Hate to disagree with you here but if a pint-sized shooting guard turned point guard is this team's best player, then this team is in even worse shape than you can imagine.
When Yao went down during the 22 win streak... it's because people stepped up their game and emotionally... this team isn't capable of that... I hate having this outlook but pending T-mac of old comes back from the grave, we're not going anywhere with this current set up.
I still fail to see how Brooks is the best player, in the last season he had a slight edge over Scola in pure scoring, an NOTHING ELSE numerically speaking, you name it Efficiency rating, +/- rating, PER rating....in all these Scola is FAR BETTER than Brooks, and that doesn't take into account that Scola is Einstein compared to Brooks regarding Basketball IQ.... And even from the times when Rockets won his first playoff series and lost to LAkers in 7, Scola was ahead of Brooks in PER, +/- and Efficiency...even Morey said it in public that Scola was the Rocket's MVP of such playoffs.... So, could you explain with basketball arguments, how come Brooks is the best player of the team?
He is the only guy on the team that can create a good shot for himself or others. He is the most important player on the team, he makes EVERYTHING go, he is the lynch pin or the keystone. DD
Please. Scola and Martin are better than Brooks. Am i missing something? Weren't we winless with AB? Jeez, DD stop spamming the board with the same stuff. We got you the first 50 million times you've made these same points.
Just because you say so that he creates for him and others (how come I'd ask with his LOUSY court vision and Basketball IQ)....it becomes true? Scola can create his own shot and for others...didn't you see the game agains Spurs? don;t you notice how he usually finds the best positioned teammate when he's doubled? it has happened in former games clearly (against the Bulls, for a clear example), it has been commented on this board.... How coem Brooks is better then? Scola is better in PER rating, in +/- (+23 against the Bulls, -26 against the Bulls without him)...the +/- rating over these seasons is far better for Scola than Brooks.... How can such ratings be explained? and those numbers don;t show the huge advantage that Scola has over Brooks regarding IQ and fundamentals of the game.... Where is the explanation, apart from your personal statements? how come no PEr netiher efficiency neither +/- ratings say Brooks is better than Scola? how would you explain it?
Because PER is a hollow statistic to look at to gauge the effectiveness of players and how they fit or work with others, when discussing team needs. DD
What are the failures of PER rating? why is a worse indicator than plain scoring? could you expain? Your own opinions are better indicators than PER? How about +/-? Rockets having +23 with Scola on court against the Bulls, in 37 mins, and Having -26 in the remaining 11 minutes.....sure +/- in such cases, must also be dismissed? Having all of them....+/- stats, effciency ranking, and PER rating, with Scola waay ahead of Brooks, and more important SCOLA HAS A FAR BETTER CURRICULUM OVERALL (check his CV in Europe or in FIBA tournaments) Should such huge amount of verifiable facts....be dismissed, because in your opinion, Brooks is better than Scola? is that what you are saying?
No, I am saying that what Brooks provides this team is more important......he is the only one on the team that can create a good shot late in games and in the shot clock. The only guy that can create for himself and others, his skillset is unique. It is not about WHOM is the better overall player, it is about who is the most important player to make this team go, ...the keystone in the arch so to speak. That is Aaron Brooks. DD
Again it is YOUR OPINION.....there are notginh else to back it up than your opinion.....if your opinion would be real, the +/- rating of Brooks would be better than the Scola's +/-.....cause he'd be more important and effective to the Rockets, don't you think? why doesn't it happen? BTW, PER rating was built also thinking in finding a better way to show player's contribution to a team, than the usual old ratings (ppg, rpg apg, spg,fg %...etc...) So how come it has never happened so clear that with Aaron Brooks in 35+ minutes, Rockets had a +23 or more....and without nAB, they lose the game, AS HAS HAPPENED WITH SCOLA AGAINST THE BULLS? how do you explain it? Do yuo understand that now? it is only your personal OPINION against VERIFIABLE NUMBERS that say that Scola is far more important to the Rockets than Aaron Brooks....
