Do you know what "logic" is? If it were provable, logic wouldn't be necessary. It would be known fact. I've given you my explanations for my opinions. I would like to hear why you think my thought process is flawed. What data? Increased assists? As I've already stated, this does not conclusively prove that he has improved his game. His increased assists can also be explained by his increased offensive role. With no Yao, McGrady, or Artest, the ball is usually in his hands. Like I've said before, I use his Laker series as the benchmark, and since then, I haven't seen the type of improvement that would indicate he's meant to be more than a sparkplug off the bench.
Word. Lowry's strengths seem to be better suited to running the break in the 2nd unit. I mean, it seems fairly obvious. I don't see Klow deserving a starting role until he can score the ball from mid/long-range at a higher rate.
There is your problem.....you are skewing the data by using a single series, just look at his stats last year and compare them. You will see the improvement, you are just being obtuse and taking a small sample in order to say "See, I am using logic" when in fact you are just stacking the deck. Whatever Wekko......I see improvement, and obviously so do many other people. DD
Books+Lowry=sergiollull Problem solved<object width="388" height="394" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/swf/1.1/cvp/nba_embed_container.swf?context=rockets&videoId=teams/rockets/2010/01/21/sergiollullforweb2Mbmov-1206538" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/swf/1.1/cvp/nba_embed_container.swf?context=rockets&videoId=teams/rockets/2010/01/21/sergiollullforweb2Mbmov-1206538" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="388" wmode="transparent" height="394"></embed></object>
Do you know what "potential" means? It means the level of improvement not yet realized. To me, he has been performing consistently at the level he was at during the Laker series. I'll explain it differently. When he first starting playing for us, he had a lot of unrealized potential. As he matured into his role, his unrealized potential became realized improvement. By the end of the Laker series, there wasn't much unrealized potential left. You may call it skewing the data, but I'm actually selectively choosing relevant data. Here's another example. The 2000-2001 season was McGrady's 4th season. It was his breakout season and he averaged almost 27 points per game. His performance that season brought his career scoring average up to 14.6 ppg. For the 01-02 season, do you think fans would be impressed if he averaged 19 ppg? After all, it's a 23% increase over his career scoring average. Or do you think this fans would expect his 01-02 season to be comparable (or better) to his 00-01 season? Clearly the fans would use the 00-01 season as the benchmark and expect comparable numbers. It's simply more relevant than his career numbers.
Yeah, but you are trying to use one 7 game series as a control group, when the matchups are different with each team, the expectations are different, and the data more complete. It might be more relevant if you took his first 90 games and broke them into 30 game chunks to do a more thorough comparison, because what you are doing is selectively taking a small sample size because it fits your argument. Rather than actually analyzing his full body of work and looking for signs of improvement. In the McGrady example you could take the season before and show how he had improved in the next season. With Brooks, we don't have that much data yet.....all we have are last years 30 games and this years 60 or so... Not enough to formalize a true opinion of improvement or non improvement, unless you are trying to make the data fit an argument than anyone can skew the stats to make a point, trust me, I know. :grin: DD
What I'm doing is taking a small sample size b/c its the only relevant data we have available. If we're trying to see his level of improvement this year, wouldnt it make sense for the control group to be without Yao? Obviously you want to include games with Yao b/c Yao would've been the focal point of the offense and Brooks' numbers would've naturally been lower. Compared to those numbers, Brooks' numbers this year would then indicate that he's vastly improved. Now you get it. If you want a useful comparison, you use relevant data. You have all the data you need. You just choose not to acknowledge it b/c it doesn't agree with your agenda. I'll give you another example. Everyone has been disappointed in Ariza's horrid 3 pt shooting this year, right? That's b/c they're comparing his 3 pt percentages to last years' playoff performance when he shot 47.6% from the 3 pt line. We all disregard the fact that his 3 pt percentage this season is almost exactly what it was last season.
Yao played the first 3 games of the Laker series, so are you using the last 4 games only? Also, 4 games in a singular matchup is not a good control group, in fact it SUCKS to try to gather any data, it is one series, against the same opponents over and over and hardly indicative of where he is going as a player. Come on Weeko, you are being obtuse, just arguing to argue..... No worries my guy won the starting job.....and will keep it. DD
Actually, during those last 4 games, it wasn't a singular matchup. We saw him perform against a bigger, slower guard (Fisher) and a similarly quick guard (Farmar).
Singular, as in ONE team, and not a good enough sample size to get full data, and I know you weren't using only those 4 games but the entire series....lol. Even if you were it is hillarious to try to use 4 games as a barometer.....I mean that is laugh out loud funny. DD
One team is a moot point if they have a variety of guards...which the Lakers did. And what's hilariously stupid is to try to use irrelevant data to prove your point. Even a tiny sample of relevant data is far more useful than truckloads of irrelevant data. Ever heard of the term "garbage in, garbage out"?
Yeah, I think of that every time I see someone try to use 4 games in a one team series as a way of saying this is the baseline of comparison for an entire career's growth path. Whatever, dude, T-man said you just like to argue, he was right. Enjoy talking to yourself, at least then you and yourself can pretend you know what you are talking about, because the rest of us know that you don't. Four games....LOL....really, come on.....heheh DD
Not only is it one team, it's one team that was not that well prepared to stop Brooks - especially early on. Notice how he got off to a hot start again this season, then started to tail off in December. Well, he has adjusted to the defensive adjustments made by other teams and his February numbers are up. I guess Indiana Pacers fans should be upset that Reggie Miller never got any better than what he showed in the 1994 WCF against the Knicks.
If 4 games is the only amount of relevant data, are you saying you shouldn't use it? You may not put your entire faith in the results, but it's definitely more reliable than 90 games worth of irrelevant data. And the reason I'm using it as the baseline for his career is b/c this was supposed to be his breakout year. He's the focus of the offense and doesn't have to defer to Yao, McGrady, Artest, etc... And while he has performed at a high level, he has shown remarkably little improvement since the Laker series. You may not like my opinions, but you can't really find flaws in my logic. Unless you think using relevant data is illogical. If you're so certain about Brooks' eventual ascension into Tony Parker level and place on the team, I'll make you the same offer I made T-man. $100 tipjar bet that says if the Rockets make the 2010-2011 playoffs and Yao/Martin are healthy, Brooks is not the starting pg. And yes, I do like to argue. I like to compare my thought processes against those of my peers. The problem is, you have no thought process. You have offered no logical reasoning as to why you think he can get to Tony Parker's level. Unless you count "watching basketball since 1972" as a logical reasoning.
I think Brooks is unlikely to be removed from the starting line up, but I do think some of the logic in this thread is flawed at best. Some of you presume Brooks is going to keep developing and improve because he is young, but Lowry is 2 years younger than him, and typically shooting is easier to improve than play making. Both Magic and Kidd were poor shooters early in their careers. I've read arguements that Lowry should be discounted as an option because he had a poor play off run last year, but the same people seem to dismiss the fact that Brooks had a poor playoff series against Utah the year before that. So even though I think Brooks is likely to keep the starting job for the near future barring a trade or injury, I think it is silly to presume Brooks has all this room to improve and that Lowry who is younger is capped out in his growth.
You're missing my point entirely. I'm not going to check stats, but I'll assume Miller was playing great in the 1994 WCF so it would be fair to say that Miller maximized his potential. As a result, there was no room for further improvement so Pacer fans would have no grounds to be upset. In the Laker series, Brooks was close to reaching his ceiling (IMO). The difference is that Brooks' ceiling is an offensively efficient, undersized shooting guard and Miller's ceiling was one of the best shooters of all-time. Miller's ceiling was high enough that the team was built around him. IMO, Brooks' ceiling is high enough that if everyone else is healthy, his most effective role would be a 6th man (like Terry or Ginobili).
Internet arguing is flawed unlike face to face. People tend to forget the OP original statement and sometimes even what they wrote themselves. We lose the ability to listen...... Its like hey he can do this, 3 pages later, the same person says no he can't do it.......hahaha
No, the problem is that you don't like people that know more than you do about the game of basketball and calling your thoughts Bull crap which they are. To use a 4 game series (and you were originally using all 7 games) as any sort of indicator is just patently stupid. If you are TRULY interested in seeing growth, then take ALL of the games and break them up into parts with Yao, and without. If you look, he performed quite well WITH Yao in the Portland series, and is continuing to perform quite well without him from the middle of the Lakers series onwards. Brooks is improving, you just don't want to see it. Not sure why you are against a Rockets player showing improvement, I mean that is good for the team right? As for your childish bet, you have done this ad nauseum.....with T-man too, I believe, and in this thread, right? ROFLMAO.... Well, nope, that is a stupid bet, because all I care about is the team getting better and if trading Aaron or Lowry makes us better, that is fine by me. Now, go find someone else to argue with, you are wasting my time.....your 4 games as a baseline is borderline moronic. I can't think of a single instance where someone would take 7, no wait, 4 games as some sort of trajectory for a career. It is time for another addition to my ignore list, he has earned it. DD
Like I said to T-man. If you truly believe in what you say, you should have the stones to back it up with a reasonable wager. We're both grown men so $100 should be meaningless. Your refusal to do so simply tells me that part of you is worried that I'm right.
