Rose, Butler - the best player

[Risk Addict]

Tough question. But I will cast my vote for the player who is first on the team in Win Shares thus far, and against the player who is dead last in win shares thus far.

I don't really need to tell you which player is which, do I?

[BR0D1E86]

In the playoffs last season.

Bulls 6 wins:

Derrick TS% - 55%
Jimmy TS% - 57%

Averages:

Derrick - 36 mpg, 24 ppg, 7 asts, 5 boards
Jimmy - 42 mpg, 23 ppg, 4 asts, 5 boards

Bulls 6 losses:

Derrick TS% - 41%
Jimmy TS% - 55%

Averages:

Derrick - 40 mpg, 17 ppg, 6 asts, 5 boards
Jimmy - 42 mpg, 23 ppg, 2.5 asts, 6 boards


With Jimmy you're getting consistency, and that is a very good thing, great actually. However, when Rose plays well...the Bulls generally win.

Your analysis is flawed because we don't have data to compare good Rose games where Butler played poorly, because only Rose played that poorly for that stretch of time. If anything, your stats say we need multiple players playing well, and when our 20 million dollar "superstar" plays like AJ Guyton's less talented brother, we lose.

[Sebastian]

Butler is clearly the better player, and by a good margin. Rose hasn't been better than league average since getting hurt 3 and a half years ago. How is this even a debate?

[Keller61]

In the playoffs last season.

Bulls 6 wins:

Derrick TS% - 55%
Jimmy TS% - 57%

Averages:

Derrick - 36 mpg, 24 ppg, 7 asts, 5 boards
Jimmy - 42 mpg, 23 ppg, 4 asts, 5 boards

Bulls 6 losses:

Derrick TS% - 41%
Jimmy TS% - 55%

Averages:

Derrick - 40 mpg, 17 ppg, 6 asts, 5 boards
Jimmy - 42 mpg, 23 ppg, 2.5 asts, 6 boards


With Jimmy you're getting consistency, and that is a very good thing, great actually. However, when Rose plays well...the Bulls generally win.

Your analysis is flawed because we don't have data to compare good Rose games where Butler played poorly, because only Rose played that poorly for that stretch of time. If anything, your stats say we need multiple players playing well, and when our 20 million dollar "superstar" plays like AJ Guyton's less talented brother, we lose.

The only playoff game in which Rose played well and Butler played poorly was game 4 of the Cavs series, which we lost. Of course, the whole team outside of Derrick played poorly that game.

[coldfish]

In the playoffs last season.

Bulls 6 wins:

Derrick TS% - 55%
Jimmy TS% - 57%

Averages:

Derrick - 36 mpg, 24 ppg, 7 asts, 5 boards
Jimmy - 42 mpg, 23 ppg, 4 asts, 5 boards

Bulls 6 losses:

Derrick TS% - 41%
Jimmy TS% - 55%

Averages:

Derrick - 40 mpg, 17 ppg, 6 asts, 5 boards
Jimmy - 42 mpg, 23 ppg, 2.5 asts, 6 boards


With Jimmy you're getting consistency, and that is a very good thing, great actually. However, when Rose plays well...the Bulls generally win.

A similar analysis was done years ago with Keith Bogans. When he scored 6 or more points in a game, the Bulls were near undefeatable back in 2010-2011. Bulls were an incredible 24-1 when he hit that magic "6" number.

I suspect that you could do similar analysis for a lot of players. At the end of the day, when players have good games, the team is more likely to win. That doesn't necessarily define their impact as players, obviously, as the Bogans numbers show. We all know that Bogans wasn't driving that team.

[mj234eva]

Your analysis is flawed because we don't have data to compare good Rose games where Butler played poorly, because only Rose played that poorly for that stretch of time. If anything, your stats say we need multiple players playing well, and when our 20 million dollar "superstar" plays like AJ Guyton's less talented brother, we lose.

There was only about 8 such games (regular season), and in them, the Bulls went 5-3 (51 win pace). Rose's TS% averaged to about 58%, while Jimmy's averaged to about 45%.

[mj234eva]

A similar analysis was done years ago with Keith Bogans. When he scored 6 or more points in a game, the Bulls were near undefeatable back in 2010-2011. Bulls were an incredible 24-1 when he hit that magic "6" number.

I suspect that you could do similar analysis for a lot of players. At the end of the day, when players have good games, the team is more likely to win. That doesn't necessarily define their impact as players, obviously, as the Bogans numbers show. We all know that Bogans wasn't driving that team.

You shouldn't call 6 points per game, "similar" to anything I posted.

[BR0D1E86]

Your analysis is flawed because we don't have data to compare good Rose games where Butler played poorly, because only Rose played that poorly for that stretch of time. If anything, your stats say we need multiple players playing well, and when our 20 million dollar "superstar" plays like AJ Guyton's less talented brother, we lose.

There was only about 8 such games (regular season), and in them, the Bulls went 5-3 (51 win pace). Rose's TS% averaged to about 58%, while Jimmy's averaged to about 45%.

Against playoff level competition?

Your analysis seriously makes no sense. If you're trying to prove that when your key players play poorly you lose more, congrats you've done it. But to prove that Rose is more "impactful" or whatever, I don't see it. He shoots more, and he generally does so whether he's scoring at his customary low 40's ts% or is having a rare good game, so because he dominates the ball so much I guess you could have a point. But I don't think it's the one you're trying to make.

[coldfish]

A similar analysis was done years ago with Keith Bogans. When he scored 6 or more points in a game, the Bulls were near undefeatable back in 2010-2011. Bulls were an incredible 24-1 when he hit that magic "6" number.

I suspect that you could do similar analysis for a lot of players. At the end of the day, when players have good games, the team is more likely to win. That doesn't necessarily define their impact as players, obviously, as the Bogans numbers show. We all know that Bogans wasn't driving that team.

You shouldn't call 6 points per game, "similar" to anything I posted.

It is an extreme example to show how such analysis are a false way of evaluating player impact.

I could go to the other extreme and show you Jordan's game log. He was one of the most consistent superstars I have ever seen. Win or lose, he almost always had a highly productive, efficient night. What determined the outcome of many games was how his "supporting cast" fared. By your methodology, Jordan was a role player and guys like Jud Buechler and BJ Armstrong were what made the dynasty Bulls go.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01/gamelog/1993/

[mj234eva]

I don't see it.

And I do. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and be done with it.

[mj234eva]

A similar analysis was done years ago with Keith Bogans. When he scored 6 or more points in a game, the Bulls were near undefeatable back in 2010-2011. Bulls were an incredible 24-1 when he hit that magic "6" number.

I suspect that you could do similar analysis for a lot of players. At the end of the day, when players have good games, the team is more likely to win. That doesn't necessarily define their impact as players, obviously, as the Bogans numbers show. We all know that Bogans wasn't driving that team.

You shouldn't call 6 points per game, "similar" to anything I posted.

It is an extreme example to show how such analysis are a false way of evaluating player impact.

I could go to the other extreme and show you Jordan's game log. He was one of the most consistent superstars I have ever seen. Win or lose, he almost always had a highly productive, efficient night. What determined the outcome of many games was how his "supporting cast" fared. By your methodology, Jordan was a role player and guys like Jud Buechler and BJ Armstrong were what made the dynasty Bulls go.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01/gamelog/1993/

Bulls record when Jordan shot at least 50% that season:

32-7 (.821 winning % 67 wins stretched over an 82 game season)

Bulls record when Jordan shot under 50% that season:

24-15 (.615 winning % 50 wins stretched over an 82 game season)

[coldfish]

You shouldn't call 6 points per game, "similar" to anything I posted.

It is an extreme example to show how such analysis are a false way of evaluating player impact.

I could go to the other extreme and show you Jordan's game log. He was one of the most consistent superstars I have ever seen. Win or lose, he almost always had a highly productive, efficient night. What determined the outcome of many games was how his "supporting cast" fared. By your methodology, Jordan was a role player and guys like Jud Buechler and BJ Armstrong were what made the dynasty Bulls go.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01/gamelog/1993/

Bulls record when Jordan shot at least 50% that season:

32-7 (.821 winning % 67 wins stretched over an 82 game season)

Bulls record when Jordan shot under 50% that season:

24-15 (.615 winning % 50 wins stretched over an 82 game season)

Bulls record when BJ Armstrong shot 50%: 38-10 (65 win pace)
When he shot less than 50%: 20-14 (48 win pace)

It really comes down to that teams win games when players play well. The more consistently they do so, the more consistently they contribute to winning games.

[reggieandtfe]

Derrick Rose gave us exactly 120 games of >23.0 PER basketball. He hasn't sniffed 20.0 since. And when you consider how poorly PER accounts for defense, it's not even a fair fight. Rose should defer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kyrv]

A similar analysis was done years ago with Keith Bogans. When he scored 6 or more points in a game, the Bulls were near undefeatable back in 2010-2011. Bulls were an incredible 24-1 when he hit that magic "6" number.

I suspect that you could do similar analysis for a lot of players. At the end of the day, when players have good games, the team is more likely to win. That doesn't necessarily define their impact as players, obviously, as the Bogans numbers show. We all know that Bogans wasn't driving that team.

You shouldn't call 6 points per game, "similar" to anything I posted.

It is an extreme example to show how such analysis are a false way of evaluating player impact.

I could go to the other extreme and show you Jordan's game log. He was one of the most consistent superstars I have ever seen. Win or lose, he almost always had a highly productive, efficient night. What determined the outcome of many games was how his "supporting cast" fared. By your methodology, Jordan was a role player and guys like Jud Buechler and BJ Armstrong were what made the dynasty Bulls go.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01/gamelog/1993/

Great posts and extra credit for the Jud Buechler trip down memory lane.

[kodo]

It's about time Jud got the respect.

[Risk Addict]

Rose is poor at decreasing his volume (usage) when he is shooting poorly. He is also poor at finding other ways to contribute when his shooting is poor....

For these reasons, when he shoots poorly the team plays poorly. On the other hand, if Jimmy is shooting poorly, he tends to pass more and can contribute in other ways.

I interpret these stats on bulls loses when Rose plays poorly as a lack of leadership by Rose. He wants to get his regardless so he will chuck up shots at the detriment of the team if need be. That does not make him the best player on the bulls.

Lots of stats can be manipulated. Shooting percentages cannot be manipulated AS much. Rose has terrible percentages.

[DuckIII]

The Bulls having more wins when Rose plays well doesn't say jack squat about whether or not he's better than Jimmy Butler.

[Stratmaster]

The Bulls having more wins when Rose plays well doesn't say jack squat about whether or not he's better than Jimmy Butler. The mental gymnastics being made in this thread to cling to the tiniest strand of hope that "my favorite player is the best player on the team" is a hoot.

I agree about the mental gymnastics. Right now there is no case that can be made that Rose is a better player.

however, I think what some posters are trying to state is that when DRose was "The" Drose, he could impact a game much more heavily than Butler. If we ever get a semblance of that old Rose back, the 2 players would have very similar impact. If we ever got MVP Rose back (pipe dream), Rose is the player with the most impact.

[mhsiao]

Perhaps if you consider the history, Rose should be the best player; however no matter if it is physical or mental Rose is no longer the best players in the team since ALC injury.

Rose may show flash here and there once a while, until he can get his head straight he is just mediocre.

[dice]

Rose is poor at decreasing his volume (usage) when he is shooting poorly

he's a lot better at it than he was last season. unfortunately, he is consistently shooting poorly this year