How is it that Rafer is the only one who gets dinged for this? Before last night didn't Bill say Brooks was shooting 20% in the previous 8 games? (I think he said 8 - but I could be wrong on that, but I remember the 20% for sure) I mean, Rafer isn't a good shooter - I think we can all agree on that. But the team just runs better with him at the point. I like Brooks and think he is the future - but if you watch him run the team now, he just makes some poor decisions with the ball. He'll grow out of those and when that day comes (I'm thinking as early as next season) I'll be the first to say hand the reigns over to him, but not yet. As far as the weakest link - as long as Head is on this team, there is no competition Luther is the weakest link - I mean come on, the guy lost his spot to a guy who didn't have a guaranteed contract. He should be embarassed! After Luther - as of late its Tracy.
any proof for this claim (that Rafer runs offense better)? when Brooks played significant minutes as PG, the team offense looked much better and so did the team records. Isn't this showing that Brooks runs team better? No, Head is not the weakest link. He played a few to none minutes sparsely . He has no chance to be the weakest link. Our weakest link is Rafer who plays 30 minutes a night and contribute absolutely nothing to the team.
If Rafer stuck to shooting wide open spot up 3's he wouldn't be that bad. But he seems to try to do too much at times. I don't mind him driving to the hole neither. My biggest problem is those pull up jumpers.
9 games since Rafer was back from injury, he was shooting 32.2%. Team record 3:6. Brooks was shooting 36.1%, it is terrible but still better Rafer's
Had to chime in. Have to agree about that teardrop-shot assessment. He always, always, always, always uses it. I'll scream at the TV screen, "Noooooooo!" with arm outstretched, but I guess he either can't hear me or ignores me. I have no idea why on God's green earth the coaching staff allows him to continue throwing up that clanging teardrop. Only about 5% of the time does it set us up for an offensive rebound. Yes, Rafer plays some decent defense, and he traditionally commits not-too-many turnovers (unless you count the teardrop shot, which is as good as a turnover), but someone needs to point out that he is, indeed, no Tony Parker.
Ok, let's talk proof: Alston - 4.8 assists per game, 1.77 turn overs per game in 33.4 minutes per game. Brooks - 2.6 assists per game, 1.47 turn overs per game in 23.7 minutes per game. So off the bat - Alston's assist/turn over ratio is better. (stats from NBA.com) To be fair though, those numbers are for the season not when he was a starter: in the 7 games he started he averaged 4 assists per game and 1.7 turn overs - much better assist/turn over rate, but still not as good as Alston's. Plus/Minus numbers: Alston - +47 Brooks - +6 Link To be fair - plus/minus is usually more useful when looking in combos, but as we are comparing individuals this was the most direct comparison. I will grant you that none of these numbers PROVE anything, but they PROVE more than your assertion that it looked better when he started. So let's see your proof that Aaron ran the team better - and I expect more than "the team looked much better"
It's just interesting to me how the offense came to a screeching hault when Rafer was inserted back in to the lineup. I'd never say it's all on him, but he just struggles putting the ball in the basket. Teams know this and they force him to shoot, and it's becoming almost like a turnover when that happens.
if 40% is the Mendoza line, then half our team is under it. And Rafer is not the weakest link...right now that honor belongs to McGrady. Hell I'd even say Battier is the weakest link before Rafer. This was our starting forward and one of the teams best defenders and he has contributed next to nothing this season. Is it hard to believe then the team's defense has slacked lately?
To prove who ran the TEAM better, you have to use TEAM stats, not individual stats. how is team doing when Rafer or Brooks plays? here is a TEAM stat: when Rafer played more than 30 minutes: team record 14:10 when Brooks played more than 30 minutes: 6:1
I got kicked from the chat the other night because I said Alston was garbage and we needed to trade him. El oh El
The mystery : Why Rafer has a low TO rate? Answer: He draws no defense, he does not create, he does not drive and he is always wide open. Of course he will protect the ball better.
So basically Rafer, who gets to play with the big guns on the starting squad, has a better +/- than Brooks who plays with the bench?
Totally true. Brooks is always penetrating and probing (insert joke here) hence he would turn it over a bit more. Rafer doesnt turn it over cause he doesnt create.
i havent missed a game since sleepy floyd was in the lineup i did watch those championship teams and the truth is Kenny had a better shot but he also had a MUCH better center REMEMBER hakeem the dream (no disrespect to YAO) but hakeem demanded a double team every time he touched the ball and was a much better passer out of the post than Yao plus kenny had Horry and Mad Max which are MUCH better shooters than TMAC and Shane so give Rafer a break...................we are a much better team with him than without him
Are you talking Rafer, or another allstar point guard we do not know? If that is true, the why did he not play much in the Boston game? Then we had the biggest win in the year with Brook. Of course he knows his role, he has to do something to stay in the floor, but he can not shot the ball, that is the big part of roles for a PG, he just can not do it on the daily basis, and do not forget his tear-drop shot, that could be the worst-ever shot I can see for a long time.
how many of these threads do we needs? aaron brooks a crap devin harris, wanna be mike james........aaron brooks may win you a game once in a while by scoring.........he's not going to win you a game by being a PG who creates and distributes.
That's ball-hogger. If so, Mike james can do the same thing, be very effective with the ball and the team went down to the deep,deep earth.
