Comments on: D-Rose and Iverson

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:11:00 +0000

Oh yea, Lebetard and C. Cowherd challenged Rose's "leadership" earlier in the year.. Don't remember on which grounds, but pretty sure they've been rebuked.. There's a reason the Bulls sell out visting arenas .

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:05:41 +0000

Have you guys been watching games or scoreboard watching? The Bulls have been obliterating teams in the last two months, Derrick resting on the bench in the 4th. They're shutting teams down and Derrick is doing whatever he wants to on offense. He's indefensible right now. Did you guys watch that span of games where he completely destroyed Deron, Chris Paul, Nash, Wall, Rondo, the Spurs and Miami. He takes over games in the clutch. He's taken care of Miami, the whole division, the Lakers. His peers have crowned him so let's not proclaim this is a media hype scenario. He's improved his FT and 3pt shooting immensely. His defense came under fire and he came out with a chip on his shoulder and led to team to the top of the conference. You guys are acting like people are double teaming Keith Bogans leaving Derrick free to roam..

By: Pag

Pag — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:35:12 +0000

Keep in mind Iverson led the league in points/g 31.4, steals /g 2.5, usg 35.9, and minutes /g 42.0.

...Also, The 76ers next best two players were hurt during the season. Ratliff only played 50 games and 36 year old Mutombo 26, and even with them their team was mediocre at best.

And to the people that are saying Derrick Rose is already better than Iverson, Let me know when Rose comes close to 33ppg, 7.4 apg, and 1.9 spg before we even sit down.

Its one thing to compare one season but dont start crowning Rose a hall of famer.

By: B

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:49:15 +0000

My opinion on this argument, after reviewing all the information posted, is that Derrick Rose would not be an egregious or terrible MVP pick. Although many people feel that Allen Iverson should not have won the MVP back in 2001, it is not like he was the 5th best player in the league. He was a top 3 player, and it was arguable between those 3, and he won over Shaq, another player who would have been deserving of the MVP in 2001.

I think that it is hard to quantify how valuable a player is, and therefore, it is difficult to choose who is MOST valuable. Winning or not winning an MVP should not discount that person's season. Derrick Rose has had an amazing season, and so have Dwight Howard, Lebron James, Dirk Nowitzki. and Russell Westbrook. Although we should try to give the MVP to one who has had the best season, it is not always obvious, and this season is just one of those years.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:05:22 +0000

Godwin's law of basketball arguments, The first one to quote Dan Lebetaard loses the argument.

By: Naren

Naren — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:12:08 +0000

I dont understand the comparison. Rose is a scoring point guard. Iverson is an undersized 2 guard. They may have similar statistics, but their approach to the game is quite different. Rose is much stronger, a bit taller and has a lot more complete game. Rose runs his team with a calm and composed demeanor. He picks his spots, and while he may take a lot of shots, it is within the flow of the offence. Unlike Iverson who always had a point guard who brought up the ball for him, set him up with an iso on either the left or right side, rose brings up the ball for his team, gets calls out the plays and is one of the best floor managers at knowing when to push the pace vs slowing it down, knowing who is hot and getting the ball to them etc.

I think iverson was a gambler on defense, and this resulted in a lot of steals. Rose is much more of a stay in front of my man defender, and this season he has been an above average defender. There have been few instances this season, where point guards have gone off on rose. With Iverson, it was a constant struggle to defend the other team, because Iverson could only guard point guards, and even then would get bullied by them in the post.

So all in all, I dont think statistics tell you what type of player someone is and in this case they are completely different players.

By: DWarner

DWarner — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:47:08 +0000

Here was Dan LeBatards take on it in the Miami Herald

For Chicago Bulls’ Derrick Rose, winning alters all numbers

BY DAN LE BATARD

[email protected]

These are the numbers/facts without manipulation:
Through Saturday, Player X has averaged 22.2 points on .444 shooting with 4.6 rebounds, 8.3 assists and 1.8 steals. He has been his conference’s player of the week four times.
Player Y has averaged 24.9 points on .439 shooting with 4.2 rebounds, 7.9 assists and 1.0 steals. He has been his conference’s player of the week twice.
They are essentially the same player, in other words. Player X is more efficient and a better rebounder and thief, but Player Y scores one more basket per game. Yet Player X isn’t even considered the most valuable player on his own team. And Player Y is about to be named the most valuable player of the entire league.
Why Y?
Perception is not reality. Reality is reality. Player X (Russell Westbrook) isn’t viewed like Player Y (Derrick Rose) because winning alters all, even facts, even if one team is 53-19 and the other is 47-24. Exceed our expectations, and we’ll give you trophies you don’t deserve instead of admitting that our expectations were, um, wrong.
ROSE HAS THORNS
The Bulls’ offense is statistically mediocre; Rose is that offense’s best player. The Bulls’ defense is best in the league; Rose might be that defense’s least important piece. But throw all the ingredients together in the Winning Pot, make a stew with a flavor that surprises us and you, too, can taste like MVP.
Rose benefits from the greatness of his teammates, but Westbrook is harmed by the greatness of his more famous one (Kevin Durant). Would Westbrook be MVP if he simply had Chicago’s defense? Would he be a bigger scorer than Rose if he didn’t have to share with Durant? The only reason Rose scores 2.7 points more than Westbrook per game? He has taken 200 more shots.
They should just rename the MVP trophy The We Didn’t Expect To See Rose Sitting Atop LeBron In The Standings Award.
A million variables go into winning, but baseball is so much better at isolating and measuring those variables than basketball. Felix Hernandez won Cy Young with a 13-12 record in last place because baseball voters understand, after a mathematical paradigm shift called sabermetrics, how much Hernandez can and can’t control. And baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport anyway. Albert Pujols is alone in that batter’s box, and it doesn’t matter if he listens to his manager or likes his third baseman. Hernandez controlled that baseball only when he held it; he couldn’t do anything about how terrible his teammates were at scoring.
GROUP EFFORT
But basketball’s five are linked like fingers in a fist, and isolating performance is next to impossible, especially on defense. So intangibles get assigned to the winning instead of facts or data, and Rose has in his favor the Hey-I-Didn’t-Expect-The-Bulls-To-Be-Good metric that LeBron or Dwight Howard or Kobe or any of the Spurs or Mavs or Celtics can’t have. It is absurd that he will soon have as many MVPs as Shaquille O’Neal, but not as absurd as Steve Nash having twice as many as Shaq.
The Bulls aren’t exceeding expectations because Rose is a “leader” or “knows how to win” or is “clutch.” They are exceeding expectations because no team in the league strangles the opponent better on defense. You want to give the Bulls coach of the year for that? Cool. Defensive player of the year? Fine. But MVP for the league’s 20th-ranked offense? The one scoring less than Indiana, Toronto, Philadelphia, the Clippers and Sacramento?
Rose has been named the best player in his conference two weeks this season. Two. So, too, has LeMarcus Aldridge. How can you be the most valuable for the entire season when you were only the most valuable in your conference two weeks? Almost everywhere outside of sports and Visa commercials, “best” and “most valuable” are supposed to be synonyms. And try paying your Visa bill with a check that reads “priceless,” and see how that works for you.
None of this is meant as an indictment of Rose.
He’s just not the best one.
Which means he’s not the most valuable.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:38:10 +0000

Howard could be getting 30+ points per night, but the system is designed for the team to get lots of open 3 pointers, many of which he doesn't get an assist for because of swing passes. That's taking advantage of his talents. They benefit from him, and he benefits in the form of wins, but no individual offensive stats, which MVPs are apparently built upon.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 17:16:45 +0000

"Honestly Kelly, Rose is not special enough for you to be raving about. Enough, he's mediocre compared to recent MVP winners." That's too ridiculous to merit a response. "This is a chicken and egg argument, but you are being disingenuous by suggesting that the offense is designed to allow Howard be more effective offensively instead of the offensive being designed to take advantage of his talents." If it's chicken or egg how am I being disingenuous? The point isn't what comes first, it's that he plays within a system that accentuates his talents and those players around him are designed to fit that system. Therefore he does benefit from the players around him.

By: huevonkiller

huevonkiller — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:03:12 +0000

Honestly Kelly, Rose is not special enough for you to be raving about. Enough, he's mediocre compared to recent MVP winners.

Your arguments are terrible and at no point have you proved Rose is anything more than Deron Williams level on a great defensive team. The 2001 Lakers also only won 56 games and Shaq owns Derrick Rose.

#135

Rose is not dominating counterpart PER anyway, Neil. He is doing solid, but that metric would not vault him to the top either. It is still a useful stat.