On our young PGs
by Carlos_HoustonSportsFanatic on Mar 15, 2009 2:52 PM CDT
32 comments
I believe the Rockets cannot afford to let Aaron Brooks and Kyle Lowry get enough experience from the remaining games to carry us thru the playoffs. Too much trial and error...
Would anybody object to having the Rockets sign Sam Cassell for the remainder of the season? Is it even possible? Can we waive Brian Cook to do it?
IMO, if we can afford to sign Dike just to be an inspirational cheerleader, we can do the same with Sam. I actually think Sam could even get on the court and show this boys how it's done...
What do yall think?
No cursing in title. No pirated material, such as links to online game streams. Do not cut/paste entire sections of content from other websites. Thanks.
0 recs |
32 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I agree about Brooks/Lowry. I can’t help but think that they’re defensive deficiencies (particularly Brooks) and inexperience will cost us in the playoffs this year.
That being said, I don’t think Cassell is an upgrade. Frankly, I don’t think he’ll be capable of running our offense any better than either Brooks or Lowry. He’s the kind of guy that could serve as a ballstopper as an off guard, and won’t be able to get us into our offense on the ball. Defensively, I know hes got good size, but the guy is 39. Look at Bibby in Atlanta on the defensive end, and hes 30. I haven’t seen him play since last years playoffs (which wasn’t impressive), but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a downgrade to both Brooks and Lowry.
I think you’re absolutely right in your concerns, but at the same time, lets ride these guys out and see how they shake out this season.
Who would have thought
That we would end up with two point guards who have defensive liabilities that make Alston look like a defending guru. The dynamic duo of Shane and Ron can’t seem to step in to cover the quick speedy PGs either, even though I’ve seen them handle star centers before. Watching Parker dump shot after shot on us in the Spurs game was torture.
Here’s the real problem:
Lowry has the brains and the (non)athletics to become a Battier type defender, a Battier mini if you will, but his limited scoring potential and lack of speed make him pale in comparison to the explosive Brooks. Lowry has very little chance of prying away the starting job, or even enough minutes, which would be necessary to turn him into a legitimate defender.
With Brooks you are looking at a Mario Chalmers type situation at best, let him loose on defense and he may learn to use that lickety speed and small frame to swipe away alot of steals, but more often he would probably botch the move and leave them open for a free shot, much like what Chalmers does in Miami. However the Rockets are too conservative and defensive minded to let Brooks off his leash (probably the right choice) which means that he is likely cursed to forever be overmatched on defense against bigger more aggresive guards. Hope for mediocrity.
Cassell is not an upgrade at all, I loved the alien and his time here in Houston but he has always been a diva and a show boater and he wouldn’t sit on a bench quietly and coach the new guys. If we signed him he would want minutes, and as Boston found out very quickly, he doesn’t deserve minutes anymore… he’s just too slow, his shot isn’t what it used to be, and experience can only compensate for so much.
Point guard will be the Rockets weakest position going into the playoffs, and whether they win or not may very well depend on if either
1) Brooks can outshoot his counterpart
2) The Rockets other positions can compensate for a continued disadvantage at this position
by last texans fan on Mar 15, 2009 4:15 PM CDT reply actions
wat
1) Even if the Rockets wanted to sign Cassell, the deadline for playoff eligibility was a long time ago. His “experience” wouldn’t matter in the playoffs.
2) The combination of Brooks and Lowry has been pretty effective thus far, and I have no idea what any of y’all are worried about. Seriously, both are better than Rafer on the offense, and Lowry is leaps and bounds better than either Alston or Brooks defensively. This bullshit about “experience” is exactly that. They’re good enough to win games in the regular season; they’re good enough to win games in the post.
Lowry has the brains and the (non)athletics to become a Battier type defender, a Battier mini if you will, but his limited scoring potential and lack of speed make him pale in comparison to the explosive Brooks. Lowry has very little chance of prying away the starting job, or even enough minutes, which would be necessary to turn him into a legitimate defender.
What the hell are you watching? Lowry’s “nonathletics?” “Lack of speed?” Are you even watching Rockets games? Lowry is pretty fucking fast and pretty fucking athletic. Aaron is faster, but not by too much. And he’s already a “legitimate defender.” That’s why the Rockets got him.
If you think Lowry is a finished product
You are nuts. Even on defense alone the Rockets bought into Lowry because of his basketball intelligence and his potential, right now he doesn’t even put up Alston quality numbers, even when he had the starting job for a short stint with Memphis.
Lowry is strong, has a quick first step, and a great jumping ability, basically giving him all the physical gifts desired in a small forward, but unfortunately he plays a position where these talents aren’t as valued. Compared to other NBA calibur points, especially for his age, he isn’t the speedy, lean, ball handling type. Watch him in games, durring offensive possesions he will always be more likely to try and power through the hole than outmanuever his man and hoist up an easy layup or jumper. If you want more specifics read up some of the scouting reports about him when he was coming out of Villanova, he has certain grown as a player since then but his physical package hasn’t changed.
On D that same build and mentality cause him to try and create positive circumstances for himself and make the “basketball play” by doing things like taking a charge or limiting an opposing player’s options rather than playing tight and mismatching against a more experienced or faster opponent. When Battier guards Kobe he doesn’t try to go toe to toe or outmuscle him, and you can expect the same kind of situation when Lowry defends CP3 or any other elite guard. However Battier has mastered his craft while Lowry is still growing. Sure Lowry is more of a Legitimate defender than Brooks, but he still lets talented guards like Parker blow him away.
And San Antonio isn’t the first team to take advantage of our new dynamic duo, even in games we are winning opposing PGs are often scoring well above their average against us. It will be exploited in the playoffs, you can take that to the bank. However the Rockets can’t exactly do anything to change that situation right now, nor should they necessairly in the offseason. Both Brooks and Lowry have potential, even if they never develop defensively. Hell, look at Iverson…he can’t play D and he’s been an allstar for years.
by last texans fan on Mar 15, 2009 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions
never said he's a finished product.
He’s 23 years old and has a lot of room to improve in regards to his shooting touch. But he’s already arguably a better passer than Alston is, and he’s certainly the better defender.
As for his defense, there are different defensive strategies for different players. Battier focuses on area denial. Lowry does many of the same things, but his body makes it possible for him to out-muscle some of his opponents – something Battier can’t do.
Sure Lowry is more of a Legitimate defender than Brooks, but he still lets talented guards like Parker blow him away.
Dude, Parker is one of the greatest scoring PG’s in the game. It looked like Lowry put up a decent defensive showing against him, from what I saw. I’ll count that as a win for Lowry.
Beyond that, you’re comparing Battier – who is possibly the best perimeter defender in the game – with Lowry. That’s like saying Von Wafer isn’t the offensive threat that Kobe is – big fucking deal, tell me something that I don’t know.
If you look at the numbers, it seems pretty obvious (to me, at least) that Lowry should be starting. He hasn’t gotten the job, probably because Adelman isn’t confident in his offensive game yet and feels he needs Brooks’ shooting touch. Despite your original supposition, it’s clear that Lowry is getting plenty of minutes and is probably threatening Brooks’ starting role.
And, in contrast to the OP, I think that the Lowry-Brooks combo is more than enough to lead the Rockets through to playoffs, and I will continue to believe so until I see evidence to the contrary. The way I see it, the two are better than Alston ever was, and I always thought that (while he’s not very good) Alston was good enough to lead the Rockets in the playoffs. Therefore, Lowry/Brooks should have no problem.
Ok
Yeah, forgot about the playoff eligibility deadline, my bad
by Carlos_HoustonSportsFanatic on Mar 15, 2009 5:31 PM CDT reply actions
Let it go
this year is done as far as championship hopes go. Why not see what Brooks and Lowry are made of in the playoffs? That was Morey’s goal in the Alston trade. We’re running an experiment at PG to see if Brooks is starting material. Playoffs is the main part of the experiment. If it fails (which I believe it will), we’ll get a PG like Bibby.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 16, 2009 12:51 PM CDT reply actions
Just being a realist
Do you really have championship hopes? We can’t even beat the top teams in the West at home. We can’t beat Utah, and we’ll probably lose to New Orleans today.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 16, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions
no, a realist would recognize that the team is #3 in the West for a reason.
Look, I’m not going to lie and say that my hopes for the season are as high as they were on opening night. They obviously lost a lot when McGrady was playing hurt and after he took himself out.
But this team is one of the deepest in the league. Yao, despite your bullshit to the contrary, is the best center in the conference. The team is not as offensively powerful as it was four months ago, but it’s even more defensively dominant. This team can beat anybody. They lost to the Lakers three times, but twice have been by five points. I’m not too worried.
The thing is...
This thread is about our PG. We can’t factor in the loss of McGrady into our playoff aspirations. His argument becomes indefensible when it actually stays on point because Brooks has a very close stat line to that of Alston (14/4/3 40FG vs 12/5/3 38FG). That’s not to say Brooks will ever develop the passing skills of Alston (which I highly doubt), but to say that 1 single assist makes or breaks the Rocket’s championship hopes is absurd.
Now you can bring in intangibles into the equation, but that’s all in the eye of the beholder. I.E., you may put emphasis on something Alston does well, while I on his knack for taking shots over Yao and co.
As for Bibby, it won’t happen. I’m a Kings fan first and the Bibby/Adelman relationship had ran its course. You wouldn’t want your starting PG to ignore your coach would you? Also, I dunno what future plans the Kings have for Artest but those two didn’t co-exist all too well either.
by SeeingStars on Mar 17, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
The thing is...
both Lowry and Alston are worth more point per possession than Alston is. They’re both upgrades over Alston, and I think we had decent chances even with Rafer chucking up shots in the playoffs. So I’m feeling pretty good about it. The PG position is no longer a real position of need for the Rockets.
Hilarious statistic, point per possession
not exactly the best case to make there.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 17, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
STFU
you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Offensive rating is a good stat. It’s a reasonably accurate estimation of offensive production. At least I’ve got reasons. As I recall, I showed you how Brooks is the better PG pretty convincingly not three weeks ago.
The only reasons you’ve ever given for your Rafer-loving bullshit is his status as a veteran.
and
for old times’ sake, here’s the link to the first beatdown. Just let the Brooks/Lowry vs. Rafer thing drop. Rafer sucks.
http://www.thedreamshake.com/2009/2/28/776032/a-new-play-coach#12693490
Too bad offense is only one part of the game
I loved Brooks’ 18 shots, 0 assists game earlier. Definitely PG material there LOL. And I’m sure your point per possession stat is flawless, clearly showing who’s the better player. All I remember was Parker and Duncan playing the 2 man game perfection with the backdoor passes. Neither Brooks nor Lowry could stop it, and it was because of their inexperience.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 17, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions
When you say Rafer sucks
you might as well just say “I don’t feel like arguing this. I think I’ll just say Rafer sucks a million times and hope everyone believes me”.
Magic are 10-3 since the trade to get him. Isn’t starting PG a critical position for a team? How are they 10-3 when their starting PG sucks so bad? Think about it.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 17, 2009 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions
FFS
Everyone on this site has argued with you about this. We’ve given you reason after fucking reason. All you’ve got are shitty arguments you keep repeating. So here comes the science, once again:
1) Lowry is the better defender between Rafer and him.
2) Brooks is comparable to Rafer in defense. As in virtually identical. They play on the same freaking team and the difference in D-Rating between the two is one point.
3) In virtually EVERY OTHER STATISTIC Brooks is better than Rafer.
4) In virtually EVERY STATISTIC Lowry is better than Rafer. He’s the better shooter. He’s the better defender. He’s the better passer. When you look at the numbers each put up with the Rockets, it’s clear who is better, and it ain’t Drinky McSuck.
4) The Rockets are 11-4 since Brooks took over. Record don’t mean shit.
LOL at Brooks being comparable to Rafer in defense
obviously showing how misleading the D-Rating is. Brooks isn’t even a PG. He’s a SG in a PG’s body. It was pretty obvious in the Spurs game. The difference between production in Rafer and Lowry/Brooks is pretty minimal, so to say one of the players sucks is pretty damn disingenuous.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 17, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions
LOL at begging the question
“Obviously, this stat must be bullshit, because it doesn’t justify my preconceived notions!”
Even the best NBA stat geeks
would tell you it’s pretty much impossible to quantify individual defense. Hollinger said that himself. You have to watch the games to tell who’s the better individual defender.
Good luck finding a single coach, scout, or GM that would tell you Brooks is on the same par as Rafer defensively.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 17, 2009 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
but if you’ve got two players who are playing amongst the same teammates, and they’re putting up about the same adjusted defensive numbers, then we can say they’re comparable.
Beyond that, your attacks on Brooks are always of the “Nash/Parker/Williams/Paul really scored well against him.” Well, guess what? THEY’RE SOME OF THE BEST FREAKING PLAYERS IN THE GAME!
Even if Brooks’ defense is significantly worse that Alston’s, Brooks’ offensive capabilities more than make up for it.
Moreover, the defense seems to have picked up since Rafer was ejected, so what does that mean?
Our defense is good because of our team
not one player, no matter how bad defensively, can’t affect the team defense that adversely. In fact I’m not even surprised the D-ratings between the 2 players are similar. D-rating is like a +/- in a way. If you’re a good defensive player on a horrible defensive team, your D-rating won’t look good, and vice-versa.
My main attack on Brooks is his game. He’s what some call a scoring PG. I just call him a SG, because that’s what he is if you ask me. When the team is healthy, I’d rather have a true PG like Lowry or Rafer starting. But with T-Mac out, we needed a boost in scoring, and thus the Alston trade. I don’t think there’s anyway the trade gets made if T-Mac was even semi-healthy this year.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 17, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions
My counterpoints
I agree with you on that point, but it’s contradictory when you attribute defense to team make-up and win % to one player as you did with Alston and Orlando.
You’re right Brooks is unconventional for a PG, but the difference you chose to ignore when comparing scoring PG and SG is size. That’s important. By virtue of his size, he can play (to some extent) vs. traditional PGs. Unless of course, you want to make the case for the Kobes/T-Macs/Roys of the world to start guarding Chris Paul.
I’m going to assume the rationale behind your Alston support is him being a true PG. I’m not diminishing that aspect at all and if you compare the two in a bubble, Alston can be the more valuable player. Now if you look at the game in a broader context, you have to realize that there’s four other players out there. In the case with Houston, Artest, more or less plays a serviceable Point-Forward. T-Mac, when healthy, is an amazing facilitator. If you’ve followed Adelman at all you can’t seriously make the claim that a passing PG is super critical because he loves the Princeton Offense. These all mask Brooks’s deficiencies and overlap with Alston’s strengths.
I am in no way claiming Brooks is way better on an aggregate scale than Alston. The question of whose better is completely irrelevant, rather it should be who’s better for this team? This IMO, is hands down Brooks.
by SeeingStars on Mar 18, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying Alston is a great PG or MVP
but the Magic’s record since the trade should at least show he’s valuable, and does not suck.
by goingforthecorner on Mar 18, 2009 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions
The problem is
You keep going back and forth. Either Alston is a great PG and losing him means losing any championship hopes (your words), or he’s a replaceable player on a Rockets team where he’d be a 4th or 5th option.
As far as the Magic’s record with Alston, they’re now at 11-4. That’s basically the same record they were pushing before so I don’t know how you can attribute it to Alston. Now before you counter argue that that means Rafer’s matching Jameer then, the Magic were 32-9 in the games Nelson played in (excluding the Dallas game) for a 78% winning rate.
it's the opposite
D-Rating tends to overrate decent/good defenders on bad teams and underrate those players on good defensive teams. In any case, my understanding on the way the statistic is derived is that it uses accumulated and adjusted +/- stats from the season. Things can be complicated because of the rotation a coach is using, but I would think that would work out in Rafer’s favor, since he typically played with Shane and Ron on the court, while Brooks typically came off the bench as the 8th man in the rotation.
He’s what some call a scoring PG. I just call him a SG, because that’s what he is if you ask me.
And yet Morey and Adelman are apparently quite satisfied with his distribution abilities.
But with T-Mac out, we needed a boost in scoring, and thus the Alston trade. I don’t think there’s anyway the trade gets made if T-Mac was even semi-healthy this year.
Wait. So which is it? Isn’t the team doomed to failure because Rafer isn’t here to chuck up shots lead the team to glory?
Earlier, you said the difference in production between Lowry/Brooks/Alston was “pretty damn minimal” (a laughable argument, given the difference in weighted shooting percentages). Now it’s that only Brooks can provide the offensive firepower to get it done.
Still, I think a good case can be made that Lowry should be starting. He’s better than either Brooks or Rafer. THAT’S why that trade was made – Lowry’s better than Rafer, but the Magic and Grizzlies don’t get it.
You really think there's a big difference in production?
Tell me, how many wins do you think we gained as a result of making that trade? Which games were a sure loss if Rafer was playing instead?
by goingforthecorner on Mar 18, 2009 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Impossible to know
That’s not the way games work.
But the difference, mathmatically, has been about half a game between Lowry and Rafer, if you replace Lowry’s minutes with Rafer’s. That’s a pretty stark difference for so few games, given that Rafer is typically worth about 4-5 wins a year.
Wouldnt be to upset
if it happened. Sam Cassell can still produce off the bench. He score a few buckets on the biggest stage last year, so theres no doubt in my mind that he can still play on a team in a benchwarming role. I would be willing to see how it goes.
On the real...
He’s still the one of the only PGs around with 3 championship rings
3!
How many rings does Bibby have? zero
The other guys with 3 rings→ Tony Parker and Derek Fisher
Sure he’s at the end of his career, but has not officially retired, meaning that if a team was interested he’d have the choice to play again
by Carlos_HoustonSportsFanatic on Mar 16, 2009 8:30 PM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
