Can Rose's impressive tournament push him past Beasley?

[Cammo101]

The above list is extremely flawed for this arguement. That is not a list of the best player in the tourney, it is a list of the guy who had the best game in the finals and happened to be on the winning team. Pretty big difference.

[Malinhion]

He didn't say it was crazy, he said you shouldn't do it, and I agree. Performing well in the tournament should mean far less than the regular season, simply because it's far fewer games.

Beasley was consistently dominant for an entire season... he had literally two or three bad games, while Rose had at least 10, maybe 15, depending on how generous you are.

Disagree. GMs should not only look to players who shine best at the biggest moments, the tournament is the best place to view every player on a level playing field. All teams are essentially playing against the best competition at the same time. Some teams like Memphis frontload their schedule with harder teams because of a weaker conference schedule. On the other hand, teams like K-State pick a soft nonconference schedule to make up for the rigors of playing in a major conference. Rose was playing harder teams earlier in the season, but Beasley was able to tango with some chumps before coming up big (ie. against Kansas).

Younger guys (especially freshmen) need the time to adapt to their teammates and coaching style. A guy who plays better later in the season is probably more coachable than a guy who shows no improvement. It shows the ability to adapt to a system. Think of Rose, who had to come in and share the ball with a bunch of guys who were already NBA prospects. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Rose had some "off nights" when other players were just going off? I realize Rose has been less consistent, but he has a much more dynamic situation to meld into.

I realize that statistical progression indicating coachability is a weak argument against Beasley, who had little room to grow with his statistical ceiling, plus a lack of teammates. But its not like he was adapting to a system in doing so. We have little indication of his coachability.

Becoming the centerpiece of a 38-win squad is a much more dynamic task than taking over a ballgame every night for a team that loses in the opening weekend. We just learn different things about these guys because of their situations.

Once Rose had the ability to learn the system, he shined against the best competition on the brightest stage.

I think its a fallacy that we can't fault Beasley for not playing later into the tournament. Why not? Playing on a bad team all season was part of the reasons that we were wowed during the regular season with his prolific stats.

It's great that Rose played so well in the tourney, but even there it wasn't a uniform success. His defense was uniformly great, he boarded very well, and he kept his turnovers low, something he didn't do very well through the season. His offense, however, was inconsistent, which is strange considering how much people are creaming their jeans over his point totals. In my opinion the Kansas game wasn't very good, he shot poorly against Miss St., and UT Arlington is of course terrible. So I really don't think it's sensible to privilege his superlative performances in the other 3 games, declare he had a great tourney (though overall that is true), and assume he should move up a spot on the draft board.

You've admitting his man defense was good despite his lackluster defensive statistics, and then pretend that posting 21-6-6 on 52% is merely pedestrian in terms of offensive production. What more do you want from the kid!? He plays on a team of prospects!

As others have said, he improved his stock, and maybe a few more teams would pick him over Beasley, but I don't think they should, if they aren't forced by position to take him first.

I think I only prefer Rose since I've liked him from the beginning of the season. I'm worried that Beasley might be a bit undersized, and it will go overlooked because he's outproduced Durant in the same conference. But truthfully I'd love for the Heat to have either.

[BigSlam]

People are putting too much stock into the tourney.

Memphis was a much better team than K-State. Memphis goes farther so people start riding the Rose train. If Memphis had got knocked out in the 1st round and K-State made the final, people would be riding the Beasley train.

Too many people get excited about the Tourney and forget about the MONSTER season Beasley had.

Also, don't forget that Rose didn't exist for all but about 7 mins of the big game. Sure, those 7 mins were pretty special, but he was looking pretty shaky that 1st half and for a lot of the 2nd and OT.

[Malinhion]

The whole season is definitely to be taken into account. But I think the tourney serves as a level playing field to pick out players who perform best after playing a whole season with their team.

[_BBIB_]

The above list is extremely flawed for this arguement. That is not a list of the best player in the tourney, it is a list of the guy who had the best game in the finals and happened to be on the winning team. Pretty big difference.

Tourney History

Individual records - single Tournament

(Three-Game Minimum)

Most Points

* 184, Glen Rice, Michigan, 1989 (6 games)
* 177, Bill Bradley, Princeton, 1965 (5)
* 167, Elvin Hayes, Houston, 1968 (5)
* 163, Danny Manning, Kansas, 1988 (6)

Highest Scoring Average

* 52.7 (158 points in 3 games), Austin Carr, Notre Dame, 1970
* 41.7 (125 in 3), Austin Carr, Notre Dame, 1971
* 35.8 (143 in 4), Jerry Chambers, Utah, 1966
* 35.8 (143 in 4), Bo Kimble, Loyola Marymount, 1990
* 35.4 (177 in 5), Bill Bradley, Princeton, 1965
* 35.3 (141 in 4), Clyde Lovellette, Kansas, 1952
* 35.0 (140 in 4), Gail Goodrich, UCLA, 1965
* 35.0 (105 in 3), Jerry West, West Virginia, 1960
* 34.8 (139 in 4), Bob Houbregs, Washington, 1953
* 33.4 (167 in 5), Elvin Hayes, Houston, 1968

Most Field Goals

* 75, Glen Rice, Michigan, 1989 (6 games)
* 70, Elvin Hayes, Houston, 1968 (5)
* 69, Danny Manning, Kansas, 1988 (6)
* 68, Austin Carr, Notre Dame, 1970 (3)
* 66, Johnny Dawkins, Duke, 1986 (6)
* 65, Bill Bradley, Princeton, 1965 (5)

Most Field-Goal Attempts

* 138, Jim McDaniels, Western Kentucky, 1971 (5 games)
* 137, Elvin Hayes, Houston, 1968 (5)
* 131, Glen Rice, Michigan, 1989 (6)
* 125, Danny Manning, Kansas, 1988 (6)
* 124, Lennie Rosenbluth, North Carolina, 1957 (5)
* 121, Ernie DiGregorio, Providence, 1973 (5)
* 121, Bo Kimble, Loyola Marymount, 1990 (4)

Highest Field-Goal Percentage (Min. 5 FGM per Game)

* 78.8% (26-33), Christian Laettner, Duke, 1989 (5 games)
* 78.6% (22-28), Heyward Dotson, Columbia, 1968 (3)
* 78.3% (18-23), Winston Bennett, Kentucky, 1988 (3)
* 78.0% (32-41), Kevin Gamble, Iowa, 1987 (4)
* 77.1% (27-35), Mark Dressler, Missouri, 1980 (3)
* 76.9% (20-26), Robert Werdann, St. John's, 1991 (4)
* 76.9% (20-26), Shavlik Randolph, Duke, 2004 (5)
* 76.5% (26-34), Alex Gilbert, Indiana State, 1979 (5)
* 76.3% (29-38), Kelvin Johnson, Richmond, 1984 (3)
* 76.3% (45-59), Bill Walton, UCLA, 1973 (4)

Most 3-Point Field Goals

* 27, Glen Rice, Michigan, 1989 (6 games)
* 26, Freddie Banks, UNLV, 1987 (5)
* 24, Dennis Scott, Georgia Tech, 1990 (5)
* 23, Jeff Fryer, Loyola Marymount, 1990 (4)
* 23, Jason Williams, Duke, 2001 (6)
* 23, Luther Head, Illinois, 2005 (6)

Most 3-Point Field-Goal Attempts

* 66, Jason Williams, Duke, 2001 (6 games)
* 65, Freddie Banks, UNLV, 1987 (5)
* 58, Luther Head, Illinois, 2005 (6)
* 55, Jeff Fryer, Loyola Marymount, 1990 (4)
* 54, Dennis Scott, Georgia Tech, 1990 (5)

Highest 3-Point Field-Goal Percentage (Min. 1.5 3FGM per Game)

* 100% (6-6), Ranzino Smith, North Carolina, 1987 (4 games)
* 85.7% (6-7), Mike Chappell, Duke, 1998 (4)
* 80.0% (8-10), John Crotty, Virginia, 1989 (4)
* 77.8% (7-9), Corey Williams, Oklahoma State, 1992 (3)
* 72.7% (8-11), A.J. Granger, Michigan St., 1999 (5)
* 71.4% (5-7), Ben Caton, Utah, 1996 (3)
* 70.6% (12-17), Sam Cassell, Florida State, 1993 (4)

Most Free Throws Made

* 55, Bob Carney, Bradley, 1954 (5 games)
* 49, Don Schlundt, Indiana, 1953 (4)
* 49, Christian Leattner, Duke, 1991 (6)
* 47, Bill Bradley, Princeton, 1965 (5)
* 46, Jerry West, West Virginia, 1959 (5)

Most Free-Throw Attempts

* 71, Jerry West, West Virginia, 1959 (5 games)
* 70, Bob Carney, Bradley, 1954 (5)
* 63, Don Schlundt, Indiana, 1953 (4)
* 62, Len Chappell, Wake Forest, 1962 (5)
* 62, Wilt Chamberlain, Kansas, 1957 (4)

Most Free Throws Without a Miss

* 35-35, Arthur Lee, Stanford, 1998 (5 games)
* 23-23, Richard Morgan, Virginia, 1989 (4 games)
* 21-21, Keith Van Horn, Utah, 1997 (4)
* 20-20, Shammond Williams, North Carolina, 1998 (5)
* 19-19, Derrick McKey, Alabama, 1987 (3)

Most Rebounds

* 97, Elvin Hayes, Houston, 1968 (5 games)
* 93, Artis Gilmore, Jacksonville, 1970 (5)
* 91, Elgin Baylor, Seattle, 1958 (5)
* 90, Sam Lacey, New Mexico State, 1970 (5)
* 89, Clarence Glover, Western Kentucky, 1971 (5)
* 86, Len Chappell, Wake Forest, 1962 (5)

Highest Rebound Average (Min. 3 games)

* 23.3(70 rebounds in 3 games), Nate Thurmond, Bowling Green, 1963
* 21.7(65 in 3), Howard Jolliff, Ohio, 1960
* 19.4(97 in 5), Elvin Hayes, Houston, 1968
* 19.3(77 in 4), John Green, Michigan State, 1957
* 19.0(57 in 3), Paul Silas, Creighton, 1964

Most Assists

* 61, Mark Wade, UNLV, 1987 (5 games)
* 56, Rumeal Robinson, Michigan, 1989 (6)
* 51, T.J. Ford, Texas, 2003 (5)
* 50, Deron Williams, Illinois, 2005 (6)
* 49, Sherman Douglas, Syracuse, 1987 (6)

Most Blocked Shots

* 24, Loren Woods, Arizona, 2001 (6 games)
* 23, David Robinson, Navy, 1986 (4)
* 21, Marcus Camby, Massachusetts, 1996 (5)
* 21, Ken Johnson, Ohio State, 1999 (5)
* 20, Tim Perry, Temple, 1988 (4)

Most Steals

* 23, Mookie Blaylock, Oklahoma, 1988 (6 games)
* 19, Edgar Padilla, Massachusetts, 1996 (5)
* 19, Mike Kelley, Wisconsin, 2000 (5)



Again are most of these guys world beaters?

[BigSlam]

The whole season is definitely to be taken into account. But I think the tourney serves as a level playing field to pick out players who perform best after playing a whole season with their team.

How is it a level playing field? Obviously some teams are better than others. Some teams have move talent than others.

Put a quality - or even good - PG on K-State with Beasley and who knows what would have happened.

Imagine Beasley on the Texas team for example with guys who know how to move the ball and themselves and a pass 1st pg.

The tourney is far from a level playing field. If anything, the tourney allows the rich to get richer.

[Paydro70]

-= original quote snipped =-
Younger guys (especially freshmen) need the time to adapt to their teammates and coaching style. A guy who plays better later in the season is probably more coachable than a guy who shows no improvement. It shows the ability to adapt to a system. Think of Rose, who had to come in and share the ball with a bunch of guys who were already NBA prospects. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Rose had some "off nights" when other players were just going off? I realize Rose has been less consistent, but he has a much more dynamic situation to meld into.

Your point about adapting to the schedule is an interesting one... I'm skeptical that it's a major effect, and after all Rose played quite well against UConn and some other early teams, interspersed with the bad ones. So it's not a dealbreaker, though it could explain a little bit of early-season inconsistency.

I do not buy the "other guys going off" argument, because he still took his fair share of shots in a number of these bad games. Oklahoma, 4-12, Rice 2-8, Houston 3-11, UAB 2-13, second UAB 2-8, Tulane 2-8... those last two games were in March, as well.

You've admitting his man defense was good despite his lackluster defensive statistics, and then pretend that posting 21-6-6 on 52% is merely pedestrian in terms of offensive production. What more do you want from the kid!? He plays on a team of prospects!

When did he go 21-6-6? Texas was 21-6-9, and it was easily his best game of the tournament... I never said that was pedestrian, in fact I called it superlative.

What I did say was that his offense in the tournament as a whole was inconsistent, which it was. He had off nights against Kansas and Miss St., and UT-Arlington was one of the worst opponents they faced all year. So we have three excellent performances and two mediocre ones against legit tourney teams... which to me isn't so amazing as to bump him over Beasley.

I think I only prefer Rose since I've liked him from the beginning of the season. I'm worried that Beasley might be a bit undersized, and it will go overlooked because he's outproduced Durant in the same conference. But truthfully I'd love for the Heat to have either.

I didn't like Rose from the beginning, because he had a major turnover problem and didn't get many assists. But he certainly improved over the course of the season, and by the time of the tourney was a clear-cut #2. I too would love to see him on the Bobcats, just slightly less than Beasley.

[cmd1985]

I wouldn't call Miss St. a mediocre game sure he was 6-14 from the field thats about 43% But he had 7 assist and 1TO. To go along with 9 boards.
17-7-9 is not mediocre, thats almost a triple double.

And I wouldn't call the NC mediocre sure he could've iced the game or taken over from the start but he had his team in position to win and he had 18/8 ast. For a freshman in the biggest game of his young life sure I would've like to have seen more but you my friend are nitpicking.

And I hope Beasley nor Rose go to basketball exile in Charlotte.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see why this is hard to understand.

1) Rose wasn't the #2 prospect coming into the tournament because he was the second best player in college basketball. He was #2 because of how people projected him out to be. The "bad games" he had were already factored in before the tournament.

2) The "only 6 games" argument is just weird. This isn't a guy who was considered a 2nd rounder before the tournament being touted at #1 now. He was #2 overall. Saying 30>6 makes total sense, but 30 is not so much greater than 6 that you should expect no movement at all, and allowing any movement at all would give the #2 guy a chance to pass up #1.

Doesn't mean Rose "has" to go #1, but if Beasley goes #1 it's not simply because he had the better regular season.

[Paydro70]

Again, cmd, I said his OFFENSE was mediocre... <.430 shooting and 4-9 from the line doesn't excite me. I think you give his offensive game too much credit in the NC as well. He struggled for the first 30 minutes, committed five turnovers, and probably should have finished 6-17 had that ridiculous prayer shot not banked in.

You're right that I'm nitpicking, in the sense that I love Rose as a prospect, and again, would love to have him here in "basketball exile" in Charlotte (thanks by the way, nothing beats civility!).

DoctorMJ:
1) Not sure why you put the "bad games" in quotes, he had plenty of them, like most players. I don't think anyone claimed he was the second-best player in basketball... but I think having 10+ out of 30 bad games should at least give some pause about some aspects of his game. Which leads me to:

2) The point is how big the gap was between #2 and #1. I didn't think they were close AT ALL going into the tournament; I saw Beasley as a potential franchise player, ala Durant, and Rose as an interesting physical prospect who had only recently started to show he could play point guard effectively. I could have seen someone taking Rose #1 if they really didn't need Beasley (like the Knicks, perhaps), but nobody with a choice should have taken Rose. Watching the tournament, particularly those 3 great games (MSU/UT/UCLA) does count for something... but they should only raise his stock a little in my opinion.

[cmd1985]

Ok Paydro but I also think you are underestimating his passing ability and his ability to break down a defense and dish. His scoring is not the most sought after part of his game. If you are looking at him only as scorer than you're looking at the wrong guy he is not a 2, he most definitely is a 1.

And you can say he should've been 6-17 but you could also say Kansas shouldn't have an NC if Mario Chalmers didn't hit a 30ft prayer.

[Malinhion]

Yeah. cmd is making some good points. You need to look at Rose as a 1, which is when his dynamic play becomes so impressive, in my opinion. The FG% will change over time. Rarely does a player's NCAA percentage translate. Their ability to make contact (which Rose has) and create an open shot (ditto) will raise their FG% at the next level. Chris Paul shot .456 in two years at Wake Forest. You look at Rose's turnover problems in the final game, and early in the season. But a lot of those come on penetration, not bad passes. The only time Rose would make a bad pass were in situations like the final, where he drove and then picked up his dribble with no shot.

2) The point is how big the gap was between #2 and #1. I didn't think they were close AT ALL going into the tournament; I saw Beasley as a potential franchise player, ala Durant, and Rose as an interesting physical prospect who had only recently started to show he could play point guard effectively. I could have seen someone taking Rose #1 if they really didn't need Beasley (like the Knicks, perhaps), but nobody with a choice should have taken Rose. Watching the tournament, particularly those 3 great games (MSU/UT/UCLA) does count for something... but they should only raise his stock a little in my opinion.

I didn't think it was quite so big, because I realize the impact that point guard play can have on a team with the current rules. Look at Detroit, New Orleans, San Antonio, Dallas, Utah, Phoenix. It seems like these teams have good players at every position, and a big reason for that is the point guard play.

I think you're not just looking at how they played through the season, though. Arguably Kevin Love had a better season than Rose as well. But he doesn't have the size to run with the big boys. Beasley's measurements might make a big difference. If he's only 6'9", won't those godlike talents hit a glass ceiling around Carlos Boozer or Elton Brand? No doubt those are fantastic players, perhaps worthy of the max deal. But are they franchise players for a championship? I don't really see that.

[Doctor MJ]

DoctorMJ:
1) Not sure why you put the "bad games" in quotes, he had plenty of them, like most players. I don't think anyone claimed he was the second-best player in basketball... but I think having 10+ out of 30 bad games should at least give some pause about some aspects of his game. Which leads me to:

2) The point is how big the gap was between #2 and #1. I didn't think they were close AT ALL going into the tournament; I saw Beasley as a potential franchise player, ala Durant, and Rose as an interesting physical prospect who had only recently started to show he could play point guard effectively. I could have seen someone taking Rose #1 if they really didn't need Beasley (like the Knicks, perhaps), but nobody with a choice should have taken Rose. Watching the tournament, particularly those 3 great games (MSU/UT/UCLA) does count for something... but they should only raise his stock a little in my opinion.

1) Honestly not sure why I put "bad games" in parentheses either. It was not my point to argue he had no bad games.

2) That's fine that you saw the gap as very large. I'm sure any scout that saw the gap as large as you did isn't swayed either. My point is just that 6 games of the utmost importance are easily enough to jumble things around in a particular neighborhood of draft picks. If you aren't swayed to move up a guy one spot, it probably says more about how you perceive the two players in general than it does about you ignoring the tournament.

[Flyboy]

I really think it depends on who ends up with the #1 pick.

[UGA Hayes]

People are putting too much stock into the tourney.

Memphis was a much better team than K-State. Memphis goes farther so people start riding the Rose train. If Memphis had got knocked out in the 1st round and K-State made the final, people would be riding the Beasley train.

Too many people get excited about the Tourney and forget about the MONSTER season Beasley had.

Also, don't forget that Rose didn't exist for all but about 7 mins of the big game. Sure, those 7 mins were pretty special, but he was looking pretty shaky that 1st half and for a lot of the 2nd and OT.

Maybe if Rose had played different teams in the tourny, but Rose played 4-5 of the top PG prospects on the college level. He play consecutively Jamont Gordon, Drew Neitzel, DJ Augustine, Darren Collison, and Chalmers/Robinson/Collins, destroyed them and did so with a nonstop displ;ay of NBA caliber moves. I'm even more impressed b/c college defenses are specifically designed to stop the Rose's and Wade's of the world in a way the Pros aren't allowed to do. Give Rose NBA spacing and watch out.

[Paydro70]

He didn't "destroy" Gordon or Chalmers/Robinson/Collins, especially not with a "nonstop display." Gordon traded blows with him, and ended up scoring more points on (very slightly) better shooting, and even out-rebounding him. In the title game Rose was held down for 30 minutes, plus turned the ball over 5 times and shot badly from the field.

He sure destroyed the other three, and that was very impressive, though Neitzel should not be confused with an NBA point guard. Just don't overstate it.

[BubbaTee]

He didn't "destroy" Gordon or Chalmers/Robinson/Collins, especially not with a "nonstop display." Gordon traded blows with him, and ended up scoring more points on (very slightly) better shooting, and even out-rebounding him. In the title game Rose was held down for 30 minutes, plus turned the ball over 5 times and shot badly from the field.

He sure destroyed the other three, and that was very impressive, though Neitzel should not be confused with an NBA point guard. Just don't overstate it.

Agree.

Rose against MSU, Texas, UCLA, and during the season Tennessee showed he could physically dominate smaller guards.

Guards similarly sized to Rose who could muscle him back some were able to hold their own against him, like Gordon and the Kansas guards as well as guys like Lester Hudson, AJ Price, Jeremy Pargo, and OJ Mayo earlier in the year.

[cmd1985]

Guards similarly sized to Rose who could muscle him back some were able to hold their own against him, like Gordon and the Kansas guards as well as guys like Lester Hudson, AJ Price, Jeremy Pargo, and OJ Mayo earlier in the year.

Ok against UT-Martin his first college game he had 17-6-5 and was very impressive

Against Pargo he almost had a triple double

Against AJ Price he had 24pts in December

He and OJ both had horrendous showings in what was supposed to be a spectacle.

Against Gordon he got the win he had 17, 9 boards and 7 assist how is that being held?

[BubbaTee]

I didn't say they held Rose down, I said they were able to hold their own - ie, they were able to mostly match him. I thought a major part of Rose's tourney wasn't just that he got to any spot on the floor at will against Collison or Augustin or Neitzel, but that he dominated them defensively.

By "hold their own" I meant that Rose didn't dominate those stronger guards defensively the way he did those smaller guards. They were able to hold their own offensively:

- Hudson, 6-3, 190: 12/25, 35 pts
- Price, 6-2, 180: 8/14, 23 pts
- Pargo, 6-2, 220: 9/16, 25 pts
- Gordon, 6-4, 230: 7/16, 21 pts

[cmd1985]

Well FYI Rose didn't primarily guard Collison, Neitzel, Gordon, Hudson or Pargo if you watched the games Antonio Anderson held those guys for the most part defensively. Rose did guard Price and Augustin while Anderson chased Abrams.