Random Rose Stats

[BR0D1E86]

To all: again the reason I chose those dates (1/1/2016-3/29/2016) is because this was legitimate healthy Rose a few games after he took his mask off up until the elbow injury. This can give us a baseline of how we can expect a healthy Rose to play unless he does improve his game over the offseason. I am not trying to argue that he will play like this since he is very injury prone.

Even if you narrow it down to those 35 games, he's years removed from his last knee injury and he had the supposedly all important summer to work on his game instead of rehab. He averaged 19 ppg / 4.5 apg / 3 turnovers with a .515 ts% in that stretch. And he brought very poor defense all season.

That's basically the pinnacle of Rose's season. And it's not bad I guess, but it's a real long way from good.

It sounds a bit better when its 19 points on 46%/36%. TS is not the best stat to look at when Rose is getting no respect from the refs (also a bit due to his play style). he had literally half the FTAs compared to 2010-2012.

It sounds better when you ignore what's not good, I agree. Rose doesn't get a lot of calls because he doesn't drive as aggressively as he used to and he's horrible at selling contact. He always has been, he likely always will be. Regardless, it's a reality.

His numbers still aren't bad offensively. But just ignoring stats because they don't favor him is intellectually dishonest.

[BR0D1E86]

I haven't heard Karl's comments so perhaps it's been taken out of context, but there is literally no justification at all for suggesting Rose is a top 30 player.

I don't give a **** if he has coached over 1000 wins. A dumb comment is a dumb comment.

Here's my stat contribution. 24 players last season put up 25 or more shots per 100 possessions (400 MP minimum). Derrick Rose ranked 22nd out 24, only in front of Charlie Villauneuva and Kobe Byrant.

Top 30 player!

Just to be clear because a few people have questioned the context, Karl was crystal clear in saying that he thinks Rose is still a top 25-30 player in this league. It is a perfectly justifiable comment. Coaches and players just generally rank players on ability, not past statistical performance.

If what you're saying that if we held a draft combine for current players, Rose might be top 25-30, maybe.

However, the only real thing we can measure is statistical contribution. You can even put context into the stats rather than just regurgitating them. But there is no measure that exists which shows that Rose is a top 30 player. If you think he can be again, that's a different argument. It's one I do not think is realistic, but it is at least defensible. To say that he is one now, where all we can judge him on is his most recent performance, it's insane.

[MBPKOGZ]

Even if you narrow it down to those 35 games, he's years removed from his last knee injury and he had the supposedly all important summer to work on his game instead of rehab. He averaged 19 ppg / 4.5 apg / 3 turnovers with a .515 ts% in that stretch. And he brought very poor defense all season.

That's basically the pinnacle of Rose's season. And it's not bad I guess, but it's a real long way from good.

It sounds a bit better when its 19 points on 46%/36%. TS is not the best stat to look at when Rose is getting no respect from the refs (also a bit due to his play style). he had literally half the FTAs compared to 2010-2012. His EFG% was 48.2% would is his best since his MVP season and in his MVP season he was at 48.5%. He was taking shots and making them at a rate that was the same as his MVP season, just without the free throws.

This is infinitely better than the 16 points on 43/29 that the overall season stats would lead you to believe.

You might not think that number isn't that impressive, but let's hope by some miracle that Rose is perfectly healthy last year and put up that statline. so 21.8pp36 on 46% FG, 36% 3pt. Let's see how many guards can match or exceed the criteria of 21 on 45/35 last season. Only 2: Curry and Thompson albeit they did it at higher efficiencies. Make it 20pp36 and take out the 35% from range crieteria and still only 3 more players get added to the list: Jimmy butler, Westbrook, and Bledsoe

I actually want to put the final blow on this point one more time. Let's say Rose stays at the EXACT same VOLUME & EFFICIENCY. However, he refines his game just a tiny tweak & and the refs respect him just a tiny bit more and he gets 1 more call in his favor.

This results in: A) 1 less 2PTA and B) 2 more FTA. What is his scoring/TS% now?

FG%: 46->49
2PT%:47.6->51
PPG:19->20.4
TS%:51.5->56.95

From just one call, Rose goes from meh to elite. Is that not an indicator of where he is at right now?

You've failed to put the final blow on anything as of yet. All you've done is engaged in fallacious reasoning. First you tell people that their analysis of Rose's season long stats are wrong because it's taken out of context and then you go and form a projection based off his stats w/o any context. Taking 2 extra free throw attempts per game isn't exactly the easiest thing to do when the difference between being average at getting to the line and great is 2 free throws. Take this list for which I will post the link below for example. In order to rank 40th in FTA per game in the entire NBA you need at least 4 attempts per game. Adding an extra 2 FTA to this (i.e. increasing production by 50%) would take you all the way from 40th to 19th, right behind Utah's most high usage player in Hayward. Adding just another free throw (now a 75% increase) would put you right behind Butler and tie you with Anthony Davis for 9th in the league. Conversely if you were to be called just 1 time less in the act of shooting (resulting in 2 less free throws and a 50% decrease) then you would be ranked 121st in the league along with Robin Lopez...

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/free-throws/sort/avgFreeThrowsAttempted/seasontype/2/count/121

What you and the people who agree with you are failing to realize is that when you reach the pinnacle of a field, no matter what it is, the difference between being good and great is miniscule at best. Thus you can't arbitrarily project an extra 2 free throw attempts onto a player who not only has never been good at getting to the line relative to his style of play but who also has given you no indication that he has, is willing to, or is likely to improve that aspect of his game...This thread is full of other poorly reasoned arguments from you, not the least of which is your small selection sample of stats you choose to use when analyzing Rose's level of play this year (January until season's end) because even if you have a legitimate reason to use January as a starting point (Rose's eye injury) there is a thing in statistics called statistical aberration where any number of results can play out over a small period of time. This is why you need a sample size of at least 100 when conducting a study in any field for it to be considered statistically valid. Now in basketball we only have 82 games so this is one of the cases where I would grant an exception to this rule but in general multiple seasons or a body of work would be a much more credible reference source to analyzing a players game. For you to then go and use half a season as the crux of your argument and the bible you keep referencing to throughout this thread, especially when those same stats aren't even stellar when analyzed the way you want them to be (devoid of context), shows the depths of your and others who agree with you delusion. No amount of evidence (i.e. statistics) in this, or other threads from which I'm sure you've seen, will be enough for you because you are either purposely cherry picking stats that suite your argument (and again it bears stating that it doesn't even suit it as well as you think) or you really aren't able to discern the difference between the "facts" you choose to look at from the facts the opposing argument brings up.

[AKfanatic]

I mean this as no disrespect, but who are you to have any opinion to question what George Karl says when evaluating a player?

I suggest that you tone down the hostile response just because you don't agree with someone's thoughts.

I'm not some anti Rose fan, but I evaluate based off of facts. Derrick Rose hasn't even been close an all-star the past 3-4 years, so how can anyone say he was a top 25-30 player?

A response prefaced with with "I mean this as no disrespect" is hostile? ok man...

"I mean this as no disrespect", but you're a moron. - see no hostility at all because, well, "I mean this as no disrespect"


As for Karl...

My 3rd grade teacher once told me that I was the smartest boy she's taught in her 40 years of teaching....she told me on my birthday. Surely that statement can't be questioned by non teachers.

My mom once told me I was the cutest and sweetest boy in the world. She's not just a mom, but also a daycare professional!!! Surely she knows better than most.

[greenl]

Other random stats:

RPM: -4.24. Ranked 81/85 Point Guards Ranked 439/462 NBA players
DRPM: -3.15 Ranked 82/85 Point Guards Ranked 449/462 NBA players
Win Shares: -1.49 Ranked 85/85 Point Guards Ranked 452/462 NBA players
PER: 13.95 Ranked 195th in the NBA
VORP: -.7
Salary: $20mm

And this is a prime example of how to not analyze stats. He had an orbital injury for half a year for Christs sake. All of those numbers are thrown out of the window . Stats are always best to look at with a grain of salt and with context.

If there was a calculator out there to determine these stats over the time period I selected, I am sure they wouldn't be as bad as his overall stats.
----

I didn't analyze any stats- just posted them for Christs sake. Thought this was a random stats thread- not a cherry pick only stats that make Rose look good thread

Cherry picking seems to be the order of the day. Does anyone have any explanation for how Rose played well vs OKC or Indiana or Charlotte all before Jan 1st?

We are engaging in some pretty nifty 'context' to suggest Rose had an okay season. He was bad. Yes he was injured- he is always injured. And regardless of how well you cherry pick his offensive stats- his defense was worse than it has ever been. He is miles away from being a serviceable starting point guard.

[League Circles]

I haven't heard Karl's comments so perhaps it's been taken out of context, but there is literally no justification at all for suggesting Rose is a top 30 player.

I don't give a **** if he has coached over 1000 wins. A dumb comment is a dumb comment.

Here's my stat contribution. 24 players last season put up 25 or more shots per 100 possessions (400 MP minimum). Derrick Rose ranked 22nd out 24, only in front of Charlie Villauneuva and Kobe Byrant.

Top 30 player!

Just to be clear because a few people have questioned the context, Karl was crystal clear in saying that he thinks Rose is still a top 25-30 player in this league. It is a perfectly justifiable comment. Coaches and players just generally rank players on ability, not past statistical performance.

If what you're saying that if we held a draft combine for current players, Rose might be top 25-30, maybe.

However, the only real thing we can measure is statistical contribution. You can even put context into the stats rather than just regurgitating them. But there is no measure that exists which shows that Rose is a top 30 player. If you think he can be again, that's a different argument. It's one I do not think is realistic, but it is at least defensible. To say that he is one now, where all we can judge him on is his most recent performance, it's insane.

Karl wasn't "measuring" Rose using stats. He was evaluating him subjectively based on ability to impact winning basketball. NOT recent track record of performing that ability.

If we don't use college stats to define how good or bad draft prospects are (and we absolutely don't), I don't know why people think it's so weird that NBA people, like Karl and others, would also not use them (especially the arbitrary individual statistics over the arbitrary time unit of most recent season). Yet people still act like it's "insane".

The bolded is just false. You can judge a player on all sorts of things other than "most recent performance".

[WesleyExChiFan]

It sounds a bit better when its 19 points on 46%/36%. TS is not the best stat to look at when Rose is getting no respect from the refs (also a bit due to his play style). he had literally half the FTAs compared to 2010-2012. His EFG% was 48.2% would is his best since his MVP season and in his MVP season he was at 48.5%. He was taking shots and making them at a rate that was the same as his MVP season, just without the free throws.

This is infinitely better than the 16 points on 43/29 that the overall season stats would lead you to believe.

You might not think that number isn't that impressive, but let's hope by some miracle that Rose is perfectly healthy last year and put up that statline. so 21.8pp36 on 46% FG, 36% 3pt. Let's see how many guards can match or exceed the criteria of 21 on 45/35 last season. Only 2: Curry and Thompson albeit they did it at higher efficiencies. Make it 20pp36 and take out the 35% from range crieteria and still only 3 more players get added to the list: Jimmy butler, Westbrook, and Bledsoe

I actually want to put the final blow on this point one more time. Let's say Rose stays at the EXACT same VOLUME & EFFICIENCY. However, he refines his game just a tiny tweak & and the refs respect him just a tiny bit more and he gets 1 more call in his favor.

This results in: A) 1 less 2PTA and B) 2 more FTA. What is his scoring/TS% now?

FG%: 46->49
2PT%:47.6->51
PPG:19->20.4
TS%:51.5->56.95

From just one call, Rose goes from meh to elite. Is that not an indicator of where he is at right now?

You've failed to put the final blow on anything as of yet. All you've done is engaged in fallacious reasoning. First you tell people that their analysis of Rose's season long stats are wrong because it's taken out of context and then you go and form a projection based off his stats w/o any context. Taking 2 extra free throw attempts per game isn't exactly the easiest thing to do when the difference between being average at getting to the line and great is 2 free throws. Take this list for which I will post the link below for example. In order to rank 40th in FTA per game in the entire NBA you need at least 4 attempts per game. Adding an extra 2 FTA to this (i.e. increasing production by 50%) would take you all the way from 40th to 19th, right behind Utah's most high usage player in Hayward. Adding just another free throw (now a 75% increase) would put you right behind Butler and tie you with Anthony Davis for 9th in the league. Conversely if you were to be called just 1 time less in the act of shooting (resulting in 2 less free throws and a 50% decrease) then you would be ranked 121st in the league along with Robin Lopez...

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/free-throws/sort/avgFreeThrowsAttempted/seasontype/2/count/121

What you and the people who agree with you are failing to realize is that when you reach the pinnacle of a field, no matter what it is, the difference between being good and great is miniscule at best. Thus you can't arbitrarily project an extra 2 free throw attempts onto a player who not only has never been good at getting to the line relative to his style of play but who also has given you no indication that he has, is willing to, or is likely to improve that aspect of his game...This thread is full of other poorly reasoned arguments from you, not the least of which is your small selection sample of stats you choose to use when analyzing Rose's level of play this year (January until season's end) because even if you have a legitimate reason to use January as a starting point (Rose's eye injury) there is a thing in statistics called statistical aberration where any number of results can play out over a small period of time. This is why you need a sample size of at least 100 when conducting a study in any field for it to be considered statistically valid. Now in basketball we only have 82 games so this is one of the cases where I would grant an exception to this rule but in general multiple seasons or a body of work would be a much more credible reference source to analyzing a players game. For you to then go and use half a season as the crux of your argument and your bible you keep referencing to throughout this thread, especially when those same stats aren't even stellar when analyzed w/o context, shows the depths of your and other posters who agree with you delusion. No amount of evidence in this, or other threads from which I'm sure you've seen, will be enough for you because you are either purposely cherry picking stats that suite your argument (and again it bears stating that it doesn't even suit it as well as you think) or you really aren't able to discern the difference between the "facts" you choose to look at from the facts the opposing argument is bringing to the table.

Good point about needing the 100 samples. Didn't consider that. Also good point about the projected increase in free throws. Projections like that are a double edged sword.

As far as his defense goes, he's still quick and strong enough to be a strong defender. He's never been shy about taking charges either. His effort was, to put it nicely, inconsistent. I really believe that has just wanted to get through the whole season and his defensive effort was the casualty this year.

There's a reason Pax was so pissed at year's end about Rose's defense that that because he knows he can still be damn good at it. Frankly, that needs to be his primary role going forward. Tough defense, spot up 3s and let Jimmy take the reigns. We shall see.

But good perspective.

[WesleyExChiFan]

Even if you narrow it down to those 35 games, he's years removed from his last knee injury and he had the supposedly all important summer to work on his game instead of rehab. He averaged 19 ppg / 4.5 apg / 3 turnovers with a .515 ts% in that stretch. And he brought very poor defense all season.

That's basically the pinnacle of Rose's season. And it's not bad I guess, but it's a real long way from good.

It sounds a bit better when its 19 points on 46%/36%. TS is not the best stat to look at when Rose is getting no respect from the refs (also a bit due to his play style). he had literally half the FTAs compared to 2010-2012.

It sounds better when you ignore what's not good, I agree. Rose doesn't get a lot of calls because he doesn't drive as aggressively as he used to and he's horrible at selling contact. He always has been, he likely always will be. Regardless, it's a reality.

His numbers still aren't bad offensively. But just ignoring stats because they don't favor him is intellectually dishonest.

I don't think he's bad a selling contact. He just refuses to. Personally, I like that about him. If he kicked his head back like Butler he'd be at the line all day lol

[BR0D1E86]

Just to be clear because a few people have questioned the context, Karl was crystal clear in saying that he thinks Rose is still a top 25-30 player in this league. It is a perfectly justifiable comment. Coaches and players just generally rank players on ability, not past statistical performance.

If what you're saying that if we held a draft combine for current players, Rose might be top 25-30, maybe.

However, the only real thing we can measure is statistical contribution. You can even put context into the stats rather than just regurgitating them. But there is no measure that exists which shows that Rose is a top 30 player. If you think he can be again, that's a different argument. It's one I do not think is realistic, but it is at least defensible. To say that he is one now, where all we can judge him on is his most recent performance, it's insane.

Karl wasn't "measuring" Rose using stats. He was evaluating him subjectively based on ability to impact winning basketball. NOT recent track record of performing that ability.

If we don't use college stats to define how good or bad draft prospects are (and we absolutely don't), I don't know why people think it's so weird that NBA people, like Karl and others, would also not use them (especially the arbitrary individual statistics over the arbitrary time unit of most recent season). Yet people still act like it's "insane".

The bolded is just false. You can judge a player on all sorts of things other than "most recent performance".

OK, so by what measure is Derrick Rose a top 30 player? He has objectively not been a good basketball player in four years. If you think he can improve, that's fine. If George Karl had said "I think Rose can still be a top 30 player in this league" I'd have no issue with his statement. I'd disagree, but he's not ignoring every statistical measure that exists, all of which show that Derrick Rose is not a top 30 basketball player.

[Paxson43]

I suggest that you tone down the hostile response just because you don't agree with someone's thoughts.

I'm not some anti Rose fan, but I evaluate based off of facts. Derrick Rose hasn't even been close an all-star the past 3-4 years, so how can anyone say he was a top 25-30 player?

A response prefaced with with "I mean this as no disrespect" is hostile? ok man...

"I mean this as no disrespect", but you're a moron. - see no hostility at all because, well, "I mean this as no disrespect"


As for Karl...

My 3rd grade teacher once told me that I was the smartest boy she's taught in her 40 years of teaching....she told me on my birthday. Surely that statement can't be questioned by non teachers.

My mom once told me I was the cutest and sweetest boy in the world. She's not just a mom, but also a daycare professional!!! Surely she knows better than most.

"A moron" is a direct insult... I did not engage in any name calling. You're using a simpleton approach.

Maybe your 3rd grade teacher and mom really felt the incentive to perk up your self esteem / have a reason to help you try to believe in your intelligence?

Last I checked, George Karl was neither Derrick Rose's teacher nor mother. Hell, he never coached the kid in the NBA... not once. What "incentive" does George Karl have in lying about where he viewed Derrick Rose's standing in the NBA? None.


I am sure you're the cutest, sweetest, and the smartest 3rd grader on this forum, though, schnookums

[League Circles]

I suggest that you tone down the hostile response just because you don't agree with someone's thoughts.

I'm not some anti Rose fan, but I evaluate based off of facts. Derrick Rose hasn't even been close an all-star the past 3-4 years, so how can anyone say he was a top 25-30 player?

A response prefaced with with "I mean this as no disrespect" is hostile? ok man...

"I mean this as no disrespect", but you're a moron. - see no hostility at all because, well, "I mean this as no disrespect"


As for Karl...

My 3rd grade teacher once told me that I was the smartest boy she's taught in her 40 years of teaching....she told me on my birthday. Surely that statement can't be questioned by non teachers.

My mom once told me I was the cutest and sweetest boy in the world. She's not just a mom, but also a daycare professional!!! Surely she knows better than most.

It wasn't Rose's birthday, and Karl isn't his father.

[League Circles]

If what you're saying that if we held a draft combine for current players, Rose might be top 25-30, maybe.

However, the only real thing we can measure is statistical contribution. You can even put context into the stats rather than just regurgitating them. But there is no measure that exists which shows that Rose is a top 30 player. If you think he can be again, that's a different argument. It's one I do not think is realistic, but it is at least defensible. To say that he is one now, where all we can judge him on is his most recent performance, it's insane.

Karl wasn't "measuring" Rose using stats. He was evaluating him subjectively based on ability to impact winning basketball. NOT recent track record of performing that ability.

If we don't use college stats to define how good or bad draft prospects are (and we absolutely don't), I don't know why people think it's so weird that NBA people, like Karl and others, would also not use them (especially the arbitrary individual statistics over the arbitrary time unit of most recent season). Yet people still act like it's "insane".

The bolded is just false. You can judge a player on all sorts of things other than "most recent performance".

OK, so by what measure is Derrick Rose a top 30 player? He has objectively not been a good basketball player in four years. If you think he can improve, that's fine. If George Karl had said "I think Rose can still be a top 30 player in this league" I'd have no issue with his statement. I'd disagree, but he's not ignoring every statistical measure that exists, all of which show that Derrick Rose is not a top 30 basketball player.

Nobody said he is by any "measure" you'd accept.

It may not be obvious to everyone, but individual statistics are not counted by referees and are not a subset of the only goal of the game, which is to beat the opposing team. I can't find it now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rose is a top 30 player for career winning% among players with some reasonable minimum games played (say 250 games).

Individual stats describe what happened in the past. Karl was talking about the present, which is a point in time, not a period in time.

[PaKii94]

Other random stats:

RPM: -4.24. Ranked 81/85 Point Guards Ranked 439/462 NBA players
DRPM: -3.15 Ranked 82/85 Point Guards Ranked 449/462 NBA players
Win Shares: -1.49 Ranked 85/85 Point Guards Ranked 452/462 NBA players
PER: 13.95 Ranked 195th in the NBA
VORP: -.7
Salary: $20mm

And this is a prime example of how to not analyze stats. He had an orbital injury for half a year for Christs sake. All of those numbers are thrown out of the window . Stats are always best to look at with a grain of salt and with context.

If there was a calculator out there to determine these stats over the time period I selected, I am sure they wouldn't be as bad as his overall stats.
----

I didn't analyze any stats- just posted them for Christs sake. Thought this was a random stats thread- not a cherry pick only stats that make Rose look good thread

Cherry picking seems to be the order of the day. Does anyone have any explanation for how Rose played well vs OKC or Indiana or Charlotte all before Jan 1st?

We are engaging in some pretty nifty 'context' to suggest Rose had an okay season. He was bad. Yes he was injured- he is always injured. And regardless of how well you cherry pick his offensive stats- his defense was worse than it has ever been. He is miles away from being a serviceable starting point guard.

Sorry. My fault.

Even if you narrow it down to those 35 games, he's years removed from his last knee injury and he had the supposedly all important summer to work on his game instead of rehab. He averaged 19 ppg / 4.5 apg / 3 turnovers with a .515 ts% in that stretch. And he brought very poor defense all season.

That's basically the pinnacle of Rose's season. And it's not bad I guess, but it's a real long way from good.

It sounds a bit better when its 19 points on 46%/36%. TS is not the best stat to look at when Rose is getting no respect from the refs (also a bit due to his play style). he had literally half the FTAs compared to 2010-2012.

It sounds better when you ignore what's not good, I agree. Rose doesn't get a lot of calls because he doesn't drive as aggressively as he used to and he's horrible at selling contact. He always has been, he likely always will be. Regardless, it's a reality.

His numbers still aren't bad offensively. But just ignoring stats because they don't favor him is intellectually dishonest.

Sorry but I didn't disregard the other stats. I realize Rose was horrible for half of the year. I chose this, yet again, since this is the period rose was injury free. If you wanna get technical, we could go a bit further back to where he removed his mask. The disclaimer to those stats were *if healthy* which yes I acknowledge Rose isn't often.

Spoiler:

It sounds a bit better when its 19 points on 46%/36%. TS is not the best stat to look at when Rose is getting no respect from the refs (also a bit due to his play style). he had literally half the FTAs compared to 2010-2012. His EFG% was 48.2% would is his best since his MVP season and in his MVP season he was at 48.5%. He was taking shots and making them at a rate that was the same as his MVP season, just without the free throws.

This is infinitely better than the 16 points on 43/29 that the overall season stats would lead you to believe.

You might not think that number isn't that impressive, but let's hope by some miracle that Rose is perfectly healthy last year and put up that statline. so 21.8pp36 on 46% FG, 36% 3pt. Let's see how many guards can match or exceed the criteria of 21 on 45/35 last season. Only 2: Curry and Thompson albeit they did it at higher efficiencies. Make it 20pp36 and take out the 35% from range crieteria and still only 3 more players get added to the list: Jimmy butler, Westbrook, and Bledsoe

I actually want to put the final blow on this point one more time. Let's say Rose stays at the EXACT same VOLUME & EFFICIENCY. However, he refines his game just a tiny tweak & and the refs respect him just a tiny bit more and he gets 1 more call in his favor.

This results in: A) 1 less 2PTA and B) 2 more FTA. What is his scoring/TS% now?

FG%: 46->49
2PT%:47.6->51
PPG:19->20.4
TS%:51.5->56.95

From just one call, Rose goes from meh to elite. Is that not an indicator of where he is at right now?

You've failed to put the final blow on anything as of yet. All you've done is engaged in fallacious reasoning. First you tell people that their analysis of Rose's season long stats are wrong because it's taken out of context and then you go and form a projection based off his stats w/o any context. Taking 2 extra free throw attempts per game isn't exactly the easiest thing to do when the difference between being average at getting to the line and great is 2 free throws. Take this list for which I will post the link below for example. In order to rank 40th in FTA per game in the entire NBA you need at least 4 attempts per game. Adding an extra 2 FTA to this (i.e. increasing production by 50%) would take you all the way from 40th to 19th, right behind Utah's most high usage player in Hayward. Adding just another free throw (now a 75% increase) would put you right behind Butler and tie you with Anthony Davis for 9th in the league. Conversely if you were to be called just 1 time less in the act of shooting (resulting in 2 less free throws and a 50% decrease) then you would be ranked 121st in the league along with Robin Lopez...

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/free-throws/sort/avgFreeThrowsAttempted/seasontype/2/count/121

What you and the people who agree with you are failing to realize is that when you reach the pinnacle of a field, no matter what it is, the difference between being good and great is miniscule at best. Thus you can't arbitrarily project an extra 2 free throw attempts onto a player who not only has never been good at getting to the line relative to his style of play but who also has given you no indication that he has, is willing to, or is likely to improve that aspect of his game...This thread is full of other poorly reasoned arguments from you, not the least of which is your small selection sample of stats you choose to use when analyzing Rose's level of play this year (January until season's end) because even if you have a legitimate reason to use January as a starting point (Rose's eye injury) there is a thing in statistics called statistical aberration where any number of results can play out over a small period of time. This is why you need a sample size of at least 100 when conducting a study in any field for it to be considered statistically valid. Now in basketball we only have 82 games so this is one of the cases where I would grant an exception to this rule but in general multiple seasons or a body of work would be a much more credible reference source to analyzing a players game. For you to then go and use half a season as the crux of your argument and the bible you keep referencing to throughout this thread, especially when those same stats aren't even stellar when analyzed the way you want them to be (devoid of context), shows the depths of your and others who agree with you delusion. No amount of evidence (i.e. statistics) in this, or other threads from which I'm sure you've seen, will be enough for you because you are either purposely cherry picking stats that suite your argument (and again it bears stating that it doesn't even suit it as well as you think) or you really aren't able to discern the difference between the "facts" you choose to look at from the facts the opposing argument brings up.

For the free throw situation, I understand a difference of 2FTA can be a huge jump. However, Rose has previously shown to get up to 6-7FTA in his primetime seasons and I agree even in those years Rose wasn't the best at drawing contact meaning there was potential for more FTAs which didn't happen. He is currently at 2.4 FTA. It might not happen (or atleast to the extent of +2FTA but Rose has a higher chance to improve from that number closer to his old numbers than compared to let's say someone such as dougie.

As for the sample size, I understand its small but that is the sample we have of *healthy rose* for which you really can't make much of an injury excuse. Also, you could flip the script and say the sample size we have of rose playing terrible is small too.


However I do see what you are saying. I just think we are doing Rose an injustice looking at the season as a whole. His season was a tale of two halves where he was putrid for half of it. For the other half he did okay. I'm not trying to say he was elite but he definitely wasn't the worst point guard as how much the overall stats state which get bogged down by his horrible half season

[BR0D1E86]

Karl wasn't "measuring" Rose using stats. He was evaluating him subjectively based on ability to impact winning basketball. NOT recent track record of performing that ability.

If we don't use college stats to define how good or bad draft prospects are (and we absolutely don't), I don't know why people think it's so weird that NBA people, like Karl and others, would also not use them (especially the arbitrary individual statistics over the arbitrary time unit of most recent season). Yet people still act like it's "insane".

The bolded is just false. You can judge a player on all sorts of things other than "most recent performance".

OK, so by what measure is Derrick Rose a top 30 player? He has objectively not been a good basketball player in four years. If you think he can improve, that's fine. If George Karl had said "I think Rose can still be a top 30 player in this league" I'd have no issue with his statement. I'd disagree, but he's not ignoring every statistical measure that exists, all of which show that Derrick Rose is not a top 30 basketball player.

Nobody said he is by any "measure" you'd accept.

It may not be obvious to everyone, but individual statistics are not counted by referees and are not a subset of the only goal of the game, which is to beat the opposing team. I can't find it now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rose is a top 30 player for career winning% among players with some reasonable minimum games played (say 250 games).

Individual stats describe what happened in the past. Karl was talking about the present, which is a point in time, not a period in time.

On the one hand you say there are measures other than even his most recent stats, because they're in the past so they're not real valid, but on the other hand you say his past winning % is very relevant. This year the Bulls were 32-34 when he played. He really didn't impact winning this year. What he did and what he was in 2011 doesn't matter. He's not that any more.

[Paxson43]

The days of Derrick Rose sh*tting on Dragic are over, way over. And guess what, every single NBA player (Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan included) will lose their insane athleticism/vertical as they get older. If you all are expecting him to use his quicks (which he still very much has) to get into the paint and thunder down a dunk while getting fouled, you are a bit delusional.

All these stats and advanced metrics are great, but they only tell a portion of the story. PaKii is trying to provide some context for everyone, and for good reason. Where does the truth lie? Somewhere in the middle.

Fun banter to read, though. Cheers!

[BR0D1E86]

Sorry but I didn't disregard the other stats. I realize Rose was horrible for half of the year. I chose this, yet again, since this is the period rose was injury free. If you wanna get technical, we could go a bit further back to where he removed his mask. The disclaimer to those stats were *if healthy* which yes I acknowledge Rose isn't often.

I posted his true shooting % from that same period, not the first half of the year. His ts% for the season was .479. You said it wasn't a good measure for Rose because he doesn't get many free throws, then asked what his ts% would look like if he shot better and got more free throw attempts.

From his "good" period of the year, as defined by you, he was a 19ppg player, 4.5 apg player, 3 to per game player with a .515 ts% and very poor defense. Again, not much there that encourages me to think that he's on the cusp of being an all star again.

[keithmad42]

I highly disagree with that. One thing that will NEVER change about Rose is that the dude is Houdini with the ball in his hands. Every time he went to the paint teams collapsed and he'd always find some guy on the opposite end of the court wide open. If anything I just think guys weren't prepared to catch the ball. How could you though? Dude makes some passes that some of the best hall of gamers couldn't do consistently.

Houdini with the ball.. Watch as he makes it disappear out of his hands then miraculously reappear in the hands of a random defender.

Seriously he has poor awareness and anticipation of his teammates movement off the ball. If he doesn't either see or predict the opening before hand he rarely makes the play. By predict I mean the majority of his assists like pick and pop with Gasol. If you took those assists away to Gasol at the top of the key his numbers would be putrid. (Likely 2 to 1 turnovers per assist bad but I'm just guessing, maybe I'll run the numbers though later)

[PaKii94]

Sorry but I didn't disregard the other stats. I realize Rose was horrible for half of the year. I chose this, yet again, since this is the period rose was injury free. If you wanna get technical, we could go a bit further back to where he removed his mask. The disclaimer to those stats were *if healthy* which yes I acknowledge Rose isn't often.

I posted his true shooting % from that same period, not the first half of the year. His ts% for the season was .479. You said it wasn't a good measure for Rose because he doesn't get many free throws, then asked what his ts% would look like if he shot better and got more free throw attempts.

From his "good" period of the year, as defined by you, he was a 19ppg player, 4.5 apg player, 3 to per game player with a .515 ts% and very poor defense. Again, not much there that encourages me to think that he's on the cusp of being an all star again.

Okay sorry I should have clarified. I don't think you should throw it out the window. This is what I was trying to say about it:

We all saw that Rose's athleticism has declined enough that his MVP days aren't returning. Combining this with his increased passive nature lead to terrible FTA rate which is reflected in the TS%. The reason I brought up EFG% is because it shows his efficiency in scoring (outside of free throws. Its encouraging that it's back up to near MVP levels (albeit at lower volume).

My main concern (and i know quite a few others on this board shared the same sentiment) was if Rose's actual shooting would recover. The stats outside of FTA says it did. 46% FG and 35% from 3 is respectable from a PG, it also shows that either Roses outside shot selection or his shot itself improved. I believe it to be a bit of both.

As we know recovering from a major injury is a process for most people and Rose has gone through 3-4 major ones. Two years ago Rose was chucking 3s and barely attempted to drive to the rim. Last year, he started driving to the rim more and refined his outside shot selection a bit more even though he had the orbital injury setback.

I think the next step in his natural progression is to be more aggressive on his drives, learn to sell contact a bit more, and gain some respect back from the refs, which goes back to my hypothetical. If he stays healthy for a season and doesn't get injured 6 hours into the first day of training camp, maybe he starts gaining a bit more confidence and starts shying away less contact

[BR0D1E86]

Sorry but I didn't disregard the other stats. I realize Rose was horrible for half of the year. I chose this, yet again, since this is the period rose was injury free. If you wanna get technical, we could go a bit further back to where he removed his mask. The disclaimer to those stats were *if healthy* which yes I acknowledge Rose isn't often.

I posted his true shooting % from that same period, not the first half of the year. His ts% for the season was .479. You said it wasn't a good measure for Rose because he doesn't get many free throws, then asked what his ts% would look like if he shot better and got more free throw attempts.

From his "good" period of the year, as defined by you, he was a 19ppg player, 4.5 apg player, 3 to per game player with a .515 ts% and very poor defense. Again, not much there that encourages me to think that he's on the cusp of being an all star again.

Okay sorry I should have clarified. I don't think you should throw it out the window. This is what I was trying to say about it:

We all saw that Rose's athleticism has declined enough that his MVP days aren't returning. Combining this with his increased passive nature lead to terrible FTA rate which is reflected in the TS%. The reason I brought up EFG% is because it shows his efficiency in scoring (outside of free throws. Its encouraging that it's back up to near MVP levels (albeit at lower volume).

My main concern (and i know quite a few others on this board shared the same sentiment) was if Rose's actual shooting would recover. The stats outside of FTA says it did. 46% FG and 35% from 3 is respectable from a PG, it also shows that either Roses outside shot selection or his shot itself improved. I believe it to be a bit of both.

As we know recovering from a major injury is a process for most people and Rose has gone through 3-4 major ones. Two years ago Rose was chucking 3s and barely attempted to drive to the rim. Last year, he started driving to the rim more and refined his outside shot selection a bit more even though he had the orbital injury setback.

I think the next step in his natural progression is to be more aggressive on his drives, learn to sell contact a bit more, and gain some respect back from the refs, which goes back to my hypothetical.

OK, I don't know that I disagree with anything you said specifically, though I think we read very different things from the same stats A few minor opinions though:

1 - Rose has never been real good at selling contact. If you read this forum 5-6 years ago we were all convinced the refs had it in for him. He's just never played in a way that sells contact. I don't think he'll start doing so at this point, though it's possible.

2 - His scoring efficiency, basically regardless of how you divide up the season, was not great. But in the second half it was passable. Far, far bigger problems to him being a contributor are playing something that resembles defense and taking much better care of the basketball. If he scored exactly as he did from Jan 1 on, but cut down on the turnovers and played decent defense he'd be a capable starting point guard.

[League Circles]

OK, so by what measure is Derrick Rose a top 30 player? He has objectively not been a good basketball player in four years. If you think he can improve, that's fine. If George Karl had said "I think Rose can still be a top 30 player in this league" I'd have no issue with his statement. I'd disagree, but he's not ignoring every statistical measure that exists, all of which show that Derrick Rose is not a top 30 basketball player.

Nobody said he is by any "measure" you'd accept.

It may not be obvious to everyone, but individual statistics are not counted by referees and are not a subset of the only goal of the game, which is to beat the opposing team. I can't find it now, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rose is a top 30 player for career winning% among players with some reasonable minimum games played (say 250 games).

Individual stats describe what happened in the past. Karl was talking about the present, which is a point in time, not a period in time.

On the one hand you say there are measures other than even his most recent stats, because they're in the past so they're not real valid, but on the other hand you say his past winning % is very relevant. This year the Bulls were 32-34 when he played. He really didn't impact winning this year. What he did and what he was in 2011 doesn't matter. He's not that any more.

Winning% is the most important stat because it is the sole object of basketball - to win games. All individial stats are simply guesses that fans and media make on what helps or hurts winning. You can also "measure" players based on things like physical criteria. Rose is still among the biggest, fastest, strongest players at his position in the league, for example. Players and coaches think about things like this.

People who are sick of Rose tend to love to use last season's entire stats instead of, for example, stats after he recovered from his eye injury or career stats. All 3 time periods are equally arbitrary, but mostly the anti-Rose crowd insists that their arbitrary time period is the definitive one, and that it proves Rose is an outright bad NBA player.