Fair enough, I'm not exactly arguing against that. I realize Rafer isn't the solution. But don't fix what ain't broke.
Rafer Sux, always has sucked and will continue to suck. There is a better player on the bench, upgrade something is not fixing, it is UPGRADING. DD
Your hatred of Rafer is really clouding things. Now you're just talking in NBA Live 09; is Brooks rated 76 and Rafer rated 70? maybe we should switch them up then Eventually, the time may come where there is a NEED to shift things around. There really is no need right now, especially seeing as how we've had a fully healthy roster a ridiculous amount of one game. Rafer has been proven to be a competent player with the starting lineup. Brooks hasn't. No, 7 games do not make a season, much less a career. You're advocating an on the fly change that really doesn't need to be done and may end up having more potential to harm the team rather then help it. Given some more time, if Brooks proves himself throughout the rest of the season and Rafer continues playing like he has the past few days, then yes, changes should be made. But for the moment? No. It's not a knock on Brooks and his talent, I think he has the potential to be much better then Rafer, but now is not the time to say "screw it" and test that theory out.
<br> oh my.. <br> Let's compare what Luis is better at than Hayes <br> Posting up Running the break Shooting Free Throw shooting Creating for his teammates <br> They are equal at: <br> Passing Drawing charges <br> Chuck is better at: <br> Defense <br> <br> Now let's Look at Brooks and Alston <br> Alston is better at: <br> Post pass to Yao Steals <br> They are equal at: <br> Passing Setting up the offense (Because McGrady actually does this) defense <br> Brooks is better at: <br> Speed Penetration Shooting Creating for teammates Free Throw shooting Fast Breaks (Rafer actually isn't too bad at this) 3 point shooting making layups <br> Hmm, sounds awfully similar to me. And, why should a TEAM record dictate how you view one player? As you said, he is not a superstar. If we have an obvious flaw, why should we ignore it just because we are lucky enough to be winning at the moment? Do you really think that Rafer doesn't get exploited during the playoffs? Or would you rather that Brooks not gain the experience necessary to perform at that higher level now, and have to be thrust into it when Rafer starts to choke during the playoffs as usual?
hamza, you have zero facts to back up what you said. You didn't even bring percentages to mind, which is one thing Brooks is tangibly better at. just sayin.
<br> Oh my lord. <br> 08-09 HOU Games: 24 Games Started: 24 MPG: 33.5 FG%: 0.372 3 PT%: 0.376 FT%: 0.827 RPG: 3.2 APG: 5.1 TPG: 1.2 BPG: 0.2 TO: 1.71 PPG: 11.7 <br> Go compare those with the point guard of any other "elite" team in this league, and be the judge for yourself. <br> Stop making excuses and being delusional Im through arguing with someone who is completely unreasonable <br> Have a nice day!
Eh, nice parting blow. Posting Rafer's stats and leaving me no idea what the hell to do with them. I've already said his A/TO ratio is exceptional. His FT% and 3PT% are above average. You've posted his good 1.2 SPG stat. Really, unless you're trying to argue with me that FG% defines a player, in which case we should trade Ron Artest's ass right away, these stats don't indicate anything near the "horribleness" of Rafer and none of them demand immediate change. Bleh, but you're gone now, so eh. ...have a nice day :/
<br> there is no point. Just let him be.. <br> he's the reincarnation of those posters who used to argue the importance of Moochie Norris because of his "clutch" performances
No that would embarass him even further, compare him to any of the starting PGs in the league, with the looks Rafer gets (basically wide open because of Yao and Tmac) he should be shooting a much higher percentage. Heck, since this thread is about Brooks, just compare his stats to Brooks.....I think that is the entire point. DD
Basically, this boils down to shot percentages, since all his other stats are better then Brooks proportionally. Which coincidentally enough, seems to be pretty low across the board on the Rockets despite the "looks everyone is getting". Brent Barry 36% FG Ron Artest 37% FG Chuck Hayes 32% FG seriously, just because Aaron shoots better is not a good enough argument for him to replace Rafer. Basketball isn't just about shooting percentages.
Dude, you know that's distorted because it's going to favor the players who played the most minutes. The longer you're on the court over the course of the season, the more opportunity to have to build your +/- if you play on a winning team. Battier and Rafer are at the top of the list because they played the most minutes last season and were the only two to start 70+ games. Tracy missed 16 games and didn't start 4 others and Yao missed 27. Luis, Chuck, and Landry all split time at PF. So yeah, Shane and Rafer stayed on the court more and consequently had a higher +/-. But you look at this years +/- and he falls to 5th because Yao, Tracy, and Artest are playing most games and Rafer has missed a handfull. He's still got a higher +/- then Brooks but again he's playing starters minutes while Aaron isn't. This is the flaw of looking at +/- without looking at contributing factors. It gives you a distorted view of a players worth. And yes, whoever is on the court with you matters a lot. If you're playing with the first team, you're probably going to have a higher +/- than a guy playing with the 2nd team even if you split the minutes evenly. Now, if you ever decide to look at the Hollinger PER, it is designed to even the playing field making it easier to compare players directly despite these other factors. FWIW, Brooks had a 15.92 PER and Rafer has a 13.70 PER. 15.00 is supposed to be average. I just hope you're not depending on those +/- numbers as the basis of your rationale.
I'm not. I realize the flaws of +/- numbers, which is why I brought other evidence in as well. Either way, there's nothing in there that tells me Adelman should suddenly pack up and drastically make the switch from Rafer to Brooks, especially given how Brooks has always played with the reserves and Rafer has always played with the starters. I'm not arguing that Rafer>Brooks or Brooks>Rafer as some of you guys have tried to demonstrate over and over again. I think Brooks may be the better player now and certainly later, however, talent does not automatically translate into more wins. Adelman made a sound decision in sticking with a known quantity. The stats were just to show that Rafer isn't the "terrible liability" everyone characterizes him to be and that there's no necessary reason to change things up. PER also tends to underrate defense, which is why Shane only had a PER of 9.90 this season and 11.63 last season and that is one of Rafer's strong points.
