve but I think by year five, if still in a Rockets uni, he could be a consistant 22-7 guy.

 

Not sure...i can't see how that benefits nash directly, makes it harder for him to go the rim, if at all, so he'd still be stuck shooting jumpers. Indirectly though, nash benefits because brooks also would have more problems going to the rim...however, brooks has that ability to get opponents moving back and forth and i could see him sneaking in some layups by getting the defenders to pick each other off (i'm assuming the perimeter defender is allowed to cross over to the post defender's area), so brooks still gets more layups than nash, but not as much as before....the jumpers is where it gets tricky. Nash naturally shots a better %, but Brooks could end up shooting more open jumpers since he's better at creating separation by moving his defender back with his dribble and fading back on his shot.....but maybe the defender just plays him for the shot since Scola is waiting down low...

i think this would depend on whether Alston plays them both as shooters or if he tries to take the drive away too. If he plays the drive Brooks get's the nod, if he plays them as shooters i think it's too close for me to guess, whoever get lucky on the tough shots.

 

Rafer is an average defender,but it's of no use whether Brooks is a better scorer or not.Being better one on one is of no consequence to what is required in the NBA game.
I'm not implying that Brooks is a bad player,but there is no comparison between him and Nash.
Even adding multiple players into the situation,doesn't change anything.

 

Durvasa, where are you trying to get with these scenarios? It seems like you're tryin to point out Nash is better at creating scoring on a team, but i already agreed with that. I think i can make it easier by saying that as long as nash has at least another teammate, he'll be better at creating scoring opportunities for his side, assuming Brooks has a similar/identical teammate. However, individually nash may still not score more. For him to score more individually he'd need to have at least one teammate who can shoot.