from hollinger in regards to rose's play since the break: I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always done an MVP column at this time of year. But as far as Rose just getting better ... no. Actually, his stats since the All-Star break are Baron-esque, but the Bulls have been winning anyway. baron davis can be used as a standard of inefficient basketball. more... Jeff (Chicago) Baron-esque? How can you justify that, when Rose literally scrapped together a win where dropped a 32-17 line, and when he assisted 17 of the team's 24 shots that were NOT made by him!? John Hollinger (2:32 PM) Because there were 19 other games since the break, and he shot bricks in most of them, except for the one where he had ten turnovers. Look, if Rose averaged 30 and 17 then he'd obviously be the MVP, but you can cherry pick the best games from lots of players and make them look like an MVP. But he's at 40.8% since the break and 28.9% on 3s.
Hollinger never said that Rose is an inefficient player for the season, to my knowledge. And he is conflating Rose's poor stats immediately after the all-star break with what he did in the subsequent 2-3 weeks when he was actually quite efficient. Claiming that Rose's stats are trending downward simply based on post all-star break averages is misleading.
i never said rose was inefficient BEFORE the all-star break. if rose plays at the same level before the all-star break, i wouldn't harp so much. yes, rose has been playing better in the past week or 2, picking up his fg%. but his MVP counterparts have been playing WAY better than he has. the point is MVP candidates are supposed to ELEVATE their play after to the all-star break, not regress. derrick rose has not played as well since the all-star break if you compare to what he did before the all-star break. we're talking about consistency here, not 1-2 weeks of great play, and 1-2 weeks of mediocre play. anyways, i think hollinger sums up what i have been saying for the past few weeks very well. if you seriously watch bulls games, you cannot seriously say with a straight face that the bulls are entirely dependent on derrick rose; it's not even close.
You keep circling back to the same thing. I don't care what Rose is averaging since the all-star break. If you discard the first 5 games coming out of the break, Rose's level of play is not worse than it was pre-all-star break. Again, saying he's worse after the break than before is just misleading. I don't see a player who's trending downwards statistically. Maybe that's what it appears to you when all you look at is the pre/post all-star break statistical splits. Why don't you look at a moving average instead? That's a better illustration of how he's trending.
say what? he has had a total of SIX games since the break out of 20 where he has shot above 45%. so you think he only shot bad for the first 5 games post all-star break? and what moving trend are you talking about? 4 of those 6 games have come in the past week and a half (which is why i said he has been shooting better lately). the other 2 games? 6-22 and 5-14. and the one game that he shot well he had 10 turnovers. so rose is still pretty inconsistent with his shooting. if you want to take a short sample of 4-5 games and say a player is playing well, that's also very misleading. so that's why looking at his overall shooting #s from the break is a pretty good indication b/c out of the last 3 games, he shot terrible in 2 of them. 40% overall and 29% from 3s since the break. those are disgusting #s for an elite player. those #s are baron davis-like EDIT: however, to put in perspective the lower standards for rose, but yet the ridiculous hype: dwight howard has been 2-3 levels the player rose is in the month of march and yet we have nobody really talking about him. 23pts, 16 boards, 3 blocks, 1.6 steals 60%fg. and lebron: 28pts, 7.6rpg, 6.1apg on a ridiculous 58%fg for a perimeter player. rose is not even SNIFFING those guys.
Look at his TS%. Since the all-star break, he's only had 4 games where he's had a TS% less than 45%. You've already been told about TS% yet you keep referencing basic fg%. Your refusal to accept and apply a more complete metric is similar to a child closing his eyes, covering his ears, and screaming.
so you're saying a stat freak like hollinger is denying that fact too? 40% is 40% fg. that's a disgusting number for an elite player.
Of course there are better statistical candidates. But MVP isn't simply about statistics. I'm saying that you're cherry-picking a statistic and trying to prove a point by using it out of context.
Rose's fg% for the year is 43.9%. Kevin Martin's fg% for the year is 43.6% Do you think Kevin Martin is inefficient?
my argument hasn't just been just this stat. i'm simply bringing this up b/c people are saying rose is their entire offense. that can't be the case when you have a guy shooting freakin' 40%. my bigger argument is the bulls' dominant defense and rebounding. there's a reason the bulls can win games in the low 80s or when rose builds a brick-house. hollinger and a lot of other stat freaks feel the same way. yes, MVP isn't simply about statistics b/c. however, if you're going to award the MVP to a player, at least be in the same BALLPARK statistically. i mean, when jordan didn't win it, karl malone was a fine option b/c his stats were out of this world also. or when shaq didn't win it, and duncan did. like i said, rose isn't sniffing howard, lebron, or wade statistically. there's a reason there was a backlash with nash winning his first MVP. and hollinger confirmed this point. and the same case with jason kidd finishing 2nd multiple times while he was with the nets. i've answered this many times before. no, kevin martin is not inefficient if he shoots 44%. why? because he is a perimeter-oriented player. kobe bryant shoots 45% in his peak years. kevin durant is shooting 46%. the best at the SG position who are primarily jumpshooters shoot those %. so using that as the standard, kevin martin is doing great. and he's shooting 40% from 3s. he's doing what the best is doing. rose? he's a penetrator first and foremost. so to shoot 40% is basically a broke version of allen iverson, who was the epitome of inefficiency. for instance, dwight howard plays inside. if he shoots 45%, that would be highly inefficient. but if kobe shoots it, he's doing great. when considering fg%, you have to take into account the types of shots a player takes.
That's fine, but when you continually bring up the misleading 40% fg%, it detracts from your argument. Brick house? Advanced stats show that he's not nearly the poor shooter you make him out to be. And yes, the Bulls have good defense/rebounding. So what? That Since Wade and Lebron are on the same team, it's difficult for either of them to win. And the MVP weighs team success more that individual statistics. The Orlando Magic aren't sniffing the Bulls in the standings. Nash was a fine choice, and it's pretty easy to defend it. People who have a problem with it aren't looking at the big picture.
I know you've answered it many times before. According to this guy, it doesn't matter that Martin is a perimeter-oriented player. 44% is 44% fg. And apparently, that's a disgusting number for an elite player.
kobe shoots 45%. kevin durant shoots 46%. kevin martin shoots 44%. all are jumpshooters who get to the line. just had to repeat myself since you forgot to read it apparently now let's see the fg% for guys who plays a similar game to rose (primarily penetrators) tony parker shoots 52% dwayne wade shoots 50% chris paul shoots 47% (since injury he's been driving less) monta ellis shoots 45% westbrook shoots 44% lebron james shoots 51% derrick rose shoots 44%
According to 82games.com, 71% of Rose's shots are jump shots. Not in the 80's like Kobe/Durant/Martin, but clearly not the inside player you make him out to be. Btw, I rarely forget to read anything. If I ask something you've already addressed, its most likely b/c you've contradicted yourself or are applying some sort of double standard.
I'm not really sure why this is so hard to get. Rose and Dirk are the only players in the NBA that are clearly the best player on elite teams. If Howard's team were a little bit better, he'd not only be in the conversation, but he'd be the favorite (since the rest of his team sucks). Dirk won't get it because 1) no one really considers the Mavs to be a contender and 2) he won it already and people remember the epic choke job that followed (although really his coach's fault). It is Rose's to lose. Somehow I figure Kobe will get into the equation as some kind of lifetime achievement thing even though he's clearly not the reason the Lakers are so good. May as well give it to Duncan if you want to play that game.
http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Derrick Rose from hoopdata rose takes 8.7 shots from 9ft and in, so he takes around 43% shots around the basket. compare that to a guy like dwayne wade? wade takes 9.9 shots from 9ft in (or 54% of his attempts) so him shooting 50% should be expected lebron james? he takes 8 shots from 9ft in (around 43% of his shot attempts like rose). but he shoots 51% westbrook? 9.2 shots from 9ft in or 54% of his attempts. he only shoots 44%, very inefficient. tony parker? 8.2 shots from 9ft in (or 60% of his attempts). so it's not surprising he shoots 52%. if you watch derrick rose, he does not take 71% of his shots as jumpshots, unless 82games.com takes his 5 or 6ft floaters as jumpshots. he's a penetrator as 43% of his shots are within 9ft of the basket. this is usually the case when MVP awards become controversial. when jordan/shaq/kobe/lebron/duncan won it, it wasn't controversial one bit. their team was great, and they were the best. hell even in the years jordan didn't win it and malone/barkley did, those guys put up historic numbers. i think outside of a few mishaps, the MVPs usually are the best in the L or very close to it (and they put up out of this world type stats). and rose is not it. in 06-07, dirk won it with 25pts, 50%fg, 41% 3s, 91%ft and 9 rebounds a game. in 05-06, nash won it w/ 19pts, 11 assists on 51%fg, 44% 3s, and 92% ft. those are ridiculous stats (not like the year prior when he only scored 15 pts a game) in 96-97, karl malone won it w/ 27pts, 10 boards, 5 assists on 55%fg. you can argue for MJ, but those stats are in the same stratosphere as jordan. it makes for good discussion.
But you keep treating MVP as "best player", and that's just not what it is. I think LBJ and Wade are pretty clearly better than Rose (and stats validate this), but they won't get the award because their team isn't performing as you'd expect a team with two top players to be; that is, Miami really should have a better record than Chicago, and everyone expected this. Rose is the best player on Chicago. Moreover, he has been their constant, keeping the team running well even when their supplementary players went down. His numbers aren't the best in the league, but they are very good; more importantly, his team is the best in the league or very close. He's the only player besides Dirk who really meets both these criteria. Everyone else either isn't on a good enough team or has enough "help" that their team expectations are already high (even higher than their record). Personally, I think the idea of an MVP in a team sport is dumb. You just can't judge individuals that way because there are too many other variables, mainly the coaching and the teammates. Steve Nash has basically put up the same stats every year he's been in Phoenix. Twice he won MVP, every other time he wasn't even in the conversation. In fact, I believe his best year was the year after he won the 2nd MVP. LBJ hasn't regressed at all since his back to back awards but the expectations have been inflated so he's not really in the running. And so it goes. Save the MVPs for tennis and golf.
the MVP does not have to be the best player, but he has to be up there, like legit top 4-5. and in general, those players usually win MVPs, but you always have exceptions (nash). it's not a clear-cut rule that the best player or top 4-5 players should win, but from looking at the history of the winners, that is usually the case. and that's how it should be. this year, dwight, lebron, wade, kobe, dirk are the clear-cut top 5 players in this league. and there is a pretty significant drop off from dwight and lebron to the other players. i mean look at dirk: 23 pts, 7 boards, but ridiculous 52%fg, 41% 3s, 90%fg. ridiculous numbers. and he has been the 4th or 5th best overall player this year.
His 6-22 game he was also 12-13 from the line. His 5-14 game he was 9-9 from the line and hit 4 3s. 20 games post all-star break. Last 15 games his TS% has been 56%. His TS% pre-all-star break was 54%. He's offset bad shooting games from the field by getting to the line and doing other things to help his team win.
I think Rose shoots too many threes, which could affect his efficiency a little bit. He shoots like 6-8 threes a game and that's not really his strenght though he does hit them at a good clip sometimes. But most cases, he would result in 1-6, 2-8,2-6 from long range thus the poor .300%. I think he will take better shot selection as the year go by and I see no reason he can't improve his efficiency. That's the only knock against him. He's only 22, 3rd year in the league. He has time...
