Brooks regressing to the mean

[Rerisen]

People talk a lot about Jimmy's slump, but not so much Brooks. Who now is down to .511 TS% in January.

Why is that the only stat I give? Because really its all Aaron Brooks does, is score for himself. He is terrible at defense and he doesn't set the team offense up in a way that gets us in a flow.

He is merely a new look Nate Robinson, and I've really soured on his overall game lately. The guy really isn't anything special to be needing to play 20 minutes a game. He shouldn't have to be. Certainly not on top of Kirk Hinrich playing 27 MPG. If we could combine these two guys talents into one backup guard, then you would have a nice consolidated talent backup.

Unfortunately, Hinrich's combo talents are needed to work overtime to ineffectually cover up the wing depth problem as well.

Anyhow, back to Brooks, If we look at his blistering offensive start, he was playing way over his head vs his career norms. He was at around 18 PER and .580 TS%, while for his career he is 13.8 PER and .531 TS%. Overall he's now sort of in the middle of those two sets at 15.4 PER and .562 TS% (sans tonight, will probably go down). Still good, but the new trend is not favorable.

Brooks is really only a plus if he IS putting up those pinball like super numbers on offense. If he isn't, and starts regressing to his averages, his poor defense and lack of team awareness quickly make him a very pedestrian, if not even negative player.

Considering Thibs has been using him as our 4th scoring option this year, this is very dangerous for the team at large as we would head toward the playoffs. If people have been reading my push for a trade this is a big part of the concern underlying the desire for someone more reliable. You really don't want a career average version of Aaron Brooks being your 4th best offensive player. Better pray Thibs can re-ignite the midget magic.

[nomorezorro]

really not a fan of this new "look at a guy's ts% in a small sample size" trend of alarmism

he was better in december than he was in november! he's played six games in january! he's undeniably been a very productive bench player irrespective of salary! aaron brooks-as-bench scorer is not a "weak link" on this team!

[Rerisen]

really not a fan of this new "look at a guy's ts% in a small sample size" trend of alarmism

For the record his assists are also at season lows this month. A couple weeks isn't that short of a sample, his PER has already come about 50% of the way back to his career average.

But what I would ask in response to this, that we took far too much for granted, is why should we just assume Aaron Brooks was going to do what he did in the first two months, the whole year? When he has never in his whole career had a season like that?

If anything, it was more likely he would not be able to keep it up.

Part of the reason this team is backslding, beyond the obvious topics like Rose, is a couple of guys who were playing WAY over their head, have suddenly started seeing regression. And there is absolutely no high guarantee they are going to return to doing that.

[TimRobbins]

I'm pretty sure you know that every team and every player will have ups and downs during an NBA season. Taking stats from the "down" period and assuming that they are the mean doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument. Brooks is shooting less efficiently in January. He was bound to have a streak of bad games. He'll be up again.

[Rerisen]

I'm pretty sure you know that every team and every player will have ups and downs during an NBA season. Taking stats from the "down" period and assuming that they are the mean doesn't strike me as a very compelling argument. Brooks is shooting less efficiently in January. He was bound to have a streak of bad games. He'll be up again.

The 'mean' to me is obviously his career.

I'll ask you the same question as Nom, why do you think its a given that Aaron Brooks is going to have the best season of his career by leaps and bounds just because he had 2 hot months?

I don't bet on this site, but if I did, I would feel extremely confident betting anyone that he's not getting back to 18 PER and .580 TS% this year. And that's a factor if it doesn't happen, because we have relied on this guy A LOT to bolster our offense. And he does that in a very team unfriendly way generally. So as these scoring numbers were to continue to slip down, his effectiveness and worthiness in running the team for stretches will rapidly deescalate.

I think everyone just kind of expected he would continue this way all year, I did, but now I see how premature that may have been.

If you want to say let's not worry till its 15 games or 20 games, ok sure, that is reasonable position, but I'm just giving a heads up, we have no good reason to think we saw the real Aaron Brooks to this point, at the level he started.

[TimRobbins]

The 'mean' to me is obviously his career.

I'll ask you the same question as Nom, why do you think its a given that Aaron Brooks is going to have the best season of his career by leaps and bounds just because he had 2 hot months?

Because every player we brought for his position had the best season of his career with the Bulls. Nate had his best season and Augustin had his best season. There's something about the system and this role which allows players to exceed their career means. I can't tell you exactly where his ts% will end up, but I'm willing to be it will be significantly higher than his career averages.

I don't bet on this site, but if I did, I would feel extremely confident betting anyone that he's not getting back to 18 PER and .580 TS% this year. And that's a factor if it doesn't happen, because we have relied on this guy A LOT to bolster our offense. And he does that in a very team unfriendly way generally. So as these scoring numbers were to continue to slip down, his effectiveness and worthiness in running the team for stretches will rapidly deescalate.

I'm willing to bet he will end the season with ts% significantly higher than he career averages, just like Nate and DJ did before him.

If you want to say let's not worry till its 15 games or 20 games, ok sure, but I'm just giving a heads up, we have no good reason to think we saw the real Aaron Brooks to this point, at the level he started.

Like I said, I can't tell exactly where the mean is, but it will probably be higher than the .511 he's been posting in January so far. Maybe .540, maybe .560. If your point was that we won't see .580 and 18 PER for 10 months, then I will probably agree, but if your point is that Brooks will become a .510 TS% from now until the end of the season, I'd say probably not.

[Rerisen]

I'm willing to bet he will end the season with ts% significantly higher than he career averages, just like Nate and DJ did before him.

That may be a reasonable bet to make. But just to note, what DJ and Nate did is still a lot less than how hot Brooks started.

Most people would not have wanted Nate playing 20 mpg once Rose was back. He was supposed to be an emergency stand in for Derrick while he was hurt, not a key cog of the offense.

[TimRobbins]

That may be a reasonable bet to make. But just to note, what DJ and Nate did is still a lot less than how hot Brooks started.

Most people would not have wanted Nate playing 20 mpg once Rose was back. He was supposed to be an emergency stand in for Derrick while he was hurt, not a key cog of the offense.

That's fine. I'm going to accept the point that he started hot. I'm not going to accept the point that he's going to revert back to his career averages since the two players we had before him played better than average in his role.

[Rerisen]

Some other numbers, to this point the offense is about 8 points better with Brooks on the floor. And the defense about 3 points worse. If his offensive effectiveness were to cut in half obviously he would fall closer to net neutral.

Just how far his TS% would have to fall for him to actually be cut in half in effectiveness remains a question, but probably rising rapidly as he were to approach league average efficiency (usually .535-540)

For reference, Nate Robinson finished the year at .540 TS% with us and was just about perfectly a net neutral impactor, on vs off. He made the offense about 3 points better, and the defense about 3 points worse.

[TimRobbins]

Neutral is pretty great production for a vet min bench player.

[Rerisen]

Neutral is pretty great production for a vet min bench player.

Definitely I agree, but it'd just be a loss vs what we had early. Lil dude was vastly outstripping his bad defense with his amazing offense.

If that stops, Thibs may not want to close with him as much, because he and Rose are a very shaky defensive backcourt.

[TimRobbins]

Yeah. I'm not too concerned with offense at all right now. Pow is playing great and we have a lot of scoring options. Our problems are on defense and it starts and ends with Noah's decline. The season does not hang on Aaron Brook's shoulders. It's on Noah coming back to be the mobile defensive big he was last season.

[Rerisen]

We need to improve on both ends. Team TS% is 17th, that's very weak for a serious contender.

Off rebounding pushes our overall rank to 11, but still means we have a ton of room to get better. Rose can hopefully make a up lot, but we'll need more contributions.

Noah has played half the season, probably about as long hoping him to get back to DPOY as in Brooks to get back to that 18 PER. We can't be a lopsided team anymore.

[kingkirk]

really not a fan of this new "look at a guy's ts% in a small sample size" trend of alarmism

he was better in december than he was in november! he's played six games in january! he's undeniably been a very productive bench player irrespective of salary! aaron brooks-as-bench scorer is not a "weak link" on this team!

I don't think it's alarmism, but merely a fact. He is struggling, like Butler, like the majority of the roster.

Brooks, at times, is our 3rd option, especially when Rose is really struggling and/or out. He is an important part of the team, and we need him to play well.

He is struggling big time, and that's all that is being suggested. Given he offers little outside of its scoring, the issue is magnified.

[ralphisBullsFan]

we got bigger problems

[League Circles]

Why would anyone have thought he'd keep up the super hot start?

And why would it matter? When we're healthy he's gonna play 10 mpg max.

[jacoby1us]

I'm willing to bet he will end the season with ts% significantly higher than he career averages, just like Nate and DJ did before him.

That may be a reasonable bet to make. But just to note, what DJ and Nate did is still a lot less than how hot Brooks started.

Most people would not have wanted Nate playing 20 mpg once Rose was back. He was supposed to be an emergency stand in for Derrick while he was hurt, not a key cog of the offense.

Rerisen great point!!!!! Aaron Brooks was brought here as another emergency PG in case of injuries. Why are we expecting more from a guy that has spent his entire career as a simple role player?

[Ice Man]

Neutral is pretty great production for a vet min bench player.

Yes fine, but championship teams generally aren't giving 20 minutes per game to neutral players. Well not many at least.

[dougthonus]

People talk a lot about Jimmy's slump, but not so much Brooks. Who now is down to .511 TS% in January.

I agree there is reason to be concerned with Brooks returning to closer to his norm. I think he can maintain the pace of a 15 PER player for Chicago though given the boost PGs tend to get in our offense.

As far as your greater point about him being the fourth scorer, I don't know about that really. He's sort of like a 4A-F option where the Bulls have a bunch of guys who can score on any given night.

Gibson, Brooks, Dunleavy, Mirotic, and even Kirk can all have big offensive nights. Brooks probably is the most consistent scorer in that group simply because he consistently takes the most shots and has the ball in his hands the most, but I don't think it's necessarily a problem.

Overall, if I had to rate my concerns on the team, Brooks is pretty low on the list. I agree with the concern you point out, but it's lower priority then:
1: Derrick Rose stinks.
2: Joakim Noah stinks
3: Our defense stinks.
4: Our rebounding stinks.
5: Jimmy Butler has come back down to Earth.
6: We could really use one more quality wing player.
7: We presently have no shooting [may go away when one of Dunleavy or McDermott come back, but who knows how either will be returning from injury].
8: Toss up between who annoys you more between Brooks and Hinrich depending on the last game

I think the topic is certainly thread worthy, but there's also little to be done about it. If a trade is made then it won't be to upgrade Aaron Brooks. It will be to upgrade the wing spot [as you noted]. There's certainly no one better available on waivers, and Brooks isn't playing extreme minutes for the team or anything.

It's a shame we aren't getting the big boost from Brooks we were earlier, but I don't think he's actively hurting the team on the floor given his relatively minimal role.

[dougthonus]

Neutral is pretty great production for a vet min bench player.

Yes fine, but championship teams generally aren't giving 20 minutes per game to neutral players. Well not many at least.

2014: The Spurs had three players
2013: The Heat had three players
2012: The Heat had four players
2011: The Mavs had two players

2015: The Bulls have four: Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, Kirk Hinrich, and Mike Dunleavy

Brooks is actually above the line right now [15.4 vs 15].

If we want to look at the larger problems on our team they would start with the first two guys on that Bulls list. Dunleavy is a typical championship sub 15 PER guy, low volume player with a skillset that helps the team but doesn't translate to PER, Hinrich could probably be argued similarly [though I think that's a bit more debatable].

Brooks is probably right about where he should be, and with a fully healthy team, Brooks is probably down to 10-15 mpg anyway.

Granted, I'm not saying Brooks' struggles aren't thread worthy, it's worth tracking and discussing. However, I wouldn't want to start down the "championship teams don't" line of thought with anything related to Brooks. The Bulls aren't winning or losing a title based on whether Aaron Brooks has a PER of 15 or 17 [both of which are fine for his salary, role, and minutes played].