Why advanced stats don't do Rose justice

[coldfish]

OK, tell me I am an idiot here.

If you look at the advanced stats on guys like Rose and Kobe, they say that both of them are overrated. We have all heard the reasons why. Low scoring efficiency being the first. However, the Kobe and Rose supporters will always just say "watch the games" and when you watch the games, Rose and Kobe look like cold blooded killers who are controlling the games and winning them.

Why the difference?

Well, the topic of free throws is a common one. Guys like Lebron, Westbrook, Wade, etc. get to the line a ton where Rose and Kobe do, but not as much and its not the centerpiece of their games. By getting to the line, you avoid having to take low percentage shots and replace them with high percentage free throws. Its pretty obvious that in general a foul drawn is better than a shot taken.

However, this is where you have to watch the games.

Rose and Kobe share a trait. They have the ability to create their own shot. With guys like Westbrook, Lebron and Wade, they basically rely on barreling into the defense and having the refs blow their whistles. All NBA fans know that late in games and in the playoffs, the refs are far less likely to do so. It becomes a different game. Basically, the biggest advantage that the "drive and flail" players have over Rose and Kobe is negated when the game is on the line.

So, bash away here, but I'm going to say that:
- Wade, Lebron, Westbrook, etc. all have games suited for the first 3.5 quarters of a regular season game.
- Kobe and Rose have games suited for the last half of the 4th and the playoffs, which is the part that really matters.

[jumpmanjay]

- Kobe and Rose have games suited for the last half of the 4th and the playoffs, which is the part that really matters.

obviously, i still think mj is the GOAT...but i will admit that kobe is the closest thing to mj that we have seen so far. that killer instinct. that insatiable desire to get better, constantly improve, and add new weapons to their arsenal.

last year and this year, we have seen rose share that same insatiable desire to improve (and win) that kobe and mj have. we have something super special here.

hollinger and skip bayless can suck it.

but yes, you are absolutely right, coldfish. you need to watch the games. im tired of people saying how westbrook is just as good as rose...i have seen the barreling you refer to, and its just sickening that they get so much love from the refs, but i will take the player suited for the 4th quarter and playoffs. the bulls have outscored their opponents by 200+ points in the 4th quarter alone this year. lets hope that type of success carries over into the playoffs.

[aaqubed]

This ignores the fact that Wade and Lebron have both shown the ability to take games over late -- see the 2007 ECF and the 2006 Finals.

I'm not convinced, either, that the refs completely swallow whistles late in games. Lebron and Wade have been able to get calls in the last 5 minutes -- their clutch stats show that. 82games had an article a few years ago about how the game changes in the clutch: http://82games.com/clutchplay3.htm seems to show that foul rates stay around the same (save for intentional fouls -- the "shooting fouls per shot" number goes from 11.3% for the season to 11.9% in the clutch).

[TheAdmiral]

So, bash away here, but I'm going to say that:
- Wade, Lebron, Westbrook, etc. all have games suited for the first 3.5 quarters of a regular season game.

You could say that for Westbrook and perhaps in some games/cases for LeBron, but mentioning Wade in this matter? He's a proven closer and doesn't (always) have to rely on getting to the line late in the game. He's shown that plenty of times the past few years, I believe. That first game against Miami this year, Wade showcased what he's capable of doing in crunch time (hitting three after three), even without getting to the line. I guess you could call that an anomaly seeing how far he was off from his normal %, but my point is that Wade doesn't get fazed by pressure and his game (in crunch time) isn't only predicated on getting to the line.

[Cliff Levingston]

OK, tell me I am an idiot here.

If you look at the advanced stats on guys like Rose and Kobe, they say that both of them are overrated. We have all heard the reasons why. Low scoring efficiency being the first. However, the Kobe and Rose supporters will always just say "watch the games" and when you watch the games, Rose and Kobe look like cold blooded killers who are controlling the games and winning them.

Why the difference?

Well, the topic of free throws is a common one. Guys like Lebron, Westbrook, Wade, etc. get to the line a ton where Rose and Kobe do, but not as much and its not the centerpiece of their games. By getting to the line, you avoid having to take low percentage shots and replace them with high percentage free throws. Its pretty obvious that in general a foul drawn is better than a shot taken.

However, this is where you have to watch the games.

Rose and Kobe share a trait. They have the ability to create their own shot. With guys like Westbrook, Lebron and Wade, they basically rely on barreling into the defense and having the refs blow their whistles. All NBA fans know that late in games and in the playoffs, the refs are far less likely to do so. It becomes a different game. Basically, the biggest advantage that the "drive and flail" players have over Rose and Kobe is negated when the game is on the line.

So, bash away here, but I'm going to say that:
- Wade, Lebron, Westbrook, etc. all have games suited for the first 3.5 quarters of a regular season game.
- Kobe and Rose have games suited for the last half of the 4th and the playoffs, which is the part that really matters.

That makes some sense. A little far out perspective though, one that Cliff Levingston wasn't expecting. Let Cliff Levingston think it over a little more before giving a more thoughtful response.

[musiqsoulchild]

Such an excellent post , Fish.

One more thing I might add: having your superstar garner defensive attention 20 feet away from the basket is much more vital than a superstar who you know will drive to the lane- defenses can just pack the lane and hope for the best.

But a star who can attract defensive attention 20-22 feet away from the basket? Watch out!

[BrooklynBulls]

There's a lot of reasons stats don't really do Rose justice. One is that we have a defensive coach with a defensive roster, another is that Rose is willing and eager to take terrible shots that the team needs him to take because he's the only competent terrible shot taker on the roster. It does not help that Rose has only recently started getting all the calls he should have been getting for 2.5 years. It does not help that we start guys like Kurt Thomas and Keith Bogans in order to keep offense on the bench because otherwise our bench offense would be epically terrible. It does not help that Rose doesn't actually care about his statistics. It doesn't help that we're one of the best boarding teams on the decade, which makes it more useful for Rose to get back on D, or leak out, than try to crash the boards. It doesn't help that he's a conservative defender.

He's better than Westbrook. By a non-marginal amount.

[musiqsoulchild]

So, bash away here, but I'm going to say that:
- Wade, Lebron, Westbrook, etc. all have games suited for the first 3.5 quarters of a regular season game.

You could say that for Westbrook and perhaps in some games/cases for LeBron, but mentioning Wade in this matter? He's a proven closer and doesn't (always) have to rely on getting to the line late in the game. He's shown that plenty of times the past few years, I believe. That first game against Miami this year, Wade showcased what he's capable of doing in crunch time (hitting three after three), even without getting to the line. I guess you could call that an anomaly seeing how far he was off from his normal %, but my point is that Wade doesn't get fazed by pressure and his game (in crunch time) isn't only predicated on getting to the line.

Admiral, I am going to try to spin this differently....if we take away all of the aforementioned players ability to drive to the lane , lets say.....How would you rank them then?

I have them as follows:
Kobe, Rose, Wade, LBJ, Westbrook.

[BrooklynBulls]

And I think as players, its very clear that Wade, LeBron, Howard, are better by no small amount. I think Wade and LeBron depend on whistles, but they also get fouled a ton because they're unstoppable. It's the foul-sellers that can't close. Corey Maggette, Kevin Martin, Devin Harris, Danny Granger, etc.

Just because Rose's stats are a bit depressed by some specific functions he performs, doesn't mean he's a top 3 player. I think he's right on the border of top 5, chasing Kobe and Durant.

[logical_art]

I'm not sure this is true.

Here are James' FTA by quarter (for 2009) from 1st to 4th: 2.3, 2.3, 2.3, 3

And Wade's: 2.1, 2.1, 2.6, 2.7

So both guys take more FTs in the fourth quarter.

[JordansBulls]

Rose will be like Kobe in that he gets hyped up even when the stats will almost never support his case. But that is fine as well.

I actually think that is a reason why many Lakers fans like Rose.

[blumeany]

There's a fine balance between the eye test and stats - and I agree, the people making arguments against Rose are the ones leaning on the stats.

The bottom line, of course, will always be RESULTS.

(Using Jordan as Goat, and comparing the people you mentioned)

Jordan - 6 titles
Kobe - 5 titles
Wade - 1 title
Rose - 0 titles
Lebron - 0 titles
Westbrook - 0 titles

You can argue all you want about supporting casts and all-star teammates, blah blah blah. If you truly are a G.O.A.T. candidate, you make it happen. You WILL it to happen. You'd probably have to go pretty far back to name someone (not currently playing) who is/was simultaneously a G.O.A.T. candidate AND doesn't have a title (Rose excluded of course )

[TheAdmiral]

Admiral, I am going to try to spin this differently....if we take away all of the aforementioned players ability to drive to the lane , lets say.....How would you rank them then?

I have them as follows:
Kobe, Rose, Wade, LBJ, Westbrook.

In that scenario, based on their respective % (Hoopdata) from 10-15 feet and 16-23 feet for this season, I'd probably rank them:

Kobe - LeBron - Rose - Wade - Westbrook. (Rose and Wade being pretty close from mid-range)

Career-wise, I'd agree with your rankings.

[236]

If you look at the advanced stats on guys like Rose and Kobe

I wouldn't lump Kobe in with Rose. Kobe has often finished Top 5 in PER. He's had numerous great statistical seasons before, both volume & advanced statistics wise. Even this season he was Top 5 in PER for much of the year before injuries struck.

Rose and Kobe look like cold blooded killers who are controlling the games and winning them.

Disagree. I see 2 great players benefiting from 2 of the best supporting casts in basketball, and 2 incredible coaches.

Rose and Kobe share a trait. They have the ability to create their own shot. With guys like Westbrook, Lebron and Wade, they basically rely on barreling into the defense and having the refs blow their whistles.

In terms of shot creation, Kobe's in a league all in his own. I don't know what you're seeing though that differentiates Rose from LeBron and Wade as shot creators. In terms of just making plays(passing, shooting, attacking), I'd rank both LeBron and Wade as significantly superior to Rose.

Basically, the biggest advantage that the "drive and flail" players have over Rose and Kobe is negated when the game is on the line.

You're clearly watching a different game than everybody else if you're boiling down LeBron & Wade down to "drive & flail". 70% of LeBron's FGA are jump shots, the same % as Rose. Difference is, LeBron's a much better shooter than Rose, and also a much better finisher. Refer hoopdata.com for both. Thus the humungous gap in their efficiency, and the biggest reason why he continues to play on ELITE offensive teams, while Chicago the last 3 seasons has been stuck in mediocrity.

Wade, Lebron, Westbrook, etc. all have games suited for the first 3.5 quarters of a regular season game.

http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/the-nbas-best-players-in-the-clutch-since-2003/

LeBron's been far and away the most productive late-game player in the NBA since entering the league. This couldn't apply to him less.

Bottom line: What needs to be understood is that there is no mystery about WHY Chicago is so successful. If they didn't rank so highly on defense, rebounding & bench production(they are THE best in all 3 categories), then we'd have a reason to look deeper into Rose's beyond-the-boxscore production. But we don't.

[musiqsoulchild]

Admiral, I am going to try to spin this differently....if we take away all of the aforementioned players ability to drive to the lane , lets say.....How would you rank them then?

I have them as follows:
Kobe, Rose, Wade, LBJ, Westbrook.

In that scenario, based on their respective % (Hoopdata) from 10-15 feet and 16-23 feet for this season, I'd probably rank them:

Kobe - LeBron - Rose - Wade - Westbrook. (Rose and Wade being pretty close from mid-range)

Career-wise, I'd agree with your rankings.

Thanks for the stats, appreciate it.

Confirms somewhat the premise of the thread that Rose and Kobe are a different breed in terms of how many shots they take from distance....the longish two , if you will.

[alucryts]

i think another factor here, is the idea of two people running. if one of them doesnt care about winning the race, does the race mean anything?

AT: When you coached in Oklahoma City, you got to mentor Russell Westbrook, and he creates a lot of match up problems. With Derrick Rose and Russell Westbrook being different types of point guards, how does Derrick Rose create match up problems?

Ron Adams: I think Derrick is more of a point guard than Russell is. Russell is a capable playmaker, but terrific scorer, terrific offensive rebounder, as is Derrick. Both are terrific athletes. Russell is a marvelous kid, and a top-of-the-line athlete. He’s got Michael Jordan kind of athletic ability and he’s slightly bigger than Derrick, he’s 6’4”ish. Derrick is very similar athletically. Derrick is also a phenomenal athlete. Also, I would say genius, if I can use that word. The real foundation in Derrick’s makeup, which is different from any player that I’ve worked with, is that he has no agenda. He doesn’t go into a game saying I’m averaging 24.5 points per game and I’ve got to score 24.5 points. His approach to the game is phenomenal. Russell has a stronger desire to score. His personality is kind of built around that a little bit more, so I think that separates them some more. From an assist standpoint, both are pretty much at the same statistical point in the top ten in assists. The context in which Russell plays is a more up-and-down the court context, which is helpful for him. We kind of play a different game here. We are a pretty good open court team, but also a pretty good half-court team. I have no doubts that if Derrick were a different kind of person he could lead the league in scoring, His jump shot is coming along well, his three point shot is coming along well. It’s a terrific ride where every night he’s operating against stacked defenses. One advantage Russell has is that Kevin Durant is in front of him, and Kevin Durant is a monster.

basically, if rose isnt going into games trying to get his stats, are stats the best way to determine who is the better player? i mean of course they should be part of the equation, but it illustrates why they arent THE equation. and on top of that, the deepest us fans can get into a game are the stats themselves. heres another example from #1 drose homer bucher:

Jake: Do you think Derrick Rose is the MVP of the 10-11 season and are you a voter

Ric Bucher: Yes and yes.
-----
Blake: why isn't Russell Westbrook getting any MVP buzz he only two less points then derrick rose more assists and more rebounds and a better field goal percentage pleasd tell me why

Ric Bucher: Because statistics don't determine who the better player is.
----
Phil: "Because statistics don't determine who the better player is." THANK YOU! Stats should be a part of the MVP discussion, not the whole discussion itself.

Ric Bucher: No, thank you. To be clear, stats can be very valuable - in gauging a player's improvement, efficiency, etc. But using them to compare players on different teams in different systems with different roles...well, a lot of people (who don't work in or around the NBA) do it. But it doesn't make it right.
----
Brian (NJ):Ok, so "statistics don't determine who the better player is." What does, your eyes? I doubt you have seen every minute both Westbrook and Rose have played this year, right? Seems like statistics are a better measure of a players worth to me.

Ric Bucher: I watch games, both live and on TV. I talk to scouts, players, coaches -- both on those respective players' teams and their opponents'. I study how they're used. I find out what the game plans are and how well particular players execute them. So, do I value all that more than I do a boxscore? Yes, yes, I do.
----
Ric Bucher: This is hard to say without coming off as arrogant, but I'm going to try: the access I have, and have had for nearly 20 years, informs my opinion. You don't have that access. I understand that. Some who do, don't know what to do with it or don't utilize it, for whatever reason. More than anything, I remain teachable. When I write or say something, it's almost never without having checked it out with people in the league whose opinions I trust, and who will tell me when I'm off. I don't cite those people because they're usually multiples, but rest assured my understanding of who is good and who is not, who is doing what and who is not, is not based on my thoughts alone.
----
Jon: You do realize that, unless you have some kind of photographic memory, you actually remember very little from each game you watch? That you only come away with a vague impression, which is most likely over-influenced by a handful of flashy plays? I'm not saying the eyeball test doesn't have a role (especially for assessing defense), but it is MUCH less reliable than statistics for gauging an entire year's worth of performances.

Ric Bucher: Speak for yourself. I take notes. And I go back and review tape. And I talk to people who review tape. Statistics have their place. Assuming they, all by themselves, tell you the story of a player's season is where you've already veered off track. Not only do they not tell you that, they're certainly not *more* reliable.

a lot of posters that arent bulls fans shot it down as idiocy, but, assuming bucher isnt stretching the truth on some of these, isnt he right? in the end, stats are so important because people like you and me, the normal fans, the deepest access we have IS the stats. although they are far from the best thing to judge a player on, they are the best we can do as fans, but other factors have to be considered and rankings based on stats cannot be assumed absolute. its like what i do in some of my internship work in engineering: the world is so damn complex that its impossible to control every factor and take into account every factor. we have to make a lot of assumptions that are known to be horribly wrong because thats the best we can do. guys like bucher are on the inside able to see this complexity that exists and have a much better grasp on the situation than anyone on the outside.

long story short: stats need context, and we as fans cant provide the complete context.

[DuckIII]

There is another reason, related specifically to his fg%, that the stats don't completely encompass his true value: For a good number of Rose's shots, its the shot itself has value regardless of whether or not it is made. I know that sounds stupid, so let me explain.

I remember when AI won the MVP and was considered elite, a lot of people bagged on him as overrated due to his fg%. Fair enough. But I saw an interview with Larry Brown one time talking about how, with the construction of their various rosters (Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff, Jumaine Jones, McKey, Dalembert, etc.), an important part of their half court offense was Iverson's ability not just to score, but to get shots on the rim after drawing the defense. Then their tall, athletic offensive rebounders were there to clean it up after the defense had gotten out of position.

Rose has a similar non-quantified value to the Bulls. Its not just his ability to get inside and score that matters. Its his ability to get inside, draw the interior defense, and then get a shot on the rim where athletic rebounders like Noah, Taj, Omer and to a lesser degree Boozer can clean it up.

Now, that practice only shows up negatively in a Derrick Rose statistical analysis. But it show up positively in offensive rebounding, second chance points, and wins.

[GarPax]

There is another reason, related specifically to his fg%, that the stats don't completely encompass his true value: For a good number of Rose's shots, its the shot itself has value regardless of whether or not it is made. I know that sounds stupid, so let me explain.

I remember when AI won the MVP and was considered elite, a lot of people bagged on him as overrated due to his fg%. Fair enough. But I saw an interview with Larry Brown one time talking about how, with the construction of their various rosters (Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff, Jumaine Jones, McKey, Dalembert, etc.), an important part of their half court offense was Iverson's ability not just to score, but to get shots on the rim after drawing the defense. Then their tall, athletic offensive rebounders were there to clean it up after the defense had gotten out of position.

Rose has a similar non-quantified value to the Bulls. Its not just his ability to get inside and score that matters. Its his ability to get inside, draw the interior defense, and then get a shot on the rim where athletic rebounders like Noah, Taj, Omer and to a lesser degree Boozer can clean it up.

Now, that practice only shows up negatively in a Derrick Rose statistical analysis. But it show up positively in offensive rebounding, second chance points, and wins.

I've always thought that Rose adds so much value to the offense through this. I think our offensive rebounding numbers are so high because he is able to get so much attention from opposing teams bigs and leave our bigs to crash without being boxed out. Noah wouldnt be nearly as effective on most teams because he would be boxed out much harder a lot of the time.

[Chris435]

all this talk about Rose's impact beyond the stats is nice and all... but will it mean anything if the Bulls can't get past a team like Boston, Miami, or Orlando?

[transplant]

all this talk about Rose's impact beyond the stats is nice and all... but will it mean anything if the Bulls can't get past a team like Boston, Miami, or Orlando?

I think you mean "don't" not "can't." We already know that they "can" get by those teams.

Since the playoffs don't start for a couple weeks, and it'll be a couple weeks more before we have to deal with the other top EC teams, we have to talk about something to fill the time.

Agree with what Duck said...one of the Van Gundys made a similar point not too long ago.

Every stat that weighs efficiency is unfriendly to Rose because of what Duck said. The on/off court stats are unfriendly because the Bulls 2nd team defense is ridiculous. The only stat that's truly fair to him this season is the Bulls' winning % versus their expected winning % in October.