Would you trade George Hill for Aaron Brooks?

[Tmac&Luther]

Rubbish ... the poll just shows that Spurs fans prefer not trading Hill over Brooks and does not define anything else. Anything else (e.g overating Hill) is just inferrence.

We need Hill for the all-round game more than scoring. Rockets has its own defensive stopper in Battier and needs Brooks to score and as such, Brooks is a better fit in Houston.

By saying we do not want to trade Hill over Brooks says nothing abt which player is better, just that both fits better with the respective teams

read above

LOL, Hill is NOT a "defensive stopper". He's just better than Brooks (and alot of that has to do with the big man that plays behind him...the guy isn't Gary Payton here folks), he's not even considered a "defensive stopper". LOL at the comparison to Battier.

[Tmac&Luther]

You are overstating Brooks play making. He is better than Hill, but not all that great in that regard.

Really...

Over the last month he's making great passes, hitting game winning shots/clutch shots, and showing the ability to hit crazy shots at will.....thats called "PLAYMAKING"

Playmaking isn't just about assists here, Brooks is a playmaking, his only problem is consistency which is where he's getting better.

[DPG21920]

Really...

Over the last month he's making great passes, hitting game winning shots/clutch shots, and showing the ability to hit crazy shots at will.....thats called "PLAYMAKING"

Playmaking isn't just about assists here, Brooks is a playmaking, his only problem is consistency which is where he's getting better.

Really. You are making it seem like Brooks play making is all world. Brooks play making consists mostly of getting his own shot.

[Tmac&Luther]

Just as a basis for comparison:

Brooks per 36 minute numbers:

19.7 PTS, 43% FG, 39% 3PT, 82% FT, 2.7 REB, 5.4 AST, .9 STL, .2 BLK, 2.9 TO

Hill per 36 minute numbers:

15.2 PTS, 47% FG, 39% 3PT, 77% FT, 3.3 REB, 3.6 AST, 1.1 STL, .4 BLK, 1.6 TO

So Hill seems to be the more efficient player, better rebounder, certainly a better defender and takes care of the ball. He is not a great play maker, but decent. Brooks seems to be a more proficient scorer, but not more efficient.

Umm, you left out the fact that Brooks has proven he can do that all season as a starter. Trever Ariza effect here pal. Until Hill puts up those #s as a game in and game out starter (and against teams that gameplan against him as a starter) everything is speculation.

Carl Landry as a part time player a year or so ago had a per the = LeBron James, so what are you really trying to say?

[Tmac&Luther]

Really. You are making it seem like Brooks play making is all world. Brooks play making consists mostly of getting his own shot.

NOT THE LAST MONTH. Stop listening to "Butt Cake" and wake up. Even you can't deny some of the passes he made tonight....which is the passes he's been making recently. The switch is starting to flip in that aspect of his game, which is why I laughed when people said he's already maxed out his total potential.

[DPG21920]

Umm, you left out the fact that Brooks has proven he can do that all season as a starter. Trever Ariza effect here pal. Until Hill puts up those #s as a game in and game out starter (and against teams that gameplan against him as a starter) everything is speculation.

Carl Landry as a part time player a year of so agoe had a per the = LeBron James, so what are you really trying to say?

How come you can quote Brook's play making over the past month, but Hill's job as a starter against the elite over the past 16 games is not sufficient?

Those per 36 minute numbers are pretty accurate and that does not change his shooting % and turnover rate. Nor his defense. We can only go by what we have seen and in Hill's minutes as a starter last year and this year, he has performed well.

Point is, you have not seen enough to say Brooks will be better when the metrics don't agree with you.

It's easy to pull the homer card and say abstract things like "he will be better", it is a lot harder to back those things up.

[Tmac&Luther]

How come you can quote Brook's play making over the past month, but Hill's job as a starter against the elite over the past 16 games is not sufficient?

Those per 36 minute numbers are pretty accurate and that does not change his shooting % and turnover rate. Nor his defense. We can only go by what we have seen and in Hill's minutes as a starter last year and this year, he has performed well.

Point is, you have not seen enough to say Brooks will be better when the metrics don't agree with you.

It's easy to pull the homer card and say abstract things like "he will be better", it is a lot harder to back those things up.

LOL, who are you now.....Hollinger

Dude, the per doesn't work, because Hill racks up those numbers in a limited role....much like Ariza did. And I CAN pull up Brooks' play over the last month, because you dogged his PG skills which has take a noticeable up swing. He's learning the PG position....on the job training, but the guy is learning and starting to perform really well at it (remember you're the one who knocked him there.)

Also, it's not crazy to say Brooks will be the better player.....he's more athletic and the better scorer and Hill has absolutely no real advance in the passing game now. Also, please stop pimping defensive stats when Brooks had no big man backing him up.

It basically boils down to this. Do you actually think the Houston Rockets would be anywhere close to their current record with Hill as the starting PG for them. NO, Hill wouldn't be able to carry the load that Brooks has been able to......the Spurs would be a BETTER team with Brooks and minus Hill, the guy would give them another go to guy and explosive playmaker.