If you take Dwight Howard off the magic they're awful, but is that more of a testament to their style of play than anything?
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1j2rntO2EVU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> All i gotta say is, that doesn't look very cheap to me...
I am getting sick and tired of this debate. It seems like it comes up at least once per year. And it seems like it is the same idiots who are bringing it up. You idiots clearly did not watch basketball during those years. Or you do not know the meaning of "valuable." Maybe you don't understand that it is a regular season award. I still can't figure out which. Here is what happened: In 2003-2004, the Phoenix Suns were 29-53. They were the 6th worst team in the NBA. That offseason, they only made one major move. The addition of Nash. In 2004-2005, they were 62-20. The BEST record in the NBA. That is Most Valuable in action for you. Before Nash- 29 wins, after Nash- 62 wins. From 6th worst in the league to best in the league after one offseason. MORE THAN DOUBLING THEIR WINS. But there were many idiots who felt that Nash was not worthy of the MVP award. And they started spewing bs. Their biggest argument was something along the lines of, "the only reason as to why Phoenix improved was the emergence of Amare." Well Amare suffered a major injury and missed the entire 2005-2006 season. By the logic of the idiots, the Phoenix Suns without Amare would be a lottery team or a mediocre team which barely makes the playoffs. Nash proved the idiots wrong again. The Phoenix Suns (starting an unknown SF at C) won 54 games for fourth best record in the league. So clearly the whole "Amare was the MVP of the Suns" argument was thrown out the window. It was quite obvious that Nash was the most valuable player in the league and he won the award again. The idiots did not shut up. They have NO argument yet they continue to argue. I DON'T GET IT. I JUST DON'T GET IT! smh.
Stats, stats and stats again. Tom Thibodeau himself stated Derrick Rose made HUGE defensive strides compared to his offensive game. And I hope you weren't using Hollinger's stats. Hollinger compares bench defense to starter defense. In other words, starter guards starters, whiles bench guards the bench. Who's defense do you think looks better? Stats are only one way to look at defense. Not THE way to look at defense.
Ok, let's throw out the stats and use purely qualitative judgments. Rose isn't as good defensively as Noah, Bogans, Brewer, Deng, or Kurt Thomas. Those are all rotation players for the Bulls. So best case, he's the sixth best defensive player on the team. I said 10th using the stats, so it's not like I'm that far off.
I did read an interesting article on bleacherreport concerning Rose's defense which puts it at a very different perspective. Granted, it is bleacherreport and their credibility is questionable, but they did measure Rose's defense in terms of the percentage of players that score on him. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...u-who-is-responsible-for-the-teams-turnaround I do not know how viable these stats are, stat masters like durvasa could probably determine how useful this stat is. That being said, I don't think Rose's defense is as bad as you make it out to be.
It is weird. Did some digging into 82games and by the stats, Rose's individual defense is actually really good while the team defense is not (and Chicago is the best defensive team in the league I think). Picked 3 players whom we are all familiar with for comparison purposes: Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production (when playing PG) Rondo: PER: 12.6, eFG: 0.435, TO: 4.5 Rose: PER: 13.5, eFG: 0.460, TO: 3.4 Lowry: PER: 16.8, eFG: 0.482, TO: 3.4 Westbrook: PER: 17.4, eFG: 0.499, TO: 3.4 Defensive +/- per 100 possessions Lowry: -6.1 Rondo: +1.2 Westbrook: +7.7 Rose: +10.4 Can't explain it but Rose's man defense seems (based on stats which is hard to judge for defense), elite (slightly better than that of Lowry and all of us know how tough Lowry is on D). But team defense, seems to be the worst of the four.
I don't think Rose's defense is bad. I think he is an average defender on a great defensive team. As a result, he is one of the worst defensive players on his own team.
I don't think you can judge Rose's man-to-man defense by the numbers his opponent puts up without taking into account how the Bulls are defending the guy. Are they double teaming frequently? Are they using Noah to trap on pick-and-rolls? Are they leaving him wide open and daring him to shoot (I'm looking at Rondo here)?
