I don't think Brooks was concerning with TOs. He was a true FR C. It'd be weird if he wasn't among the worst rates.
Washington just isn't a good passer. I'd like to see him closer to 20-23 minutes per game this year. He could still get his shots up.
If we can get enough production in his absence I would not be opposed to it. Obviously we have other scorers so we may not need him as much. However, he was our highest point per minute guy and he's a decent rebounder when he focuses on it. He can make a 3 when open and he demands attention from opposing D's.
Obviously he has some issues on defense which can be improved upon by putting someone else in but not sure it offsets the point production. We have some depth this year so there will be options to throw out there to see who can get the job done. He does get into foul trouble so there will likely be plenty of opportunity.
I still feel like he will end up getting pretty big minutes in the close games (when not in foul trouble) and Cronin will probably continue to insert him on offense and take him out on D during the final minutes of close games. I still wouldn't mind seeing him in the 28 mpg range...but that is just my preference now without seeing some of the new guys play. Brooks was solid but I'm not sure he is ready for a huge role. I could see him at a Deberry type level giving us 15 mpg though....that would be a significant role.
Sure I’m not concerned with his numbers. Just pointing out those who had issues with it.
Mostly just defending Kyle a little bit as while his minutes per TO maybe high, his usage rate was also really high. So it’s a bit misleading
Kyle has improved his TO rate, and assist rate every year while also improving his efficiency. I see no reason why he couldn’t do the same again this year.
I want Kyle on the floor as much as possible except when we need defensive stops. I just want consistency from him.
With Kyle and Gary both on the floor we will be one of the hardest teams in the country to guard. We can bring both bigs out to the perimeter which opens the lanes for very willing drivers cane and jarron.
I love brooks defense but let’s be real here; he is not even close to being the offensive threat Kyle is. And he is a lane clogger. He is, at least now, octavious ellis. We can’t want to play fast and with good movement and also want to play a defensive back to the basket big for 20 minutes.
If Kyle learns to defend a little better this year, then play him
And Gary 28 minutes a game.
I think Washington being a high point per minute guy supports my case.
How so? We would need someone who is just as good or better in the plus/minus category to fill his minutes...and if we had that we wouldn't really need him to play 20 mpg. He would just become the back up to the superior player. I am not sure Brooks is superior from a plus/minus perspective...in fact I would doubt it. But I certainly hope I am wrong here because that would mean very good things for us.
It's all about plus/minus to me. Does the team score more than they give up when player A or B is in the game? You put that player (best in plus/minus) in the game.
Perhaps we can make a case where player A or B gets too tired and there is a point of diminishing returns but there would have to be evidence that this is happening.
I like the plus/minus with one caveat; match-ups..there are some where one player will excel over another but with a different match-up, the opposite could be true. Some guys don't do well against really physical players, or quicker guys who can hit threes etc. I think Kyle is overall on the plus side, but could improve as could they all.How so? We would need someone who is just as good or better in the plus/minus category to fill his minutes...and if we had that we wouldn't really need him to play 20 mpg. He would just become the back up to the superior player. I am not sure Brooks is superior from a plus/minus perspective...in fact I would doubt it. But I certainly hope I am wrong here because that would mean very good things for us.
It's all about plus/minus to me. Does the team score more than they give up when player A or B is in the game? You put that player (best in plus/minus) in the game.
Perhaps we can make a case where player A or B gets too tired and there is a point of diminishing returns but there would have to be evidence that this is happening.
I don't see Brooks as a lane clogger at all. He moves very well and could be a huge asset in a screen and roll game with Broome.
The more Brooks plays, the faster we can play. Bc he and Washington could theoretically sub in and out every few minutes. Many times last year Washington had to power walk up the floor bc he was so gassed.
That's what I'm getting at. Based on how tired he got in faster games or in more minutes, I'm thinking that efficiency would drop the more he plays. Brooks himself might not benefit PER-wise, but our overall defensive numbers will certainly improve with him in. We'll see how it goes bc you're right, the +/- ultimately matters. But I don't think Brooks has to score a ton for our team to remain efficient offensively. We're lucky enough to have a ton of options.
I like the plus/minus with one caveat; match-ups..there are some where one player will excel over another but with a different match-up, the opposite could be true. Some guys don't do well against really physical players, or quicker guys who can hit threes etc. I think Kyle is overall on the plus side, but could improve as could they all.
I’m speaking of spacing and respecting his jump shot. If brooks goes to the perimeter to set a screen or play out that far, if I’m his defender I’m giving him that shot until he shows he can make it and just staying in the lane. That’s what I mean by lane clogger. His man can play 1 man zone in the paint because we haven’t seen a jump shot from him, you absolutely cannot do that against Kyle, he hit 35% of his 3’s
Rothstein ranks UC #9 going into the season.
https://www.fanragsports.com/rothstein-fanrag-sports-cbb-preseason-top-25-for-2017-18-season/
Brooks isn't shooting jumpshots. He's not going to get the ball out there at all. You don't have to be a pick and pop big to set screens. If Brooks goes to to 22-25 feet to set a screen on Broome's man, Broome will have tons of room to use his quickness to get into the lane if Brook's man is sagging back. And if Broome goes on the attack and Brooks crashes hard, there's not anyone but Broome's man left following Brooks. It doesn't have to do with jumpshots, but the ability for the big man to cover a lot of ground. Broome will have to be a respectable enough shooter that teams don't just go under screens all day on him. But Brooks can be very useful in an offense with dribble drivers. He will just have to embrace the role of a true 5 and realize this isn't a year where he'll be featured in the offense. He can still get 6-8 points though by cleaning up around the rim and crashing hard in a 2 man game. I have no doubts that Brooks will bust his a$$ to be in the right spot. And that spot with the ball should never have to be more than 15 feet away where he needs to make passing/shooting decisions.
I mean think about it, if a big man wants to say back and protect the rim, Broome will eat them alive with 12-16 foot shots. If the big guy comes out to him on a drive and tries to get in a stance, Broome will put them on ice skates.
I mean think about it, if a big man wants to say back and protect the rim, Broome will eat them alive with 12-16 foot shots. If the big guy comes out to him on a drive and tries to get in a stance, Broome will put them on ice skates.
I'm not sure I see the offensive advantage here with Brooks. Washington can score inside and out. Brooks cannot score outside (or is very limited) and is also limited (compared to Washington) on the inside from what we have seen so far. Broome has far more options with a guy like Washington in the game IMO. I'm not sure it's even close right now. I hope the news about Brooks being MIP is legit. If it is...we have a VERY good situation right now.