does the bulls success expose rose?

Moderators: bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake

og15
Forum Mod - Clippers
Forum Mod - Clippers
Posts: 50,768
And1: 33,565
Joined: Jun 23, 2004
Location: NBA Fan
 

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#261 » by og15 » Wed Feb 6, 2013 10:19 pm

NJ_YANKEE_45 wrote:Not saying Thibs isn't a damn good coach, but the amount of minutes he forces guys like Noah, Boozer, Deng, etc. will be their downfall, with or without Rose

I think the greater reality is that when a team plays their starters so much, it means that we are seeing basically their max potential. If you play your starters 32 MPG, it means that we can see the high level of play that your starters bring for at least another 6-8 MPG if they outproduce your bench by a decent margin. Over a whole game, that make a difference. So in the post-season, unlike teams who play their starters less during the regular season, and play them more later, a team that is already playing the starters a lot doesn't have a much higher level to go.

This is kind of what I think people would incorrectly interpret with Boston recently in terms of them "being a playoff team". It was true in a sense, but more in how many minutes their starters played than anything else.

Their ability to play better in the post-season had a good amount to do with 6 more MPG of Garnett on the floor, which meant 6 more MPG of the team playing elite defense as opposed to good, or some years, just average defense with him on the bench. 6 more minutes of elite defense every game, that makes a huge difference in the scoreboard, not to mention a few more minutes of the other starters. There was no "magic" behind it, but KG (31.1 MPG to 36.9 MPG), Pierce (34.0 MPG to 38.9 MPG), and Rondo (36.9 MPG to 42.6 MPG) meant that you had your best players on for longer, but Garnett's increase due to his impact was the "other level" they had in the post-season.
Ice Man
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 26,901
And1: 15,942
Joined: Apr 19, 2011

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#262 » by Ice Man » Wed Feb 6, 2013 10:31 pm

OG's analysis makes sense, it's a simpler and more believable explanation for what makes for a "playoff" team than the mystical mumbo that usually is offered up as analysis.
msg4k90
Junior
Posts: 482
And1: 84
Joined: Mar 07, 2012
   

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#263 » by msg4k90 » Wed Feb 6, 2013 10:31 pm

bulls got a really good coach.
GreenHat
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,985
And1: 340
Joined: Jan 01, 2011

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#264 » by GreenHat » Wed Feb 6, 2013 11:09 pm

bullsnewdynasty wrote:
NYK_89 wrote:Nobody is taking the MVP away from Rose, its his and he won it in a fairly tilted vote. However there is without question a very WTF? type feel to him winning it and as i said earlier in this thread if you switched the '12 and '11 seasons around I have literally no doubt that Rose is not winning the MVP if he had missed time the season before and the team still had the 1 seed.


You realize that Rose still played half the season, right? The Bulls basically win 80% of their games when he's in the lineup. And we didn't even get to see what Rose could do with Rip Hamilton last year because they were both injured at different times.


Bulls fans used to be the king of "regular season doesn't matter". What happened?
Your emotions fuel the narratives that you create. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ascribe meaning when it is not there. You create significance when it is not present.
panthermark
RealGM
Posts: 21,654
And1: 3,974
Joined: Mar 15, 2010
Location: Undisclosed: MJ's shadow could be lurking....
         

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#265 » by panthermark » Wed Feb 6, 2013 11:30 pm

GreenHat wrote:Bulls fans used to be the king of "regular season doesn't matter". What happened?


Don't understand your point?
For the most part the MVP is based on the regular season (in relation to this thread).

As far as the regular season not mattering...you are correct. We've learned that beating Miami (or other teams) in the regular season does not mean a damn thing in May.
Jealousy is a sickness.......get well soon....
User avatar
Knicks2DaHouse
Junior
Posts: 372
And1: 100
Joined: Dec 31, 2011
 

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#266 » by Knicks2DaHouse » Thu Feb 7, 2013 12:11 am

On the basis that Rose was the best player on the best team, he deserved the MVP.

But if you took a literal meaning, looking for the most valuable player for a team, it had no business being Rose. That's about all I can say
On Krylyo Fesenko:

k-lynch20 "Excited about this, I like his game and serviceable bigs are very hard to come by."


Rj1790 "love this pickup! Its been a while since the Warriors had 3 official centers."
bullsnewdynasty
RealGM
Posts: 23,666
And1: 2,552
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#267 » by bullsnewdynasty » Thu Feb 7, 2013 1:28 am

GreenHat wrote:
bullsnewdynasty wrote:
NYK_89 wrote:Nobody is taking the MVP away from Rose, its his and he won it in a fairly tilted vote. However there is without question a very WTF? type feel to him winning it and as i said earlier in this thread if you switched the '12 and '11 seasons around I have literally no doubt that Rose is not winning the MVP if he had missed time the season before and the team still had the 1 seed.


You realize that Rose still played half the season, right? The Bulls basically win 80% of their games when he's in the lineup. And we didn't even get to see what Rose could do with Rip Hamilton last year because they were both injured at different times.


Bulls fans used to be the king of "regular season doesn't matter". What happened?


We're talking about the MVP, which is based on the regular season. Try reading the thread next time before you make a condescending comment.
Apathy
Banned User
Posts: 2,583
And1: 39
Joined: Aug 25, 2011

Re: does the bulls success expose rose? 

Post#268 » by Apathy » Thu Feb 7, 2013 1:36 am

panthermark wrote:#1 - I gues that would depend on how you rank the players. He was the 2nd most dominant (behind Bron), but the holes in his game make him more suited for a Robin then a Batman....and that is probably why he does not have an MVP title. Howard is one of the "best" players in the league...but he almost has an asterisk next to his name. Tie game, 1 minute left...you would put the ball in every one of those other players hands before Howards.


The problem is this is an obtuse qualifier that means nothing of substance outside of serving as a point for talking heads and casual fans.

Return to The General Board