Printable View
[QUOTE=NumberSix]What's so much better about Rose than current Jennings? Seriously? Other than being on a better team, what?
[/QUOTE]
I would probably that Jennings is one of the 3 worst PGs in the NBA (that aren't developing on rookie deals).
Just stop this. You ruin any credibility my side, the correct side, has.
[QUOTE=HurricaneKid][B]I would probably that Jennings is one of the 3 worst PGs in the NBA[/B] (that aren't developing on rookie deals).
Just stop this. You ruin any credibility my side, the correct side, has.[/QUOTE]
Starting?
[QUOTE=Owl]Starting?[/QUOTE]
Yes. I swear I put that word in there.
MVP, value is in the damn name. There is no way that Derrick Rose contributes more value towards a team winning basketball games than LBJ does. All you have to do is watch basketball to know that. He's a better scorer, defender and playmaker than Rose. He gives you similar assists as a damn SF.
Its as simple as this. The Bulls are not worse with Lebron on their team instead of Rose and the Bulls are not worse with Lebron instead of Rose, position be damned.
[QUOTE=NumberSix]What's so much better about Rose than current Jennings? Seriously? Other than being on a better team, what?
Put current Jennings on that stacked bulls roster with elite defense, elite rebounding, elite team passing, COTY, ETC... You honestly don't think he could manage to shoot 44% and dish out 7.7 assists?[/QUOTE]
This is some high quality trolling right here.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]I gather you just learned how to read anyway. One day when you grow up you will know how to present your thoughts. Please refute something or the BS that fills you will pile up.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand that typing long paragraphs doesn't make what you have to say any more legitimate. Length =/= legitimacy. I can see that you're biased towards Rose, that's fine, but you don't need to make overzealous attempts to discredit Dwight. You should be able to prove Roses legitimacy with his play, you shouldn't have to criticize others his play should do the talking.
Jennings isn't even better than Kyle Lowry.
Lowry > Rose too ? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Mike Lowry > Rose too ? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Yes:bowdown:
[QUOTE=KyrieTheFuture]I don't think you understand that typing long paragraphs doesn't make what you have to say any more legitimate. Length =/= legitimacy. I can see that you're biased towards Rose, that's fine, but you don't need to make overzealous attempts to discredit Dwight. You should be able to prove Roses legitimacy with his play, you shouldn't have to criticize others his play should do the talking.[/QUOTE]
The paragraph was a descriptor of DH's shortcomings, which is relevant to the discussion. If the paragraph is long, then you have more opportunities to prove me wrong. That's fair. Its overzealous when proven to be something it isn't. I invite all to take it apart. Until then its long and strong.
The Rose haters aren't new as who was one of the best PG rebounders, block shot PG's, the only player top ten in assist and ppg, who was the best penetrator in the league, who was the top scorer in close games in the fourth quarter, whose team overachieved, whose team had a lot of things to overcome and still had the most wins, whose team dominated the elite, whose team had one creative player, which elite team had one player that carried the offensive burden moreso than the other teams, who consistently held the elite at his position below par, the one star in the league that came to play every game without taking off, the only player on an elite team that didn't have a top notch player in some category. So they create theories that ignore all of that.
Who is being overzealous?
[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]Well that will be easy enough.
DRose was a TERRIBLE defender for the Bulls in his MVP season. My ANY metric. Lets look at the most popular ones:
DRTG (my least favorite def metric). Rose was not only not in the top 8 defenders on the team he was next to last in DRTG on the team (of anyone that played 30min+ for the season). Only Kyle Korver (who was sent packing despite his league best shooting because of his porous defense) ranked worse.
On/Off (Far better). With the league "MVP" on the floor the Bulls allowed 103.0 points/48 min. With DRose on the bench the Bulls stiffened to 95.3. That is an ENORMOUS chasm.
RAPM (Best). DRose's offense by this metric was VERY good and among the top 9 in the league. However, his defense dropped him all the way to #32 in the league. This is nowhere near any MVP since RAPM figures are available. At least Nash was at least the #1 RAPM OFF player when he was winning his MVPs (his D was terrible too). The difference, for example, between Deng's RAPM defense and DRose's is literally more than the complete benefit of Kobe Bryant PLUS David West added to a team.
The last argument that keeps getting made is that Rose did more with less. Its makes no sense. They had Asik, the best rebounder in the NBA playing 15mpg because they were so stacked. In fact, in the ~19 games worth of court time without Rose on the floor the Bulls played to +5.1pts/48 of their opponents. Extrapolated to a full season that would make them ~5th best team in the NBA. Meanwhile, with LeBron off the floor the Heat were actually OUTSCORED.
And you have no basic comprehension of HOW D12's defensive effectiveness works. I wouldn't speak to it any more.[/QUOTE]
WOW, you really don't know how things work.
A. Rose is the teams main offensive player. When he is not on the floor, the team has to shut down the other team to compete. Its absolutely critical. Because Rose was depended upon more so for creativity than any other superstar for their teams (Dirk, DH, Wade, Lebron, Kobe). This is a huge argument for Rose as MVP as well.
B. But to suggest that the Bulls second team was better defensively is to miss and incredibly humongous [B]METRIC[/B]. They are defending second teamers and not first teamers! Rose shutting down Rondo, Dwill, Nash, Jennings, Tyreke, Parker, CP3 and we are comparing that to CJ Watkins holding down bench players is not only absurd, it misses common sense at the most obvious levels.
C. You also miss the fact that Thibes put Rose on Wade in the playoffs in the fourth quarter above all other guards. Please show me the metric that shows a SG that held a healthy Wade down in the playoffs like Rose did. Here is a team that has two players at SG whose main function is defense but Thibes, a defensive genuis, takes Rose off of his natural position to guard Wade.
D. You think Chicago was a top perimeter defensive team because of it's bench play of 14 minutes a game?
E. Stats just ain't were its at. Something is very, very wrong with the metric.
[QUOTE=Owl]
Rose was a very good player that year. He just wasn't at the level I associate with MVP or playing as well James, Wade, Howard our Paul.
I'd agree with what DMavs posted. But come on. Not Jennings. Paul and they'd be better, Westbrook maybe just as good shot creating pgs and they'd get most of the value they got from Rose. But they wouldn't lose nothing by putting in a middling pg like Jennings was (and to a degree still is).[/QUOTE]
How does Paul fit in the MVP mix in 2011???
Paul had a better team last year than Rose had in 2011 and he was way better than he was in 2011. That Clipper team is way more skilled, more of a veteran team, way more athletic, way more creative, better shooters, better players off of the dribble, less injuries, more consistency, more scoring options... .
No way does Rose play on OKC or the Clippers last year and they don't have the best record in the league. I think a lot of people don't understand how his insistent play and leadership was key to why super teams (James/Wade), veteran teams, healthy teams, long time together teams didn't have a better record than a young team, with a new coach, new system, new system that was very reliant on Rose taking over the offense, injuries and other hurdles had the best record.
On a day to day basis Rose came to play every day the team accomplished more than much more fortunate players, and Rose had more on his plate than anybody as well. DH was close.
My argument is that you don't give it to someone in their first elite year. It's a damn shame that Rose has as many MVPs as Shaq, Kobe, etc. maybe he will turn out as good as them and maybe not, but hes got a long way to go. The list of MVPs is pretty freaking elite and minus Rose and Nash winning two.
[QUOTE=pmj][B]My argument is that you don't give it to someone in their first elite year. [/B]It's a damn shame that Rose has as many MVPs as Shaq, Kobe, etc. maybe he will turn out as good as them and maybe not, but hes got a long way to go. The list of MVPs is pretty freaking elite and minus Rose and Nash winning two.[/QUOTE]
I can't ride with that. If a player was the best player that year, I don't care how many years he's been in the league.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]The paragraph was a descriptor of DH's shortcomings, which is relevant to the discussion. If the paragraph is long, then you have more opportunities to prove me wrong. That's fair. Its overzealous when proven to be something it isn't. I invite all to take it apart. Until then its long and strong.
The Rose haters aren't new as who was [B]one of the best PG rebounders, block shot PG's, the only player top ten in assist and ppg, who was the best penetrator in the league[/B], who was the top scorer in close games in the fourth quarter, [B]whose team overachieved, whose team had a lot of things to overcome[/B] and still had the most wins, [B]whose team dominated the elite, whose team had one creative player, which elite team had one player that carried the offensive burden moreso than the other teams, who consistently held the elite at his position below par[/B], the one star in the league that came to play every game without taking off, the only player on an elite team that didn't have a top notch player in some category. So they create theories that ignore all of that.
Who is being overzealous?[/QUOTE]
Idk how you dont think you're being overenthusiastic in this thread.
Some of the bolded is irrelevant to the MVP it only makes him the best PG. The rest has to do with his team, specifically it's great D that Rose wasn't exactly a part of. All I'm saying is Dwight didn't have the benefit of great team D, he was the defense. Also, he was double or triple teamed all the time no matter what and he still dominated. I just think the MVP should include both sides of the court.
Edit: If it makes a difference, I think the gap between them is negligible and that he's a strong number two candidate with no else really close
[QUOTE=Pointguard]How does Paul fit in the MVP mix in 2011???
Paul had a better team last year than Rose had in 2011 and he was way better than he was in 2011. That Clipper team is way more skilled, more of a veteran team, way more athletic, way more creative, better shooters, better players off of the dribble, less injuries, more consistency, more scoring options... .
No way does Rose play on OKC or the Clippers last year and they don't have the best record in the league. I think a lot of people don't understand how his insistent play and leadership was key to why super teams (James/Wade), veteran teams, healthy teams, long time together teams didn't have a better record than a young team, with a new coach, new system, new system that was very reliant on Rose taking over the offense, injuries and other hurdles had the best record.
On a day to day basis Rose came to play every day the team accomplished more than much more fortunate players, and Rose had more on his plate than anybody as well. DH was close.[/QUOTE]
1) Where is it said Paul should be MVP? Nowhere, only that he was better than Rose.
2) Why switch years for Paul its irrelevent? You do it so you can frame the Clippers as a superteam using hearsay and vague, unproven or irrelvent statements (Clippers were "more athletic" but their superathletic bigs can't defend and DeAndre's court IQ is so low that his athleticism is largely wasted). The comparison of supporting casts is vague and imprecise but if you want to do it at least compare it for that year. Paul dragged 70 games of David West, 72 of Okafor and whole bag of nothing into the playoffs.
Or we could do it more precisely. And even those metrics which favour usage (PER) suggest Paul was better. And most metrics can't factor in Paul's edge at the defensive end.
3) You're framing Thibideau as a negative for Rose? This terrible "new coach" forcing his "new system" on him. Poor Derrick Rose.
4) If you want to credit the Bull's wins to "insistent play and leadership" fine. I'll go with their having the league's best defense.
As before if you're criteria for MVP isn't being the league's best player I don't mind it going to Rose. To me, because he wasn't the best player, he wasn't MVP.