Well it was tied at the end, so even if it was 6 points, it quickly became zero with Rafer in there. DD
That goes both ways though, because while the lead went to **** with Rafer in the game (going from 6 to 0), it also went from 14-6 when Brooks was in, and during overtime we obviously built that lead back up again. Its pretty silly to continue this Brooks v Alston argument on a game by game level, especially win Adelman has clearly chosen Rafer to at least start (its mind boggling why they can't split the minutes 24-24 at least though, between Barry and Tmac you'll have a guy that can call plays for you).
It is not silly at all, Adelman has been known to take FOREVER to make proper changes like the Scola one last year. Let's take a look at Rafer Alston's stats as a starter this year: Here is a link to his stats He has started 25 games, his stats for those games: FG% .365 3pt% .366 Apg 4.9 Turnovers 1.76 Assist to turnover ratio 2.78 Rebpg 3.3 FT% .790 PPG 11.8 MPG 33.6 Those are his stats as a starter. So, let's look at Brooks stats as a starter in comparison Link to stats, about midway down the page you can see the starter stats FG% .427 3pt% .424 Apg 4.5 Turnovers 1.5 Assist to turnover ratio 3.0 Rebpg 4.7 FT% .889 PPG 14.7 MPG 36.8 Northside your argument has completely fallen apart looking at those stats the only place Rafer has a slight advantage is in assists, but Brooks is better than him in every other category and darned close in assists, and better in Assist to turnover ratio....and the number one telling stat. Games started Rafer 15-10 .600% Brooks 5-1 .800% Just look at the stats, Brooks is better.......it is clear to anyone that cares to actually take a realistic look at it. CASE CLOSED !!!! DD
That was based on 8 games. Literally. At that point, it's hard to even tell whether this is a significant trend. Statistically, across studies of existing statistics with a sample size under 100, deviations of under 10% are almost meaningless (since one bad game by Brooks could drastically alter these stats). And 8 games represents just under 10% of a season, nevermind a career. I think we all realize Rafer isn't the long-term solution...however, I really don't understand. If the Rockets were a .500 team, then I'd say yes, changes need to be made and I'd damn Adelman if he didn't do them, but why take the risk? Rafer closing games has lead, more or less, to a good team record. From all indications, the Rockets are doing better then the Spurs (who've had a ridiculously easy SOS and are only .5 games ahead...and still have a lower point def. then the Rockets) and are obviously doing better then the Mavs, Blazers, Suns etc. etc. even though those are fully healthy squads. Yes, potentially speaking, Brooks may win more games but that's the snag; potentially. Better individual stats like PPG and APG do not translate to more wins (and even the stats themselves are questionable as I mentioned above). Brooks has never played with the starters for an extended period of time yet, and while he may have shown an initial, great performance who knows if he can continue it? Now is not the time to try "hypothetical" situations ("Oh Brooks would've come in and slaughtered Deron and then for s**** and giggles he'd start breakdancing on the court. He'd throw in an off-the shoulder reverse three and then his ensuing celebration would cause the Jazz to run in shame.") and look at the real Rockets. You know, the Rockets .5 out of the Southwest crown and 2nd seed? Just as a perfect example of this...when Brooks closes games, he tends to rush things. This is subjective but at least I tend to observe this. Sometimes it's good; Brooks overwhelms them with quick points. However, it's the OPPOSITE of what the Rockets strive to do; grind teams out. And sometimes it leads to really ugly results; turnovers and missed shots that lead to quick fast breaks for the other team. That's okay, Brooks will learn eventually, just that I don't want him doing his on-the-job training while the Rockets are still in good enough shape to contend for a championship.
If you are going to ignore numbers then I am done with you. You set the standard, and there are cold hard facts. One game is not a good sample but 6 is a decent sample size especially when you have 3 elite PGs in that span of games. Brooks is ready to start, and I find it ironic that you point to some erroneous stats like plus/minus yet ignore the stats that are presented to you, then you say, Brooks rushes it at the end, as a perception? Northside, you are just arguing to argue....if you ignore stats...then you are not worth the time. DD
what are yao's shot attempts in games that rafers started, and games that brooks started? how many assists does aaron have specifically to yao? i bet rafer has more per game when he started..........aaron may have better stats but he doesnt maximize what yao can do on the floor...........and the record and stats go out the window for me...........look at the teams brooks started against denver, where yao and tmac combined for 52 and tmac had a triple double....brooks starting isnt the reason that game was won.........then he won vs the pathetic sacramento queens, then we barely beat a garbage t'wolves team, then a mediocre nets team which was out of the game by the middle of the 1st quarter.........and even playing those crap teams, his numbers are just slightly better, and tmac led the team in assists in all those games......
Knicker, Who cares? It is all about the team play, I don't care if Yao gets more shot attempts with Rafer than Brooks, I care about winning. But for the fun of it, Brooks gets the ball to Yao quite nicely. For me, it is all about winning....and Brooks does that better than Rafer. DD
those "elite pg's" all had good games, minus devin harris who was in foul trouble..........in those same 6 games he got lit up by Randy Foye and freaking George Hill........every game against the "elite pg" we only win cuz yao and tmac both showed up, not cause aaron brooks started.
Brooks scoring benefits Yao more then Rafer just passing the ball to Yao on almost every play. It spreads out their defense and takes pressure off of Yao.
we win more if yao gets the ball..........that's a given.......and aaron brooks does a poor job of getting yao the ball.......now with a healthy tmac it's less of a problem because he can just do it, but with tmac out the only guy who can pass yao the ball is battier.....or head , but if head's in the game that's another problem.
it doesnt matter if there's less presssure on him when your pg doesnt even know how to get him the ball in the first place.
What? Billups struggled, CP3 struggled, Harris struggled...by the way...all wins. How can I convince you when you are making stuff up? And George Hill played well, but I was at that game, Brooks had the team up 10 with 4 minutes to go, and Tmac came in and took the ball away from him and began hoisting up jumpers and stopping any semblence of teamplay. If Brooks would have kept running the show he would be undefeated as a starter. Brooks is ready, people that don't see it are blind or stupid, you decide which one you are. DD
I'm not ignoring them. I just mentioned they might not be significant; I set the standard, yes. The standard of using 20 games+ as a statistical measure rather then 6. I even mentioned that even if those stats were significant, they all go back to Brooks>Rafer, which is NOT WHAT I AM ARGUING. Look back at my post for heaven's sake, once more. If you want to ignore that and if you want to ignore me, then fine, but don't pretend like this argument suddenly isn't "worth the time" just because you suddenly realized you have no idea what the hell I'm arguing.
AB got the ball to Yao quite nicely last night, including every possession in the 4th quarter. The problem was Yao didn't deliver and the lead shrank. So what is Adelman's solution? Put in Rafer so he can do the exact same thing. The result? The lead disappears and the game goes into OT. In the 2nd quarter, AB fed Yao very well. The "AB does a poor job of getting the ball to Yao" argument is tired and dated. He is much better at it now.
No, you are just not making any sense, you set some mythical standard of 20 games, which by the way Rafer has SUCKED ARSE in...and then ignore the games that Brooks has played in because they allegedly are too small a sample size. You are just being obtuse...it is clear to most people that Brooks has outperformed Rafer, and it is backed up with stats. You just choose to ignore them to suit your obtuseness. DD
this makes the most sense. People are saying the lead evaoporated with brooks in, with alston in. The gameplan was clearly to get the ball to Yao @ the end of regulation and the first OT. Yao just couldn't get anythign done on the offensive end during this time. Brooks is gives another person during crunch time that can create his own shot and finish. Btw, am I the only 1 that isn't agitated by rafer's stupid defense on the last lay-up by Deron in regulation where Alston could have been called for a foul which would have resulted in an additional freethrow? Granted, Brooks defense isn't nothing to brag about, but could he do any worse in that situation?
Sigh... Mythical standard or not, we're disagreeing on what construes a significant portion of games. 6 games is not significant. If Brooks had shot just 20% in the 7th game, those stats would've been shot to hell. Over more games however that would not happen. Over more games, abnormalities crystallize into trends. If you want to agree to disagree, then fine, but just realize that 6 games is a hell of a lot weaker then 20 games or 82 games. I am not arguing that Rafer hasn't sucked ass this year. But with Rafer closing games this season, he's done a competent job and is still the better proven closer based on his body of work over the last two years. That's why I think Adelman made the right decision. In fact, I am very satisfied with this team and where it is going and that is why I'm averse to playing around with the rotations. You may be dissatisfied with the team...I understand where you are coming from. Brooks does have better personal stats. I just don't think that at this point in time, the TEAM would be better served replacing Rafer with Brooks. Inevitably, the time will come, it just shouldn't be now. Lay off the personal insults as well. This s*** is not personal. I'm not questioning your intelligence based on your own personal player preferences and I'd prefer it if you didn't stoop down to that as well.
Because Rafer meets none of these is why Brooks should get more minutes. Your post is simply laughable.
