quote:

---

If you let Tony Parker be the main guy on a crappy team, I could see him putting up 30 and 7 or something like that.

---

I'm reminded again why I stopped reading the Basketball - Spurs/Other board.

^Co-sign. Talk about delusions.

How is that delusional? Maybe you idiot Mav fans forgot what he did against you last year in the playoffs without Manu and with a hobbled Duncan.

Are you referring to when he lost in the first round? Yeah, he really showed us.

By the way, what made you mention Mavs fans specifically?

Spurs cronies once again showing us "idiot Mavs fans" who the class of this board is.

Russell Westbrook is better than all of them.

Judge is right, Still it is really difficult to head up compare Brooks and Parker. Different style players, different teams, different systems.

A point that needs to be made is that Brooks played every game this year and never missed a minute due to injury. This was his first year as the main guy. He had no real post option.

But the deal is that there is not a soul in the league that can stay in front of the guy and when his shot is on, he can just take over a game and has quite a few times. The Rockets lose a more games without him. It needs to be remembered that when the Rockets played teams Aaron Brooks was the center of defensive preparations. With no true post threat teams double him all the time and don't even worry about it. Chuck Hayes isn't going to hurt you much when you double off him.

Parker rarely has faced that. When you have Duncan and Ginobli in the mix it opens things up and takes a lot of pressure off you. Parker just doesn't face the defensive pressure that Brooks faces game in and game out. Oh Brook's defense is getting better, he still has upside overall.

Furthermore Brooks assist numbers would go up immensely if he had a Tim Duncan type to feed!

The thing is Brooks is not a shot hog in fact Aldelman had to encourage him to step up his offense on many occasions.

Here is the question, would I trade today's Aaron Brooks for today's Tony Parker?
I would have to think about that a good bit. I probably wouldn't though, not for the Rockets.

There are three guards that I would trade Brooks for today without hesitation. Paul, D Williams and Rose.

The guy is a gym rat, he has great character and is not a diva!

quote:

---

Judge
posted 9:59a, 05/05/10



Are you referring to when he lost in the first round? Yeah, he really showed us.

---

quote:

---

Judge
posted 10:05a, 05/05/10



By the way, what made you mention Mavs fans specifically?

Spurs cronies once again showing us "idiot Mavs fans" who the class of this board is.

---

Actually, I brought it up, because this was said...

quote:

---

Gramercy Riffs
posted 9:07a, 05/05/10




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you let Tony Parker be the main guy on a crappy team, I could see him putting up 30 and 7 or something like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm reminded again why I stopped reading the Basketball - Spurs/Other board.

---

Parker averaged 28.6 in the 2009 series against the Mavs. I was providing an example for the Mav trolls claiming "delusion." I can bump all of the "I want the Spurs in round 1" posts from all of the Mav fans on this board if you really want to see delusion. Why are you guys still around anyways?

[This message has been edited by David_Puddy (edited 5/5/2010 10:31a).]

OPAG was able to much more eloquently verbalize what I meant by having different players around them.

quote:

---

I can bump all of the "I want the Spurs in round 1" posts from all of the Mav fans on this board if you really want to see delusion. Why are you guys still around anyways?

---

What's delusional about that? Even now I still think the Spurs were the best realistic matchup for us. Bump those old threads, even the Spurs fans agreed.

This thread had nothing to do with Mavs/Spurs until you tried to turn it into a city pissing match, for reasons unknown.

quote:

---

Are you referring to when he lost in the first round? Yeah, he really showed us.

---

Actually, I consider that an excellent argument in my favor. Parker was carrying a crappy team (with Manu out and Duncan playing hurt, that was a crappy team), and because of that he averaged 28.6 and 6.8 (on 54.6% shooting). Dead on in the range my adjusted statistics predict. That's in the playoffs, with a quality opponent knowing exactly what Parker was going to do, no one else to worry about, 5 consecutive games to adjust, and still helpless to stop it.

You can like it or not but Parker has for years been one of the very best players at getting to the rim and finishing no matter what the defense does. It's not an accident that he shoots 50% + from the field and is usually among the league leaders in points in the paint.

A hurt Duncan is still ten times more of an interior threat then anyone Brooks had on his team the Whole year this year.

You know you can nut up and raise your level of play for a short period of time, but to have to do it all year is another thing.

Plus Brooks was the main guy that took the Lakers to seven games in last years playoffs after Yao went down.

What he did there is easily comparable to what Parker did against the Mavs in round one last year. In fact it may have been more impressive being that it was the World Champs that they went the distance with.

so averaging 28.6pts for 5 games is the same as averaging that over a season?

yea..spurs fans arent homers at all.

chris paul
tony parker
brooks
westbrook
free roddy b

The real test for Brooks will be this coming year.

quote:

---

He had no real post option.

---

Scola averaged 16/9.
Landry averaged 16/6 for the 50 games he was with the Rockets. (and 18/7 with Suckramento)
Both are top 10 at their position in scoring.

quote:

---

But the deal is that there is not a soul in the league that can stay in front of the guy and when his shot is on, he can just take over a game and has quite a few time

---

That statement can apply to either Parker or Brooks.

quote:

---

Parker rarely has faced that.

---

Simply not true. Parker was the go to player for the 08/09 regular season. He has led the Spurs in scoring twice - last year and the year Duncan had plantar fascitis. Teams definitely centered their defenses around the player who scored the most and created the most points on the Spurs.

quote:

---

Furthermore Brooks assist numbers would go up immensely if he had a Tim Duncan type to feed!

---

Duncan doesn't create a lot of assists. He generally gets the ball, uses a few dribbles and creates his own shot - which is one of the reasons Parker doesn't get a ton of assists.

quote:

---

Parker just doesn't face the defensive pressure that Brooks faces game in and game out.

---

Parker wasn't the player this year that he was previously mainly due to injury, but Parker definitely saw more pressure than Brooks in previous years. And has seen the pressure throughout the playoffs, and he has been immensely successful despite it.

What you also ignore is that Brooks is still a questionable decision maker. He will still come down the court and fire up threes with plenty of time on the clock and no real attempt at starting an offense. You say he is getting better at D, but he is still very bad. He is just small and weak - he is never going to be a great defender. Other teams will always post him up. Now it certainly helps him that two of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA play with him. He doesn't have to guard the other team's best player.

No way to tell anything for sure unless the switch places or at least play on the same team, but so far I haven't seen anything to dispute what I've said other than trying to laugh it off.

Which one do you think plays more if they are on the same team? Who has the better numbers?

quote:

---

Actually, I consider that an excellent argument in my favor. Parker was carrying a crappy team (with Manu out and Duncan playing hurt, that was a crappy team), and because of that he averaged 28.6 and 6.8 (on 54.6% shooting). Dead on in the range my adjusted statistics predict. That's in the playoffs, with a quality opponent knowing exactly what Parker was going to do, no one else to worry about, 5 consecutive games to adjust, and still helpless to stop it.

---

As another poster mentioned, 5 games all against the same team is meaningless in the context of an entire season. Especially since nuetralizing everyone except Parker in that series lead to a 4-1 victory.

quote:

---

No way to tell anything for sure unless the switch places or at least play on the same team, but so far I haven't seen anything to dispute what I've said other than trying to laugh it off.

---

You mean except the facts right? Even a fellow Spurs fan invalidates your entire argument:

quote:

---

Simply not true. Parker was the go to player for the 08/09 regular season. He has led the Spurs in scoring twice - last year and the year Duncan had plantar fascitis. Teams definitely centered their defenses around the player who scored the most and created the most points on the Spurs.

---

In the year where he was the go to player, did he put up anything near your inflated, projected statistics? No, he didn't.

Manu played in over half the regular season, Duncan deteriorated over the course of the season, and some of the role players vanished in the playoffs.

Not a perfect comparison (as I keep saying), but Parker is still without question out of Brooks' league.

You can keep speculating or keep adjusting statistics to support your unsubstantiated claim, but persistence won't change the facts.

And the facts clearly show that you're wrong.

The facts show that a Finals MVP, 3-time allstar, and one of the top 5 PGs in the league over the last 5 years are better than some guy who put up 19 ppg one year on a non-playoff team.

Actually the "facts" don't prove either side right or wrong, I think that is the point. There is a valid argument based on brief performances that Parker could average 30 and 7 but there is no way to know because he has never been the go to guy on a bad team for an entire season.

I think it is folly to say Brooks is better than Parker if for no other reason than overall performance. Parker is certainly comparable if not better in terms of raw stats than Brooks but the efficiency and the leadership/titles are the real separator. Lots of guys can put up stats. Not many guys have made game winning shots consistently in playoff games that had Title implications. Very few guys have won Finals MVP's as a PG. I would give a player like Chauncey Billups the same deference, though he is considerably older now. The value of having a strong leader who understands how to make decisions and has no fear of taking "the shot" in big games is huge.

FWIW, the Spurs haven't had anyone on their team lead the league in a significant category in the Pop era to my knowledge. Duncan made a couple of runs at leading the league in rebounds but I don't know that the Spurs have had anyone in the Top 5 in scoring or assists in quite some time. That isn't because they don't have good players, it's because they have a style that limits strong individual statistics outside of maybe 3 point shooting.

Brooks is a nice player and he may well be as good or better than Parker. That said, he has a long mountain to climb. Parker still has a decent shot at making the Hall if he can have his next 5 seasons mirror his last 5.

quote:

---

The facts show that a Finals MVP, 3-time allstar, and one of the top 5 PGs in the league over the last 5 years are better than some guy who put up 19 ppg one year on a non-playoff team.

---

Better, but not astronomically better. Overall they're pretty close right now. Past accolades don't apply to right now.

quote:

---

There is a valid argument based on brief performances that Parker could average 30 and 7 but there is no way to know because he has never been the go to guy on a bad team for an entire season.

---

I am on board with most of your post, except this. How is it valid to take a 5 game sample, all played against the same team, and extrapolate that to 82 games against diversifying opposition? Why would you take limited statistics and make assumptions based on them when you have more verifiable statistics to work with? By a Spurs fan's own account Parker was the go to scorer a couple of years and never sniffed those numbers.

quote:

---

FWIW, the Spurs haven't had anyone on their team lead the league in a significant category in the Pop era to my knowledge. Duncan made a couple of runs at leading the league in rebounds but I don't know that the Spurs have had anyone in the Top 5 in scoring or assists in quite some time. That isn't because they don't have good players, it's because they have a style that limits strong individual statistics outside of maybe 3 point shooting.

---

Duncan led the league in total rebounds and defensive rebounds in 02, but lost the RPG title from Ben Wallace by .3 rebounds. Duncan finished top 5 in RPG 10 times. He finished top-10 in BPG 10 times. He finished top-10 in PPG 5 times.

Steve Smith led the league in 3FG% in 02.
Bruce Bowen led the league in 3FG% in 03.

That's pretty much it.

Again it's hard to compare, but it wasn't me who brought up Parker's series against the Mavs.

I say that Brook's performance against the Lakers matches it if not exceeds it,

Scola and Landry are both solid post guys like them both but neither would be listed as top ten interior presence. They are solid role guys that score as much from 18 to 15 feet as they do in the paint. Plus Duncan's interior defense is much better then both and that is now.

The point is with Duncan slowed by injury and Ginobli out the Parker led Spurs are bounced by the Mavs in 5 games.

Consequently the Brooks led Rockets after losing Yao pushes the Lakers to 7th game. And that is after coming in as a starter in second half of the year.

Brooks defense would improve dramatically with an interior defender. He struggles with the pick and role, his one on one defense is fine. I watched about every Rocket game this year and I constantly say guards trying to post him up and to most part not too succesfully.

Considering that the guy is the main offensive fire plug his defense is actually quite good. Again I don't think I would trade him for Parker straight up at this point of time.

The Mavs strategy against Parker in '09 was to let him wear himself out scoring while denying passing lanes and open 3s, which worked. He only averaged 27 PPG in a 5 game beatdown, and was worn out and useless in crunch time. In 2010 round 1 he was reduced to 6th man/3rd scoring option.

Better PG right now and for the future:
Parker > Brooks > Kidd

Better PG in 2010 Regular Season:
Kidd > Brooks > Parker (check the PER)

Better PG in 2010 Playoffs:
Parker > Brooks on his couch > Kidd

[This message has been edited by InternetFan02 (edited 5/5/2010 1:48p).]

quote:

---

I say that Brook's performance against the Lakers matches it if not exceeds it,

---

Brooks averaged 18 points/2.6 assists/3.1 turnovers and completely didn't show up in 4 games (all losses.)

That was better than Parker's 29/7 on 55% shooting how?

quote:

---

Brooks defense would improve dramatically with an interior defender. He struggles with the pick and role, his one on one defense is fine. I watched about every Rocket game this year and I constantly say guards trying to post him up and to most part not too succesfully.

---

You and I watched different games. I was on the court for a large number of games, and saw slower guys dribble right around Brooks all the time. He is not a good on-ball defender.

[This message has been edited by Guitarsoup (edited 5/5/2010 1:54p).]

quote:

---

What's delusional about that? Even now I still think the Spurs were the best realistic matchup for us. Bump those old threads, even the Spurs fans agreed.

This thread had nothing to do with Mavs/Spurs until you tried to turn it into a city pissing match, for reasons unknown.

---

Then you're still crazy if you'd still want to play the Spurs over Phoenix, Denver, or Portland. I doubt many Spurs fans agreed that they were the best matchup for the Mavs. What it was is dopes like Ribby saying that the Mavs have "owned" the Spurs all because of a win in 2006 and beating the Spurs last year with 1/2 of the big 3.

The city pissing match started when Mav fans said that Spurs fans were delusional to think that Parker could average high 20s in ppg.

I'm not crazy. The Mavericks that showed up this postseason would have lost to any of those teams, except maybe Portland, who still played with more heart and tenacity.

So you and I both agree that the Mavs suck and fold like a cheap tent in the playoffs. Good to know.

This year.

And in 07.

quote:

---

So you and I both agree that the Mavs suck and fold like a cheap tent in the playoffs. Good to know.

---

The Mavs have lost 5 of their last 6 playoff series.
The Clippers franchise has won 2 of their last 7 playoff series.
The Hawks have won 3 of their last 6 playoff series.
The Warriors have won 2 of their last 6 playoff series.

Loaded statistics are fun!!!

It is not a loaded stat that the Mavs have lost 5 of their last 6 playoff series, and the single series they won in that span was against a team missing one of their star players.

All of those stats are across different time periods. I mean how far did you go back for the Clips? The wording is different. And you started the Mavs run with the NBA Finals. I could say the Mavs have won 4 out of the last 9 playoff series without changing the time period AT ALL.

Don't be such a clueless homer.

DC showing once again why he's the Spurs Simplebay equivalent. Go back and read the game threads if you care to ever be right about anything. I'm guessing you won't.