Would Bulls fans trade Derrick Rose for LeBron James if they had the chance?

Current Rose hasn't even been as good as a 2nd year Wade, counting playoffs, and you guys are saying you wouldn't trade him for LeBron frigging James? Stop acting like you're idiotic and sick in the head, the Bulls organization would do this in a heartbeat and not even think about it.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Raw %s don't account for volume at all, how is only looking at FG% and 3P% superior to eFG%?[/QUOTE]
It's not.

Gino cant even argue it anymore. Look above^. He's playing dumb now.:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Papaya Petee]Current Rose hasn't even been as good as a 2nd year Wade, counting playoffs, and you guys are saying you wouldn't trade him for LeBron frigging James? Stop acting like you're idiotic and sick in the head, the Bulls organization would do this in a heartbeat and not even think about it.[/QUOTE]


Yeah right.


You must not know about Gar and Pax and they way the Bull's org is run.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Raw %s don't account for volume at all, how is only looking at FG% and 3P% superior to eFG%?[/QUOTE]

Field goal attempts made and missed do. I thought that's what they're for :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Field goal attempts made and missed do. I thought that's what they're for :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
He said %s. eFG% accounts for volume and rate, and gives credit to the extra point from 3s.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Raw %s don't account for volume at all, how is only looking at FG% and 3P% superior to eFG%?[/QUOTE]

What?

Why wouldn't you look at attempts as well? Why the **** do you people want everything to be so limited?

You act like its hard to also check attempts.

LOL

[QUOTE=Go Getter]Yeah right.


You must not know about Gar and Pax and they way the Bull's org is run.[/QUOTE]
Okay whatever you say, lets not trade for the best player in league by a decent amount for a guard who scores 24 PPG on 44% and plays average defense.

[QUOTE=chazzy]He said %s. eFG% accounts for volume and rate, and gives credit to the extra point from 3s.[/QUOTE]

As does looking at FG made and missed; 3PT made and missed. You get someones FG and 3PT% from it.

You don't look at just %'s without volume. That's just stupid.

[QUOTE=JohnnySic]Fans might not. Team would in a second.[/QUOTE]

No they wouldn't. Considering pieces have more to do with fitting into the team puzzle and personality than it does stats. Rose is more valuable to the Bulls than Lebron would be at this point. Lebron is a statwhore, not a leader or team-player. Rose is currently perceived as the franchise' savior with his winner's mentality and killer instinct. On top of that, it will piss off their fan base, jeopardizing finances. It would be a terrible move.

You would be the worst GM in the league if you thought this was anywhere near a good idea.

LeBron had a higher 2 pt % last season than MJ ever did in his career.

[QUOTE=Papaya Petee]Okay whatever you say, lets not trade for the best player in league by a decent amount for a guard who scores 24 PPG on 44% and plays average defense.[/QUOTE]
The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

We don't need Lebron at the risk of losing a better team player that is younger and leading our team to the best record in the same conference as Lebron.

Championships are better than being able to say you had the best player on your team.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]As does looking at FG made and missed; 3PT made and missed. You get someones FG and 3PT% from it.

You don't look at just %'s without volume. That's just stupid.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I find this conversation to be maddening.

Do they realize that we have access to all the raw data that goes into the TS formula?

Why would you ever choose an estimated formula over raw data on something as simple as this?

There aren't hundreds of variables. Its looking at a few things. Thats it.

This debate was not about whether or not TS is stupid. Its about which is better and more accurate. Raw data or TS....and i'll take the raw data every single time as would anyone with a brain.

at this point no they wouldnt. but once till the bulls lose in the playoffs and they might. they might then realize that derrick rose is not michael jordan part 2. oh wait he needs his scottie pippen :lol

[QUOTE=imdaman99]at this point no they wouldnt. but once till the bulls lose in the playoffs and they might. they might then realize that derrick rose is not michael jordan part 2. oh wait he needs his scottie pippen :lol[/QUOTE]


Lebron has his Scottie Pippen and his team still ain't shit (so far).

[QUOTE=PleezeBelieve]Props, Bulls fans. You all have a true superstar leader, who only wants to win and not chase fame.

Do you all realize what you have or would you be enticed to have the Queen on your tram in place of Rose?[/QUOTE]

Although I consider LeBron the best player in NBA currently..I don't think Chicago does it. Rose isn't that far behind and is improving at an alarming rate. Plus he is the "home town" kid

So how do you interpret all that raw data?

What's more efficient -

23FGA on 50% and shooting 33% on 1.7 3PA

20.6FGA on 48% and shooting 33% on 4.1 3PA?

[QUOTE=chazzy]So how do you interpret all that raw data?

What's more efficient -

23FGA on 50% and shooting 33% on 1.7 3PA

20.6FGA on 48% and shooting 33% on 4.1 3PA?[/QUOTE]

what do you mean?

not counting free throws? very comparable.

:roll:

yea they would :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Fatal9]LeBron had a higher 2 pt % last season than MJ ever did in his career.[/QUOTE]

Jordan in '89/90 on 2's - 942 / 1719 = .548
LeBron last season on 2's - 639/1141 = .550

On considerably less volume, yes LeBron was more efficient. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]what do you mean?

not counting free throws? very comparable.[/QUOTE]
Comparable, but which one is more efficient from the field?

[QUOTE=chazzy]So how do you interpret all that raw data?

What's more efficient -

23FGA on 50% and shooting 33% on 1.7 3PA

20.6FGA on 48% and shooting 33% on 4.1 3PA?[/QUOTE]

PPG would be nice. Like TS and eFG%, you can't really determine who's more efficient without everything on the table.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Comparable, but which one is more efficient from the field?[/QUOTE]

very difficult to say because its not similar volume. one player is taking 2.4 more shots.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]PPG would be nice. Like FG%, you can't really determine who's more efficient without everything on the table.[/QUOTE]
PPG would include freethrows, this tells you all you need to know about scoring from the field

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]very difficult to say because its not similar volume. one player is taking 2.4 more shots.[/QUOTE]
This is my point - Raw data shows you everything but you don't know how exactly to interpret similar data sets. You can look at this and say it's about the same, but stats like eFG% and TS% tell you which one is actually more efficient right down to the decimal point

[QUOTE=chazzy]PPG would include freethrows, this tells you all you need to know about scoring from the field[/QUOTE]

No, I'm asking what their PPG would be; you gave an example, but just threw out a bunch of numbers without putting them into context. What would those said players PPG be in your example?

[QUOTE=chazzy]This is my point - Raw data shows you everything but you don't know how exactly to interpret similar data sets. You can look at this and say it's about the same, but stats like eFG% and TS% tell you which one is actually more efficient right down to the decimal point[/QUOTE]

And also doesn't tell you things like shot selection and how valuable made and missed shots are to a teams success.

[QUOTE=chazzy]This is my point - Raw data shows you everything but you don't know how exactly to interpret similar data sets. You can look at this and say it's about the same, but stats like eFG% and TS% tell you which one is actually more efficient right down to the decimal point[/QUOTE]

no they can't. ts% is an estimation. it manipulates data. thats all it does. it does not give anything right down to the decimal point.

you are now making this about efg%. which is fine.

i personally want the player that misses less shots. if you have two guys at 25ppg assuming 0 free throws taken, i'll take the guy with a higher field goal percentage almost every time.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]No, I'm asking what their PPG would be; you gave an example, but just threw out a bunch of numbers without putting them into context. What would those said players PPG be in your example?[/QUOTE]
I'm saying it doesn't matter in regard to eFG% because the total PPG would include points you got from the line, which isn't accounted for in eFG%. You don't need PPG to calculate eFG%

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]And also doesn't tell you things like shot selection and how valuable made and missed shots are to a teams success.[/QUOTE]
Never said it did; those stats measure scoring efficiency only and should only be used that way

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Jordan in '89/90 on 2's - 942 / 1719 = .548
LeBron last season on 2's - 639/1141 = .550

On considerably less volume, yes LeBron was more efficient. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
So now volume is important but for three point shooting it isn't? Gotcha.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Never said it did; those stats measure scoring efficiency only and should only be used that way[/QUOTE]

but that is the point. the raw data gives you shot selection and scoring efficiency without manipulation.

[QUOTE=chazzy]I'm saying it doesn't matter in regard to eFG% because the total PPG would include points you got from the line, which isn't accounted for in eFG%. You don't need PPG to calculate eFG%[/QUOTE]

I know what you're saying, but your example was all raw data from FGA to FG and 3PT%. We don't know who was more efficient without knowing what their PPG are.

[QUOTE=Fatal9]So now volume is important but for three point shooting it isn't? Gotcha.[/QUOTE]

When did I ever say that? :wtf:

[QUOTE=chazzy]Never said it did; those stats measure scoring efficiency only and should only be used that way[/QUOTE]

But that's the point, silly goose.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]But that's the point, silly goose.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Its like listing Howard's efg and ts. What does it prove? If you don't know his game, you can't tell if he's just a great ft shooter or 3 point shooter. Its misleading.

The raw data is much better. You'd see he takes all 2's and is actually a terrible ft shooter but gets there a lot.

If you just looked at efg or ts you'd never know what kind of player he is or what his shot selection was or anything.

Howard and Nash have the exact same TS% and have close enough efg%. Do those numbers give you a better indication of overall efficiency as the raw data?

Ohh ok, I thought you guys were saying raw data is superior for efficiency. Yeah it shows you all those other things as well.. I've been talking scoring efficiency this entire time

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Exactly.

Its like listing Howard's efg and ts. What does it prove? If you don't know his game, you can't tell if he's just a great ft shooter or 3 point shooter. Its misleading.

The raw data is much better. You'd see he takes all 2's and is actually a terrible ft shooter but gets there a lot.

If you just looked at efg or ts you'd never know what kind of player he is or what his shot selection was or anything.[/QUOTE]

Right.

According to eFG (solely look at this stat), Dwight and Artis Gilmore are insane 3PT shooters. #1 and #4 all-time as a matter of fact. lol.

You gotta know the game man. Basketball isn't rocket science, which is why coaches always harp on made and missed shots - FG%. Basic statistic that interprets how well you're scoring from the field.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Ohh ok, I thought you guys were saying raw data is superior for efficiency. Yeah it shows you all those other things as well.. I've been talking scoring efficiency this entire time[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that the raw data gives you a more accurate picture of a players efficiency.

I'm not saying TS or EFG are worthless. I'm saying I'd rather see all the variables going into an equation than the outcome of the equation itself. I want to know if one player is taking 5 threes a game compared to 1 for another. I want to know if one player is making 10% more of his free throws and on what volume.

TS doesn't give you that stuff. It just spits out one number that in my opinion can often be misleading.

[QUOTE=chazzy]Ohh ok, I thought you guys were saying raw data is superior for efficiency. Yeah it shows you all those other things as well.. I've been talking scoring efficiency this entire time[/QUOTE]

All good. When we talk about 'beast measure', usually things like shot selection, made/missed fieldgoals being important to your team, etc., is included. Strictly efficiency and no context on how the player impacts the game, well yeah, eFG and TS% are your stats because that's all they account for... numbers.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm saying that the raw data gives you a more accurate picture of a players efficiency.

I'm not saying TS or EFG are worthless. I'm saying I'd rather see all the variables going into an equation than the outcome of the equation itself. I want to know if one player is taking 5 threes a game compared to 1 for another. I want to know if one player is making 10% more of his free throws and on what volume.

TS doesn't give you that stuff. It just spits out one number that in my opinion can often be misleading.[/QUOTE]
Then why don't you mind when people only list FG%? Ideally I guess you would want to see FGM/FGA, 3PA and %, FTA and %, along with eFG% and TS%, but I just don't see how only listing someones TS% is any more BS than only listing someone's FG%. Neither one tells the full story on how someone is getting their points, and at least TS% accounts for points earned that FG% disregards completely.

If TS% doesn't account for the misses, then FG% doesn't account for freethrows taken/made and the amount of 3s taken/made.. so there's no reason to call it a bs stat like you always do. TS just gives you a quick gauge of how efficient someone is scoring and nothing's stopping someone from looking up the full set of stats if they want to.