Brooks is good, but Nash is still a better scorer, and he doesn't exactly have that score first mentality all the time. Plus it's hard to overlook Nash's career. I'm sure we would all love it if Brooks could have a similar one.
1-on-1 basketball does not reflect the totality of what it means to be a good scorer. I added a teammate because one of the most important scoring plays for a perimeter player is scoring off the pick and roll as a ball-handler. I intentionally chose Chuck Hayes to emphasize the scoring skill of Brooks/Nash rather than their ability to take advantage of the scoring prowess of their teammate (in this case, obviously very limited). With the 3 given scenarios taken together, I think we get a better idea of each player's "scoring ability".
I agree with all that, i just think it went farther than needed. It all comes down to our own experiences when it comes to basketball terms. To me, scorer sounds like what i described initially. It's like the argument i had with DD about the term "creator", where to me that was someone who could create a play or scoring opportunity from nothing and almost on his own, while DD's definition was simply a player who contributed to the process of creating an opportunity, even if it was with just a pass. Maybe it's an age thing, with more emphasis on individual play this past decade certain terms have become defined differently by the younger crowd. At least to me that's what those terms have always been, but i can see how you're reasoning fits under your definition. But i do think the poll is misleading, probably closer to 50/50, nash gets a lot of votes on rep alone.
He gets the votes partially on rep, but probably more so based on the stats. Its difficult to look past how successful he has been putting the ball in the basket this season. He is an amazing offensive player.
nash is the better player period. but brooks is playing extremely well lately, esp. scoring the ball (though his assists numbers have gone down). it's nice to see brooks stay aggressive.
well i connected the rep and stats somewhat, he gets the rep in part because of his stats, but i dont disagree about his talents. I've had him on my fantasy team the last two years and his numbers are crazy most of the time.
Sorry for going off-topic but how many apg do you guys think Nash would be averaging if he had been playing all of Brooks' minutes this season with the same players? I'm guessing it would be somewere around 7 apg with Ariza, Hayes, Battier and Scola as his primary sidekicks to go with the minutes he would get with some of the bench players. I wouldn't be surprised if it was anywhere between 6 to 8 apg. Anywhere below or above that would shock me. I also think his shooting percentages would be significantly lower playing with those sidekicks. When was the last time Nash was playing on a bad offensive team, i.e., one that didn't have multiple legitimate scoring threats around him?
while i have stated numerous times that nash is a "system" player, he would fit into adelman's system perfectly. in 05-06, he didnt have amare. his "sidekicks" were shawn marion (a glorified role player) and boris diaw. he averaged 18.8 pts and 10.5 ast that year. with this current team if you took out brooks, he would average around 18-19 pts and 9-10 assists pretty easily. remember, his court vision is much better than AB. and let's not talk about pick and roll play. i think 7 is way too low.
2005-2006: Code: Player G MP Eddie House 81 1421 Boris Diaw 81 2874 Shawn Marion 81 3263 Raja Bell 79 2959 Steve Nash 79 2796 James Jones 75 1772 Leandro Barbosa 57 1592 Kurt Thomas 53 1411 Pat Burke 42 346 Jim Jackson 27 420 Tim Thomas 26 634 Brian Grant 21 248 Not exactly a star-studded cast. Eddie House and Barbosa provided nice scoring punch off the bench. Marion was the leading scorer, but not a guy who creates many shots for himself. Starting lineup was usually either: Nash Bell Marion Diaw Thomas or Nash Bell Jones Marion Diaw Nash won the MVP that year.
That's a pretty good example but half of his team's payroll wasn't on the sidelines. Those are some pretty good players in that group, particularly Barbosa, Diaw and Marion. I assume Barbosa played quite a few minutes with Nash that season with Stoudemire out and the adjusted lineups. Bell is a better shooter than anybody Brooks plays with frequently. Nash made them much better players but I'd still say those are better options than the players Brooks is playing with right now. What do you think Nash's numbers would look this season if he was in place of Brooks playing the majority of his minutes in the following lineup? Nash Ariza Battier Scola Hayes Do you think his numbers would be similar to what they are now? How many more wins would the Rockets have?
Adelman would have to adapt the offense to make use of Nash's gifts, and I'm sure he would. We'd see much more pick and roll, and less corner series with the ball starting in the high post. I think he'd make all of those players much better than they are now. I could see him averaging maybe 15 and 8, shooting his usual high percentages. With him controlling the offense, I think we'd be a top 10 offensive team. Defense could get worse. The Rockets are seemingly overachieving as is, so I actually don't know if he'd add that many wins to our total to be honest. We look to be on pace to win maybe 45-50 games. He could make us a 50-53 win team, I think.
I don't think his numbers would be that good but maybe I'm underestimating Nash. He is amazing at making players around him better. Glorified role players or not, I think they are still better fits alongside Nash than players like Ariza, Battier, Hayes and even Scola. I imagine Barbosa played a lot with Nash that season as well since they probably tweaked their lineups quite a bit to deal with the Stoudemire injury. Wasn't that also the year where Diaw played the 5 a lot and could exploit a lot of matchups? I just think that for all of Nash's genius, while he'd get more out of the players Brooks' is currently playing the majority of his minutes with, I don't think he'd get anywhere close to the numbers he's putting up right now. I also think he'd get extremely frustrated like we've never seen him because of the dropoff. He was getting visibly frustrated during the Shaq experiment but I think this would take it to a whole different level, even though he'd still be able to run more. I think he'd grow frustrated with players like Battier hesitating to take open shots and a guy like Ariza just not being able to finish like the wings he's accustomed to playing with. Hayes wouldn't be able to spread the floor or shoot from mid-range or finish around the basket like he's used to. He'd probably work okay with Scola but he's not used to dumping the ball down low and watching a player go 1-on-1, which is part of Scola's game. He'd be good in the pick and roll which is the other part of Scola's game. In general, Nash would get frustrated with the lack of talent and athleticism around him that he's used to, even in that down year referenced above.
I think that's a good assessment but I do think his percentages (other than FT%) would drop to the lowest point in years, partly because it would take a while to adjust to new players and also because he'd get defended differently than he has been with more capable players around him. They'd lag off guys like Battier, Ariza and Hayes in ways he's never seen before in order to prevent him from punishing them. And Nash would get frustrated. Really, really frustrated. Possibly even more than when being asked to slow down to play with Shaq. At least then, he still had the familiarity of many players he'd played with for a while and had better finishers and athletes around him.
marion, barbosa, diaw, bell...those guys all can handle the ball, drive, and shoot. they could put nash, barbosa, diaw, and marion in at the same time. thats a lot of versatility there. Ariza cant dribble and hardly drive, battier cant drive. None of our 4s can play like marion on the perimeter.
sure, those guys are better perimeter players offensively. but then nash would know how to utilize scola and landry (esp. scola, who i think is under-utilized) even more since both of those guys can post up, spot up, run the pick and roll, and run the floor.
and that was nash's worst shooting year of his career. brooks has a VERRRRY long way to go if he is going to be as efficient as nash. nash is #11 all time in true shooting % and #1 for active players. he is the #2 free throw % guy all time. he is the #5 3pt% guy all time and clearly the best 3 pt shooter out of anyone who was featured in an offense (drazen was great but sadly his time was short). i'm not a brooks doubter, but don't start comparing him to nash now. nash is one of the greatest shooting point guards in the history of the game.
Nash is already a two-time MVP people. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm happy with Brooks' development and he is now a solid player.
I think DD's point is that during this time period of both of their careers, AB was clearly the better player. A 3rd year AB > 3rd year Nash by leaps and bounds. Does this mean AB is going to end up better than Nash? Possibly, maybe not. We really don't know. What is certain is that he is the answer to our PG future, and should retire as a Rocket. AB0 in his prime will be a 25 ppg, 7 apg Point guard. Book it.
