Prove to me Derrick Rose is Good.

[J~Rush]

explain that stat

Your signature is way too big.

[jax98]

They didn't suck. Seriously, I can't understand those Bulls fans who are claiming that. Deng had +7.8 Net+/- and +7.4 APM last season. The support in Noah, Deng and Hinrich (even Gibson) wasn't the problem. The players from the bench were the problem of the Bulls. Their lack of depth, the inability to compensate for injuries gave the Bulls the 41-41 record. In games in which they started Rose, Hinrich, Deng and Noah they won 68% of their games. That team could have won 50+ games, if all those players would have been available for all games. The Thunder for example were incredible healthy. How much that contributes to a better regular season record was seen by their 50 wins last season.

I said supporting cast and not just Luol Deng.

Luol in his own right is a good player. But he cannot create for himself, and so the Bulls lacked a secondary creator. Hinrich isn't, because he can't be efficient offensively or play well off the ball. His stroke is decent, but that's about it.

Noah, while awesome, isn't an offensive side-kick. So he did what he was supposed to. Finish high-percentage plays and score through put-backs.

The Bulls' supporting cast included Jannero Pargo (.429 TS%), Flip Murray (.487 TS%), John Salmons (12.7 PER in Chicago), James Johnson (10.4 PER and 20.5% TOV%) and defensive players who didn't contribute offensively. Hell, even Brad Miller only posted a PER of 12.9.

So no. The supporting cast did suck.

[XBebop]

From: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=955833&start=615

Rose's season tallies (78 games):

20.8 ppg (48.9 FG%)
6.0 apg
3.7 rpg
4.3 FTA
53.2 TS%
19.0 PER


Rose's stats once healthy (last 54 games):

22.7 ppg (50.6 FG%)
6.2 apg
4.1 rpg
4.8 FTA
55.0 TS%
21.0 PER


Rose's stats after the All-Star break, Orlando games included (last 27 games):

22.9 ppg (52.4 FG%)
6.5 apg
3.9 rpg
5.1 FTA
57.3 TS%
22.0 PER

[mysticbb]

Removed.

[Clangus]

Kevin Durant had a bad +/- the season before last, everyone who actually watched those games knew it wasn't because he was a bad player. He just had no backup.

That doesn't make much sense, because "having no backup" should have given him better +/- numbers. With a better backup the team can keep the level of play, with a worse backup the performance level of the team is decreasing. That also depends on how well a player fits into the system. Sometimes a good player has just not the skillset to complement the rest of the players. Thus his +/- values will be rather bad. The opposite is seen for average or worse than average players who just have the right skillset. A prime example was always Jason Collins on the Nets, who had several years with really, really good +/- numbers, just because he was the perfect fit next to the other 4 players.

Durant's abilities just didn't fit the system of the Thunder before. He also made a couple of rookie/sophomore mistakes and was used as a SG, which is a bad idea in terms of defense. That explains his really bad +/- numbers.

But those examples show that relying exclusive on one particular stats set can easily be misleading. If you want to judge a player by stats, use the whole available data and try to get a coherent conclusion.

Sorry my bad. I meant that the team had no decent ball handler - hence KD had to do it. They had no deent rebounders hence KD had to try and do that.

What I meant was the team was trash and KD spent alot of his time playing V the teams best players and because of the crappiness of his fellow starters they were ****.

Moot point anyway - what I was getting at was that KD was a good player - and teh +/- made him look like a poor one.

[jax98]

But that has nothing to do with the +/- numbers. In fact with Rose and Deng on the court at the same time the Bulls were +1.1 per 48 minutes (in around 2245 minutes), when either of them were not on the court, the Bulls were -5.1 per 48 minutes.

So? You do understand games in which you blow out someone, or someone blows you out, goes into this calculations right? The Bulls had games where either player played without one another, and the team suffered. I can pin it down like this: If the Bulls missed just one of Deng, Rose or Noah - It was a hard night. Seeing as Deng himself missed 12 games, and Noah missed 18, it's obvious that Derrick had a poor +/- as opposed to Deng, who usually got a chance to play alongside Derrick when he was healthy.

Often times, the best player is the one hit by the +/- stat, which is why I think it's garbage. Because the best player holds more responsibility than the rest, and therefore his stats are more often negatively affected if his supporting cast goes down. If it's the other way around, the supporting leach off good +/- stats off of that star player.

Seriously. +/- is horrible. I'm not saying this because we're talking about Rose. I'm saying it because it doesn't hold water. I was appalled at the Kevin Durant hate on RGM last season because of his +/- numbers. If people watched the games, it was obvious that Durant was a help to his team as opposed to not a helping factor. It was ridiculous.

Deng's and Rose game complement each other

Eh. Deng isn't a strong 3-point shooter nor a great athlete. He moves without the ball, but relies a lot on the mid-range jumper which is also the area in which Rose works. They do work together, but they don't fit well together.

that is the reason the Bulls played way better with both on court the court.

Or it's because it's the two best offensive players on the Bulls in that time and both carried with them a huge responsibility. If those two didn't score, the Bulls would be blown out. Hard.

Example:

Bulls finished 41-41 - But they were outscored by 1.6 points a game over the course of the season. That has a huge factor to your team's highest minute players.

Thus your previous explanation for Rose' not so good +/- numbers is wrong.

Not really. You just didn't accept it, because you're a believer in one of the most overused and flawed stats the league has come up with in recent memory. That aside, and even if we buy into the +/- stat, the fact is the supporting cast (or lack thereof) should be blamed for it. There is always five players on the floor, and not two. When three of them can't make a shot, you're limited offensively.

Hinrich and Deng had positive +/- numbers with Rose. Why shouldn't they have? Rose carried them. When Rose sat and the two had positive +/- numbers, it was due to matching up with opposing benches.

So again. +/- proves nothing. It ignores extremely large parts of the game.

Deng had nothing to do with that. A similar thing can be said about Rose playing together with Hinrich and Deng. In 1302 minutes they were +1.2 per 48 minutes, while the Bulls were -3.0 per 48 minutes with either of those 3 not on the court. Again, the idea that Hinrich or Deng were responsible for the "bad" numbers is wrong.

And yet, it isn't. Your argument is this:

With your three of your four best players on the floor together, you were better than with them on the bench.

Well, naturally. My point all along is that those players have in general hurt Rose. You look at these pairings together, and the team obviously has a plus rating. But I'm talking about them bringing his overall +/- stats down. Not the stats in which they play alongside each other. Hinrich goes down = Rose suffers. Deng goes down = Rose suffers. Noah goes down = same story. When Hinrich has taken over PG with Rose sitting, the team has been worse off every time. Even if the +/- differs on that (which I actually suspect it will), it was clear as daylight.

Another gem which is often ignored when discussing this horrible stat is second units. Chicago didn't have too bright game-time management. They wouldn't always match up bench with bench, instead of giving their bench players some leeway and try to take advantage of their opponents, if an advantage could be found.

You also see the minute breakdown for Joakim Noah, BTW. He was injured, and then came back REAL slow in terms of minutes. So overall, he played just a bit more than 30 minutes per over 64 games. That left us with Brad Miller and Taj Gibson playing against starters. You don't think that hurt Rose?

The player with the highest minute rate is often the player who goes through everything. Meaning this player is in the middle of scoring droughts, blow-outs, etc. He's not a situational player, but someone who is playing a crapload of minutes regardless of score.

Thus, if you have a weak supporting cast, your numbers suffer.

Well, but as I said before, the op has his numbers wrong, because he used the stats for the playoffs only. The sample size is really, really small in that case, especially when we take into account that Rose played 42 minutes per game in the playoffs.

You could use 1,000 games and I still wouldn't care one way or another about his +/- to be honest. That's not a knock on you, but the stat. I feel it's one of the most overrated measurements we've ever seen, and it's consistently flawed given the amount of game situations it completely ignores.

[mysticbb]

Removed.

[DanielBoone]

cause he dunks good and Chicago homers tell me he is 1024284258230582052035820851023 times per day on RealGM

[jax98]

You said that for example Luol Deng was a reason for Rose' "bad" +/- numbers, while in fact that isn't true.

Reading is fundamental:

When your best offensive option aside from Derrick Rose is Luol Deng (fine player, but can't create for himself), you're going to have minus stats more often than not.

Basically I said the supporting cast sucked. Not that Luol did. That's why I said Luol is a good player, but I hinted that after him, there's a huge drop-off offensively. The best offensive player after Deng was Kirk freaking Hinrich. So by saying your second-best offensive option is Deng you're in trouble, I mean Deng isn't a second-option kind of guy. He's at best a third option.

The REALITY showed the complete opposite. Let alone that Rose had a +4.0 Net+/- according basketballvalue.com and a +5.2 Net+/- according to 82games.com. Thus Rose' +/- aren't bad at all, in fact they are way better than average. Do you even care whether the op has the right numbers or did you just want to make a long meaningless post?

Considering the OP used +/- stats (which are always flawed, positive or not), I obviously made a point in trying to paint a picture of the Bulls situation in which Derrick was forced to do everything by himself from an offensive standpoint. That always hurt players statistically. Durant last year with the +/- numbers. Kobe before that, etc.

But I see now this was never a dicsussion about Derrick Rose, but about your precious little +/- argument. So from your end, yes it was a long meaningless post, whereas in reality it painted a perfect picture of the Bulls and their shortcomings, and how it affected the overall perception of Derrick Rose.

Anyway, Deng complements Rose, because Deng is one of the best players off the ball. Whether he has a 3pt shot or not doesn't matter in that case.

And this is just painfully wrong. Deng operates from 20 feet and in. The same area occupied by Derrick Rose. By being able to drain the long ball, Rose and the Bulls would gain better spacing to operate with. Players can cheat off of Deng easier at 20 feet and in, than they could with him shooting the long ball.

A player who doesn't need the ball in his hand to have an effect is a great complement player.

I don't entirely disagree, but we're talking about fit here. Deng, while having solid tools, is not someone who is a good fit with Rose. They can work together, but a SF with range and/or more athleticism would by far be prefered. Deng isn't always quick enough to follow Rose on fast breaks, not can he be a zone buster when teams go 2-3 to avoid Derrick driving.

Also Deng's defensive abilities are covering up Rose' weaknesses on that end of the floor. A similar thing can be said about Hinrich. And the numbers are proving this.

Never said otherwise.

It seems like your whole opinion on +/- is based on your lack of understanding stats, specifically +/- stats and their interpretation. You are making a long rant about a stats without even looking at the real results. You just assumed the op is somewhat right, but the op is wrong. He used only playoffs numbers, nothing more. Rose' regular season numbers (bigger sample) are fine.

To be fair, I didn't care one way or another if the OP was right or wrong. +/- sucks and you have yet to make a true rebuttal to my claim that +/- ignores big aspects of the actual game. Instead you attack my understanding of the stat, which proves to me you either have no rebuttal, or that you are the one not fully understanding how they work.

And someone who is using such a stats isn't per se a believer, he might just understand the limitations of a stats while still acknowledge the conclusions which can be gained by using stats.

Granted. But that person sure as hell doesn't sound like you.

[Googjob]

All I know is that the Bulls didn't win a single game that Rose missed last season. He was also hobbled by a bad ankle early in the season but really turned it on in the 2nd half.

His biggest problem right now is that he's an atrocious defender.

[mysticbb]

Removed

[jax98]

But that NEVER was my point! Do you even get this? I said already that my point was your claim players like Deng or Hinrich were responsible for the "bad" numbers is wrong. That is wrong and that will not change, no matter how many words you want write about other things I didn't care about in this thread.

Deng + Hinrich + Rose had a positive rating. Yet, those two hintered him tremendously compared to the weapons he'll have present this season. Derrick was forced to play with two players who had more responsibility than they should have had.

Derrick would have had greater numbers if he had a better supporting cast. You're saying the supporting cast he had was fine. Which in no way is accurate, nor acceptable. It's flat-out wrong. They hurt his numbers across the board. The +/- was unstable all throughout due to injuries and players getting back to form, etc.

Not quite sure how your mind is working, but not agreeing with you about that, doesn't mean I think Derrick Rose is a bad player. In fact he is a fantastic player and I'm a huge fan of his game. There is seriously no need to defend Rose here.

I know this. You've stated it. My point is that his supporting cast DID hurt him. You say otherwise and point to garbage +/- numbers which have been manipulated by:

- Injuries
- Blow-outs
- Minute distribution

Which makes it all inaccurate. Noah (the second best player on the team) missed 18 games, and Deng (the third best player) missed 12. Based on those two injuries, +/- should be completely removed in any conversation that regards Derrick Rose. Because it simply isn't a proper way to view a situation in at all.

Yeah, you answered to something which was never disputed by me. In the end you are talking to yourself or something a long the line. And you opened your post with "reading is fundamental"?

Considering you have yet to understand my point, and continue to argue that the Deng + Hinrich didn't hurt Derrick's numbers, I'd say yes. I did open my post with 'reading is fundamental' and that seems to be a recurring theme when debating with you.

Lol, you are not even getting the point. Obviously even a small minded human being can understand that Deng with a 3pt shot is better than Deng without, but that doesn't take away the fact that Deng even without 3 pt shot is a great complementary player. He is working off the ball very well (yeah, ask Tom Thibodeau about that point, maybe you can learn something) and has great fundamentals on defense. When a point guard like Rose is on the team who can do so much with the ball in his hand, you want to have players like Deng complement him.

You're just repeating yourself now. Yet, you fail to understand that without said three-point shot (or added athleticism) Deng is not a good fit next to Rose. They can work together, but their effectiveness is limited, due to them operating in the same space. I know fully well the value of having a player who is a good defender and works off the ball. I did watch a certain player named Michael Jordan for many years, who mastered both. But that doesn't describe Deng's offense. Which is what we're talking about. We didn't talk about his defense (which definitely is excellent), but rather the lack of help he provides offensively due to his severe lack of:

- Self-creativeness
- Long ball
- Athleticism

So while your argument is he complements Rose, there are strong evidence to the contrary. At least offensively. Defensively, I agree.

Yes, I talked about fit. And your answer was about what would be a better fit. Then you write a paragraph basically saying that Deng with a 3pt shot would be a better fit. Yeah, for sure, I NEVER said something different. Again, keep your own statement in mind "reading is fundamental".

But you still implied (and actually said) Deng makes a good fit. He doesn't. Try watching the Bulls for an extended period of time, and you'll notice how often Deng gets in the way. With Boozer and Thibodeau in town now, this will all change fortunately.

Well, I noticed that already. You don't care what others said, you just care about what you can write. Maybe you should read first and answer to what was written and not write long posts about something else.

Way to go in snipping a post and using its meaning as something I didn't write while manipulating my words to raise your own point. I said I didn't care if they were accurate or not. Simply because I don't care about the perception of +/- stats. I care about the perception of players, and by using +/- as a tool to do this, I fail to see how anyone can collect a legitimate view of said player.

[mysticbb]

Removed

[Jimmy76]

Rose's adjusted +/- will soar next year

its a third year thing typically I dont really have any idea why though

[FinNasty]

He really needs to get more assists and get better at running the offense...

6 assists per game isnt cutting it...

[THROWBACK_91]

21/4/6 on 49% shooting on a playoff team. Made the allstar team and it was only his second season in the league. If that doesn't show he's good, than there must be only 10 good players in the NBA.

No matter how deep your wacky stats are the basic stats dont lie.

[Googjob]

He really needs to get more assists and get better at running the offense...

6 assists per game isnt cutting it...

I bet they go up by 2 this year. He had no one who could shoot last season and no one in the paint to dish to.

[Paxson]

OP, that is a very cocky question "Prove to me...." You are only a Sophomore on this board.

Stop focusing on stats and watch him play.

[FinNasty]

He really needs to get more assists and get better at running the offense...

6 assists per game isnt cutting it...

I bet they go up by 2 this year. He had no one who could shoot last season and no one in the paint to dish to.

That would be a big jump. But he needs to make a big jump, b/c he has been disappointing in that regard.

Hes basically been a SG play PG...

[jax98]

That remains to be seen. And I take Deng+Hinrich next to Rose over Deng+Brewer next to Rose.

Which puts a serious questionmark next to your talent-evaluation then. Hinrich has been sub-14 PER the last three years (11.6 last season). Brewer is a career 15.8 PER guy, while being larger, taller, more athletic, younger and scores at an equal rate on better efficiency.

Granted, he doesn't shoot well. But while this presents a huge problem, it's a lot better than Kirk in terms of overall stability and in the physical department where the Bulls have lacked height for a while.

The Bulls right now lack ball handling and passing on their 1st unit, neither Brewer nor Deng can create for others or for themselves on the perimeter. Hinrich can do that, even though a lot of Bulls fans aren't appreciate what Hinrich can do, they are mostly focussing on what he couldn't do.

Brewer has decent handles. He would slide to the point in college, and actually did well in Utah when needed. He's not the same level ball-handler as Hinrich, but seeing as he's more active than 24-second-Kirk, I would take my chances with it. Besides, with Boozer in town, the need for ball-handling in Chicago isn't as severe as before. He'll get his share of isolation plays.

You mentioned 3 players, Noah, Deng and Hinrich, and my response was that they don't suck. And I stand by that, those 3 players don't suck. Now you were more specific later, but I already said in my first response to your post that one of the biggest problems was the lack of depth, the inability to compensate for injuries. My question would be: Did you read my whole post or did you just wanted to rant about +/- stats?

1. I've never said Noah or Deng sucked. So stop putting words in my mouth. I've said the offense from the supporting cast sucked. And I'm right. Noah scored 10.7 points a night. Kirk 10.9.

2. I did read your entire post, but you keep harping on the fact that Kirk and Deng fit Rose, which isn't correct. You have yet to fully back it up with numbers, factors, evidence, etc.

3. The rant about +/- is just added bonus

As I said you should keep that in mind for yourself. You wrote a lot of paragraphs which weren't connected to the points I made.

Likewise.

That whole dicussion made no sense to me, because I NEVER wanted to discuss those things with you in the first place. Read my first answer to your first post and try to explain me how you were able to end up with the rest of your posts in this thread. How fit that together?

And yet, you replied to me the very first time. Funny how that goes. But to answer your question, then I used analysis to discuss the lack of proper involvement from Derrick's supporting cast, while you wanted me to debate a stat I didn't care for (+/-). So why should I hop onto your trail and discuss a meaningless stat?

I will say that again, Deng is a good fit and that is the reason they played well together. We might just want to agree to disagree in this point. But I'm sure the next season will prove my point again.

Next season Deng will have a three. Which will prove him to be more effective, and thus, prove my point. Thibodeau has already made a plan of letting Deng shoot the corner three much more.

They are not working in the same space.

Really?





That seems to scream the opposite to me.

While Rose is working on the strong side, Deng is working on the weak side. When Rose has the ball Deng will not be the player closest to him.

This was the plan, sure. But how did it turn out? Not well. Deng was almost always within 15 feet of Rose because he didn't step outside the three-point line. The play between them that worked best was Rose on the right baseline, with Deng getting an off-ball screen from Noah or Gibson, in which he rushed to the free throw line and Derrick found him. However that play did not occur more than once or twice a game. Deng had bad moving patterns with Rose, as he crowded the 15 foot area a lot.

You see on the shot chart that Deng drifted to the baseline more than Rose. However that is a very low percentage play, because it's tricky to find players on the baseline who have open looks from 15 feet and in. Even if you do break down the D first. It's far easier to recover as a defender.

Working off the ball is the thing you might ignore here. In fact you don't want Deng with the ball in his hand and creating for him or others, it is just not his strength.

Have I said that? Deng's best work comes off the ball, but when you have limited range, off-ball movement isn't as effective.

Add those things to Deng's game and the Bulls would be the favourite to win it all.

Obviously. I'm not expecting Deng gets added athleticism or develops a handle. I'm saying you need one of these three to mesh well with Rose. Deng, hopefully, will have that three this up-coming season, but so far he's 0 for 3 on that list.

No, that is not "strong evidence to the contrary" these are points for the argument "there could be an imaginary player who is a better fit than Deng". And that is something I complete agree with. Yes, give Deng those three things you mentioned and he would be a better player. But that doesn't make his current game a bad fit for Rose. In fact the Bulls coaching staff agrees with me rather than with you.

I kind of doubt it. Because Thibodeau expressed the desire to see Deng increase his range. Especially so Rose would have more room. Thus, I think the coaching staff agrees with that logic moreso, because it adds versatility.

As a Bulls fan I hate to watch Bulls games.

Then you hide it well given how poor these evaluations are.

He didn't get in the way, those were, and you might not believe it, designed plays. Deng was misused by VDN in the last two seasons, but that wasn't just because of VDN had no clue, but because the Bulls lacked the top end talent to play Deng in a role which would have been a better fit for his game and the team overall. But at the end of the day the Bulls played best when Deng was on the court.

Deng got in the way. By design or not, his movement pattern didn't help Rose much. On the break, Deng would trail Rose and defenders running back. He didn't have the necessary step to get ahead, nor did he have the quickness to do damage. He got most of his buckets through mid-range shots, which were developed by moving from base-line to base-line using screens and strong cuts. This is great in its own right, but it took away a lot of lanes from Derrick. Add just one of those three weapons I mentioned (in particular the long ball) and Deng will add a new dimension to his own game as well as give Rose more room. This should be undeniable, and you have already agreed with it. What Deng has in his offensive arsenal now, is quite simply not enough. He lacks another weapon.

Actually it seemed necessary, because you obviously talked about something which wasn't related to my posts. And yes, I repeat that again, but maybe you think about that for minute or two.

Why would I? You responded to me, and then used a poor statistical measurement to raise your point. I don't believe in said stat, so why should I be interested in talking about it?

I can't see that either, that is the reason I wrote:

But those examples show that relying exclusive on one particular stats set can easily be misleading. If you want to judge a player by stats, use the whole available data and try to get a coherent conclusion.

There is not a single number (advanced stat or not) which can describe a player's ability. That is something neither +/- based stats can do nor boxscore based stats. As I said you can get close to that by using all available data and a good interpretation. But that will still not tell you whether the player can go left or not.

Stats play a part, sure. But not this. I believe in PER, TS%, raw stats, usage rates, etc. But +/- is so unstable that it often ends up doing more harm than good. Even when paiting a positive picture of a player. I point to Eddy Curry as an example.

The man would go nuts in first quarters as a Bull. He'd often score 8-10 points, and then go to the bench in the 2nd with the Bulls up. Thus, his +/- would be positive, right? Then he'd come back in and become a non-factor for long stretches, because Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich would have things going. Now tell me this. Would Eddy Curry deserve a positive +/- rating for JUST his first-quarter heroics, and then having to be carried by three other players?

There are so many variables to the +/- stat that it's impossible to gain any kind of reliable stability from it. At least raw stats, PER, TS% and others, carry a more specific view into certain strengths and weaknesses of said player. That's why I disregard +/- logic. Because there isn't any. Just ask Durant.