I have to toot my own horn here. For the many I’ve gotten wrong (Artest in LA, Ariza in NOLA, Scola), it seems I’ve been dead on about Kyle Lowry since last year. Since the All-Star break, the beastly bulldog has averaged 19.9 points, 8.5a assists, and 5.5 boards per contest. Those are All-Star numbers, folks. It would seem that Aaron Brooks’ mere presence in the lineup, as the positional incumbent, was having a restrictive effect on Lowry’s production. Maybe he forced things thinking his job was not safe…? Maybe he still had not felt like the team’s leader…? Who knows, but Lowry has been at another level since the trade.
The good news is that on the basis of his advanced stats last season, the production seems sustainable. The bad news? There doesn’t seem to be any. The just-turned-25-year-old is locked in long-term at a shade under $6million/per, less than what his precedent would have likely commanded on the open market. Lowry is elite defensively, on the boards, as a distributor, and is a natural leader. He seems to also have turned around biggest weakness–shooting–into a strength. Does anyone out there still think the team made the wrong choice choosing Kyle over Brooks?
‘Huq’s Pen’ is a daily column of musings written by Red94 editor, Rahat Huq.