Some blog: Is Rose overrated?

[Kush77]

Did anyone else see this post on Doug's blog about Rose? It wasn't DT, he just posted it from another blog asking the question is Rose overrated. My response is no, but this paragraph in the article made me laugh.

"First of all, he is an inefficient scorer. He’s not nearly up to Monta Ellis levels, but his 20.4 points per game average is much less impressive once you factor in that he needs 17.6 shots per game to reach it. In fact, his true shooting of 52.4% is a staggering 195th in the league in the league amongst qualifying players (228th overall), and 35th (of 67) among point guards. Pretty mediocre for a player whose main skill is scoring the ball."

Don't ask if Derrick Rose is overrated then cite Monta Ellis in your argument. Then of course you have to throw in all of these silly stats like TS in there. How's Monta's more efficient scoring treating the 20-51 Golden State Warriors?

Rose is averaging 20.5 ppg on 17.7 shots per game, 48% FG in 36.2 minutes.
Ellis is averaging 25.7 on 22.1 shots per game, 45% FG in 41.4 minutes.

Rose takes the same amount of shots and plays the same amount of minutes, he puts up Ellis' numbers. Not sure how Rose isn't "nearly up" to Ellis' levels.

Rose is a difference maker. Bulls lost 10 in a row, Rose comes back (still without Deng) they win 2 straight. That's what he means to this team and stats like TS and +/-, how many jumpers he takes between 16-22 feet don't mean a damn thing.

I think stats are important, but too many people want to take these new fancy pants stats and try to say lesser players are somehow better. It's just beyond ridiculous.

People need to watch more games because one thing all these fancy pants stats don't tell you is WHEN guys score. Do they come through in the clutch. Do they score to quiet the crowd when a team cut your lead down from 12 to 4.

Brendan Heywood and Chris Anderson have better TS than Derrick Rose too. I guess Gar better start working the phones. :dry:

 

[Shakes]

I don't think the author of the blog got the memo that Derrick's shooting percentages are down mostly due to his poor start to the season.

And of course TS% matters, the team which scores more efficiently wins the majority of games. I don't think anyone is saying it's the only stat (shooting efficiently isn't much good if you take hardly any shots), but it is pretty damn important.

BTW, half the teams in the league employ guys using these "fancy pants" new stats. Of the teams that don't employ dedicated guys using "fancy pants" stats, only the Hawks, Jazz & Suns are in the playoffs. I wish the Bulls would start using them, if you want to complain JR is cheap, don't complain about which guys he did or didn't sign, complain he wont shell out for the best stats guys in the business!

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

I don't think the author of the blog got the memo that Derrick's shooting percentages are down mostly due to his poor start to the season.

And of course TS% matters, the team which scores more efficiently wins the majority of games. I don't think anyone is saying it's the only stat (shooting efficiently isn't much good if you take hardly any shots), but it is pretty damn important.

BTW, half the teams in the league employ guys using these "fancy pants" new stats. Of the teams that don't employ dedicated guys using "fancy pants" stats, only the Hawks, Jazz & Suns are in the playoffs. I wish the Bulls would start using them, if you want to complain JR is cheap, don't complain about which guys he did or didn't sign, complain he wont shell out for the best stats guys in the business!

Stats guys don't make you a playoff team. Good players make you a playoff team.

Teams with the best TS win the majority of games? I suppose. But we're talking about individual players. And if you're gonna talk up TS and it's importance than defend the flip side - would you trade Rose for Brendan Haywood????

I got a stat - the team that scores more points wins 100% of games played. Rose puts the ball in the basket and helps the Bulls win, I don't give a rats ass what his TS is. He shoots about 48%, that's pretty good.

So these fancy pants stats pretty much state the obvious we all can see when we watch games with our own eyes.

 

[TheStig]

TS is more important in your supporting cast. Stars can get their TS as they get to the line more which is why they are stars. Rose will get there, he has the high 40's fg%, he will get more calls and his ts will improve. But TS is important for your supporting cast, you want them to be able to do something with the ball.

 

[Kush77]

TheStig wrote:

TS is more important in your supporting cast. Stars can get their TS as they get to the line more which is why they are stars. Rose will get there, he has the high 40's fg%, he will get more calls and his ts will improve. But TS is important for your supporting cast, you want them to be able to do something with the ball.

That's a great point. I want Steve Kerr coming off the bench and going 3 of 5 from the field with two 3-pointers. Exactly.

When it comes to your stars that are taking a lot of shots - if they shoot a solid percentage, I don't care how you get the points of if they are efficient. If you score, you score.

I just didn't get the comparison to Monta Ellis who's taking more shots, playing more minutes. He gets to the FT line 2 more times a game, basically 1 set of FTs, which should happen if he's taking 5 more attempts per game.

When it comes to these fancy pants stats, guys can cherry pick who's better or more efficient. According to Hollinger's top TS list on ESPN Jarrett Jack is more efficient than Chris Paul. So I can't wait to read the blog post on how Jack is better than Paul.

Because if you're gonna write a post and make TS one of your main arguments, then it has to go both ways. TS can't just matter for your argument, then be dismissed on the flip side. The flip side being that Kendrick Perkins has a better TS than Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, David Lee and Amare Stoudemire.

Hell, all of our debate on here has been useless. The Bulls should be trying to acquire Kendrick Perkins this offseason. Not those other less efficient players.

 

[Shakes]

Kush77 wrote:

Stats guys don't make you a playoff team. Good players make you a playoff team.

And good stats guys help you identify good players.

Teams with the best TS win the majority of games? I suppose. But we're talking about individual players. And if you're gonna talk up TS and it's importance than defend the flip side - would you trade Rose for Brendan Haywood????

Didn't I explicitly say having a high TS% isn't helping much if you don't take many shots?

I got a stat - the team that scores more points wins 100% of games played. Rose puts the ball in the basket and helps the Bulls win, I don't give a rats ass what his TS is. He shoots about 48%, that's pretty good.

Each team gets the same number of uses of the ball, so the team that scores more points is going to be the team that scores more efficiently (obviously turnovers and rebounds play into it, but shooting efficiency is number one).

So these fancy pants stats pretty much state the obvious we all can see when we watch games with our own eyes.

Oh come on, nobody watches every minute of every game played in the NBA while paying attention to all 10 guys on the floor. Everyone relies on stats to some extent, so if we have to rely on stats, I think it's silly not to use all we have available.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

And good stats guys help you identify good players.

I've been watching basketball for over 20 years and never needed TS to know who the top players in the league were. All these new stats just state - for those who watch a lot of games - what people already know.

Didn't I explicitly say having a high TS% isn't helping much if you don't take many shots?

You probably did and I missed it. But you can't have it both ways. Like I said in the other post, you can't write this long article saying a player is better than another based on TS then say TS doesn't mean much when it comes to other cases. And it doesn't have to be as extreme as Heywood vs. Rose. Kendrick Perkins vs Carlos Boozer. And I'm sure I can find other cases. Can't have it both ways.

Example. I distinctly remember John Hollinger (using all of his fancy pants stats before the 2008 NBA playoffs) saying that the Utah Jazz were the best team in the NBA. But when it came time to make playoff predictions he picked the Lakers to win the West. As did I.
I call that the common sense percentage.
The issue I have is don't preach to me about your fancy pants stats for 82 games, then when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you don't make your pick based on said stats.

Each team gets the same number of uses of the ball, so the team that scores more points is going to be the team that scores more efficiently (obviously turnovers and rebounds play into it, but shooting efficiency is number one).

Yep, other factors play into it. So TS isn't the main indicator. But this goes back to my previous point. People can cherry pick any stat and make a case. I think the case that Rose is overrated is a joke. Especially when the main argument is TS.

Oh come on, nobody watches every minute of every game played in the NBA while paying attention to all 10 guys on the floor. Everyone relies on stats to some extent, so if we have to rely on stats, I think it's silly not to use all we have available.

No, no one does. so to make up for it we have these fancy pants stats now. Sorry, I don't accept them as the be all end all. I've watched Rose (just like you) and I know he isn't overrated. But a guy comes up with all these fancy pants stats and is able to make a case. Since I know what Rose brings to this team I've come to the conclusion that the case that he's overrated is a joke. I don't care how many TS, +/- or defensive win share % of floor time action mode - you throw at me. You meaning the Fancy Pants Stat people, not you Shakes.

 

[Shakes]

Well I'm saying that the primary problem with his argument is that Rose looks good by fancy pants stats: so long as you throw out the start of the season when he was injured. I think the stats and the subjective opinion on Rose is pretty much in agreement here: start of the year he wasn't anything special, now he's a star.

 

[Diddy1122]

Kush, I completely agree & it's just another reason why I hate math.

I'm sick & tired of math geeks trying to quantify every second & every possession of every game into strings of numbers in their Commodore 64. Numbers do not always accurately reflect sports & players impact or overall ability, especially basketball. They can help during player evaluation, they are not the end all be all, especially when it comes to stars like you said. And seems since the age of King Stat Geek John Hollinger more & more people use these numbers as the measuring stick of greatness & the crux of every argument about player ability. Let me go dust off my TI-82 so I can have a rousing debate about Greg Odeb's superiority to Dirk Nowitzki.

 

[TheStig]

Kush77 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

TS is more important in your supporting cast. Stars can get their TS as they get to the line more which is why they are stars. Rose will get there, he has the high 40's fg%, he will get more calls and his ts will improve. But TS is important for your supporting cast, you want them to be able to do something with the ball.

That's a great point. I want Steve Kerr coming off the bench and going 3 of 5 from the field with two 3-pointers. Exactly.

When it comes to your stars that are taking a lot of shots - if they shoot a solid percentage, I don't care how you get the points of if they are efficient. If you score, you score.

I just didn't get the comparison to Monta Ellis who's taking more shots, playing more minutes. He gets to the FT line 2 more times a game, basically 1 set of FTs, which should happen if he's taking 5 more attempts per game.

When it comes to these fancy pants stats, guys can cherry pick who's better or more efficient. According to Hollinger's top TS list on ESPN Jarrett Jack is more efficient than Chris Paul. So I can't wait to read the blog post on how Jack is better than Paul.

Because if you're gonna write a post and make TS one of your main arguments, then it has to go both ways. TS can't just matter for your argument, then be dismissed on the flip side. The flip side being that Kendrick Perkins has a better TS than Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, David Lee and Amare Stoudemire.

Hell, all of our debate on here has been useless. The Bulls should be trying to acquire Kendrick Perkins this offseason. Not those other less efficient players.

Well I wouldn't write off TS like you have it is very good at telling efficency and awards that. Basically, to have a good ts you have to have a respectable fg% and get to the line or hit threes or get easy dunks or layups. It basically cherry picks who gets the easiest shots. So it is pretty telling. Rose has a lower TS because he really works for his shots, doesn't get to the line or shoot threes or get his points of being set up for layups/dunks.

 

[Shakes]

It's one thing to say that TS% isn't the be all and end all stat (no stat is). It's another to just write it off completely. As I said in another thread a while back, by that argument you can say scouting players is worthless because there are lots of busts drafted. Adam Morrison proves watching games is pointless! :laugh:

I mean TS% can't tell you everything. Iverson looks like a bad player when you just look at his shooting percentage, yet every team he's left has shot worse without him. That doesn't mean that as a general rule the guy who scores more efficiently isn't a better player, it just means you need to look at more than one stat. Real "fancy pants" stats guys do that (heck, the teams that are serious about this keep track of stats us plebs in the general public don't have access to), people who just want to call Rose overrated don't.

Edit: I'm just saying the stats bashing every time someone uses stats to make an argument that people don't agree with gets old. Nobody says "Sam Smith said player A is better than player B and he's clearly wrong, watching the game is a stupid way to judge players!" they say "Sam Smith is an idiot". I don't see why someone using stats should be trated any differently. The guy who wrote the article is the one you should have a problem with, not the stats.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

It's one thing to say that TS% isn't the be all and end all stat (no stat is). It's another to just write it off completely. As I said in another thread a while back, by that argument you can say scouting players is worthless because there are lots of busts drafted. Adam Morrison proves watching games is pointless! :laugh:

I mean TS% can't tell you everything. Iverson looks like a bad player when you just look at his shooting percentage, yet every team he's left has shot worse without him. That doesn't mean that as a general rule the guy who scores more efficiently isn't a better player, it just means you need to look at more than one stat. Real "fancy pants" stats guys do that (heck, the teams that are serious about this keep track of stats us plebs in the general public don't have access to), people who just want to call Rose overrated don't.

Edit: I'm just saying the stats bashing every time someone uses stats to make an argument that people don't agree with gets old. Nobody says "Sam Smith said player A is better than player B and he's clearly wrong, watching the game is a stupid way to judge players!" they say "Sam Smith is an idiot". I don't see why someone using stats should be trated any differently. The guy who wrote the article is the one you should have a problem with, not the stats.

Well Adam Morrison probably had a great TS while playing at Gonzaga, so then the stats are just as worthless as watching him play would have been. But that's college. When you scout a player you are scouting him against other college players. Adam Morrison was scouted against other college players. Once he started playing in the NBA he was exposed.

And I don't bash every stat argument I don't agree with. But if the main basis of your argument is that Derrick Rose is overrated because of TS then that is garbage. He puts the ball in the basket at nearly a 50% clip. That's what matters.

When it comes to the stats guys you can't have it both ways.

don't tell me player A is better than B because of some fancy pants stat, then when I tell you player C is better than D because of the same stats, then it doesn't apply.

+/- in basketball all the sudden is talked about a lot. And that stat is completely worthless I don't care if Jesus Christ came down and told me so.

So based on tonight's +/- Derrick Rose was a -33 (5 of 16, 12pts, 5 rebs, 5 asts) Flip Murray was a -8 (2 of 8, 5 points, 2 rebs). So one of these stat guys are gonna say Rose had a worse game than Flip Murray? That's what the +/- says.

I don't think TS is worthless and I'm not dismissing it. But guys want to have it both ways.

So if Ellis is more efficient than Rose based on TS, then Corey Maggette is more efficient than LeBron James. I don't agree with either.

 

[Kush77]

TheStig wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

TS is more important in your supporting cast. Stars can get their TS as they get to the line more which is why they are stars. Rose will get there, he has the high 40's fg%, he will get more calls and his ts will improve. But TS is important for your supporting cast, you want them to be able to do something with the ball.

That's a great point. I want Steve Kerr coming off the bench and going 3 of 5 from the field with two 3-pointers. Exactly.

When it comes to your stars that are taking a lot of shots - if they shoot a solid percentage, I don't care how you get the points of if they are efficient. If you score, you score.

I just didn't get the comparison to Monta Ellis who's taking more shots, playing more minutes. He gets to the FT line 2 more times a game, basically 1 set of FTs, which should happen if he's taking 5 more attempts per game.

When it comes to these fancy pants stats, guys can cherry pick who's better or more efficient. According to Hollinger's top TS list on ESPN Jarrett Jack is more efficient than Chris Paul. So I can't wait to read the blog post on how Jack is better than Paul.

Because if you're gonna write a post and make TS one of your main arguments, then it has to go both ways. TS can't just matter for your argument, then be dismissed on the flip side. The flip side being that Kendrick Perkins has a better TS than Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, David Lee and Amare Stoudemire.

Hell, all of our debate on here has been useless. The Bulls should be trying to acquire Kendrick Perkins this offseason. Not those other less efficient players.

Well I wouldn't write off TS like you have it is very good at telling efficency and awards that. Basically, to have a good ts you have to have a respectable fg% and get to the line or hit threes or get easy dunks or layups. It basically cherry picks who gets the easiest shots. So it is pretty telling. Rose has a lower TS because he really works for his shots, doesn't get to the line or shoot threes or get his points of being set up for layups/dunks.

I'm not writing off TS. I'm just pointing out the flaws.

If your argument is "Rose is overrated because of his TS," then I 100% disagree.

If your argument was just "Rose's TS isn't among the tops in the NBA" then based on the stats I would agree.

 

[TheStig]

Kush77 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

TS is more important in your supporting cast. Stars can get their TS as they get to the line more which is why they are stars. Rose will get there, he has the high 40's fg%, he will get more calls and his ts will improve. But TS is important for your supporting cast, you want them to be able to do something with the ball.

That's a great point. I want Steve Kerr coming off the bench and going 3 of 5 from the field with two 3-pointers. Exactly.

When it comes to your stars that are taking a lot of shots - if they shoot a solid percentage, I don't care how you get the points of if they are efficient. If you score, you score.

I just didn't get the comparison to Monta Ellis who's taking more shots, playing more minutes. He gets to the FT line 2 more times a game, basically 1 set of FTs, which should happen if he's taking 5 more attempts per game.

When it comes to these fancy pants stats, guys can cherry pick who's better or more efficient. According to Hollinger's top TS list on ESPN Jarrett Jack is more efficient than Chris Paul. So I can't wait to read the blog post on how Jack is better than Paul.

Because if you're gonna write a post and make TS one of your main arguments, then it has to go both ways. TS can't just matter for your argument, then be dismissed on the flip side. The flip side being that Kendrick Perkins has a better TS than Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, David Lee and Amare Stoudemire.

Hell, all of our debate on here has been useless. The Bulls should be trying to acquire Kendrick Perkins this offseason. Not those other less efficient players.

Well I wouldn't write off TS like you have it is very good at telling efficency and awards that. Basically, to have a good ts you have to have a respectable fg% and get to the line or hit threes or get easy dunks or layups. It basically cherry picks who gets the easiest shots. So it is pretty telling. Rose has a lower TS because he really works for his shots, doesn't get to the line or shoot threes or get his points of being set up for layups/dunks.

I'm not writing off TS. I'm just pointing out the flaws.

If your argument is "Rose is overrated because of his TS," then I 100% disagree.

If your argument was just "Rose's TS isn't among the tops in the NBA" then based on the stats I would agree.

I see. Sounds fair.

 

[Shakes]

Kush77 wrote:

+/- in basketball all the sudden is talked about a lot. And that stat is completely worthless I don't care if Jesus Christ came down and told me so.

So based on tonight's +/- Derrick Rose was a -33 (5 of 16, 12pts, 5 rebs, 5 asts) Flip Murray was a -8 (2 of 8, 5 points, 2 rebs). So one of these stat guys are gonna say Rose had a worse game than Flip Murray? That's what the +/- says.

Come on, I know you can do better than make straw man arguments like that. Firstly, even in the stats community there's a lot of debate over whether +/- is useful at all. Even those that think it is useful would tell you that +/- is a stat that is only useful over larger sample sizes than that. I've never heard any actual stats guy use +/- for one game (which was a blowout no less) to make an argument about a player.

So if Ellis is more efficient than Rose based on TS, then Corey Maggette is more efficient than LeBron James. I don't agree with either.

Saying Maggette is a more efficient scorer isn't the same as saying he's a better scorer or better player. I think you'll find pretty much every stats guy thinks LeBron is the no-brainer choice for MVP.

Like I said, I think your argument should be with the guy for taking a one dimensional look at Rose, not with the stats he used to do it. He could have equally have said "I watched Rose in November and LOL he can't make a layup, this guy is so over rated" and come to the same (equally stupid) conclusion.

 

[Hendu0520]

Shakes why can't you answer Kush's arguments directly? Please explain why Magette's TS% is better than Lebron's. And then please explain your jumble about effecient scorer vs better scorer? What are you talking about? Magette is not a more efficient scorer or better scorer than Lebron. Does your stupid stat take into account 4 guys guarding James and no one even runs at Magatte? Or that everyone is gunning for Lebron not Corey?

TS% should only be brought up when comparing 2 players and should be one of the last points made, not one of the first. So after every other stat is put out there you can add in the TS%. +/- should never be used. TS% is barely a good stat.

Any stat that tries to encompass all factors just can't work. There are too many factors you can't make a perfect formula. Even QB rating is worthless. Look at all these guys come up with ratings systems: Hollinger, QB ratings, Power Ratings, they all have flaws and can be minipulated. They are fun, nothing else!

Stats help us prove points, the stat should never be the start of your argument unless a guy is better in almost all stats across the board.

Yes the blogger was way off (he even said that Rose' FG% isn't good for a PG which is way off)and the argument has now changed from DRose being overrated to if TS% matters. Rose is the 4th best PG in the league behind Paul, Williams, Nash. Some could argue Billups but it would be a good argument.

TS% and other formulated stats are way Over used and Overrated!!!!!!

 

[Hendu0520]

Good stats are the factual ones: ppg is a fact. The guy averages 20ppg, then the why's can be argued.

 

[hfritz32]

Kush77 wrote:

Did anyone else see this post on Doug's blog about Rose? It wasn't DT, he just posted it from another blog asking the question is Rose overrated. My response is no, but this paragraph in the article made me laugh.

"First of all, he is an inefficient scorer. He’s not nearly up to Monta Ellis levels, but his 20.4 points per game average is much less impressive once you factor in that he needs 17.6 shots per game to reach it. In fact, his true shooting of 52.4% is a staggering 195th in the league in the league amongst qualifying players (228th overall), and 35th (of 67) among point guards. Pretty mediocre for a player whose main skill is scoring the ball."

Don't ask if Derrick Rose is overrated then cite Monta Ellis in your argument. Then of course you have to throw in all of these silly stats like TS in there. How's Monta's more efficient scoring treating the 20-51 Golden State Warriors?

Rose is averaging 20.5 ppg on 17.7 shots per game, 48% FG in 36.2 minutes.
Ellis is averaging 25.7 on 22.1 shots per game, 45% FG in 41.4 minutes.

Rose takes the same amount of shots and plays the same amount of minutes, he puts up Ellis' numbers. Not sure how Rose isn't "nearly up" to Ellis' levels.

Rose is a difference maker. Bulls lost 10 in a row, Rose comes back (still without Deng) they win 2 straight. That's what he means to this team and stats like TS and +/-, how many jumpers he takes between 16-22 feet don't mean a damn thing.

I think stats are important, but too many people want to take these new fancy pants stats and try to say lesser players are somehow better. It's just beyond ridiculous.

People need to watch more games because one thing all these fancy pants stats don't tell you is WHEN guys score. Do they come through in the clutch. Do they score to quiet the crowd when a team cut your lead down from 12 to 4.

Brendan Heywood and Chris Anderson have better TS than Derrick Rose too. I guess Gar better start working the phones. :dry:

ok do any of you guys consider that he wasnt saying Ellis is better then rose he is saying Derrick Rose isnt efficient, but not as inneficient as Ellis, thats what i believe he is saying not Ellis is more efficient then Rose

 

[Kush77]

hfritz32 wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

Did anyone else see this post on Doug's blog about Rose? It wasn't DT, he just posted it from another blog asking the question is Rose overrated. My response is no, but this paragraph in the article made me laugh.

"First of all, he is an inefficient scorer. He’s not nearly up to Monta Ellis levels, but his 20.4 points per game average is much less impressive once you factor in that he needs 17.6 shots per game to reach it. In fact, his true shooting of 52.4% is a staggering 195th in the league in the league amongst qualifying players (228th overall), and 35th (of 67) among point guards. Pretty mediocre for a player whose main skill is scoring the ball."

Don't ask if Derrick Rose is overrated then cite Monta Ellis in your argument. Then of course you have to throw in all of these silly stats like TS in there. How's Monta's more efficient scoring treating the 20-51 Golden State Warriors?

Rose is averaging 20.5 ppg on 17.7 shots per game, 48% FG in 36.2 minutes.
Ellis is averaging 25.7 on 22.1 shots per game, 45% FG in 41.4 minutes.

Rose takes the same amount of shots and plays the same amount of minutes, he puts up Ellis' numbers. Not sure how Rose isn't "nearly up" to Ellis' levels.

Rose is a difference maker. Bulls lost 10 in a row, Rose comes back (still without Deng) they win 2 straight. That's what he means to this team and stats like TS and +/-, how many jumpers he takes between 16-22 feet don't mean a damn thing.

I think stats are important, but too many people want to take these new fancy pants stats and try to say lesser players are somehow better. It's just beyond ridiculous.

People need to watch more games because one thing all these fancy pants stats don't tell you is WHEN guys score. Do they come through in the clutch. Do they score to quiet the crowd when a team cut your lead down from 12 to 4.

Brendan Heywood and Chris Anderson have better TS than Derrick Rose too. I guess Gar better start working the phones. :dry:

ok do any of you guys consider that he wasnt saying Ellis is better then rose he is saying Derrick Rose isnt efficient, but not as inneficient as Ellis, thats what i believe he is saying not Ellis is more efficient then Rose

He said Rose isn't "nearly up" to Ellis' levels. Then I posted these stats.

Rose is averaging 20.5 ppg on 17.7 shots per game, 48% FG in 36.2 minutes.
Ellis is averaging 25.7 on 22.1 shots per game, 45% FG in 41.4 minutes.

So how can you tell me that Rose isn't "nearly up" to Ellis' levels? He telling me that based on TS, to which I roll my eyes. Because when I look at the basic stats it shows me Rose is just as good as Ellis. Ellis scores more and he takes the second most shots in the NBA. He gets to the FT line 2 more times a game, which he should taking 5 more shots per game.

To me he's saying Rose isn't efficient. He points out that Rose is 195th in TS among ranked players. What else is he trying to say by throwing that stat out there?

He says "Pretty mediocre for a player whose main skill is scoring the ball" Pretty mediocre? He shoots a better percentage from the field than Ellis. That's what I care about.

If people want to nit-pick and complain about how a guy scores than be my guest. I care whether or not the ball goes through the basket.

And Ellis is a good player. Not trying to say he isn't. But his efficiency isn't helping the Warriors much. So my question is how important is it really.

I agree with Stig that it's something that you want from your role players. If a guy gets 25ppg, I don't care if he does it from 16-22 feet or 2 feet. At the end of the day he scores 25ppg.

 

[Kush77]

hfritz32 wrote:

ok do any of you guys consider that he wasnt saying Ellis is better then rose he is saying Derrick Rose isnt efficient, but not as inneficient as Ellis, thats what i believe he is saying not Ellis is more efficient then Rose

Oh I see. I was wrong there. The guy is saying that Rose isn't up to Ellis' Inefficiency levels. I got it. I apologize to the author.

But I still disagree that Rose is inefficient. Rose being 195th in the NBA in efficiency and something like 35 out of 67 PG. That still makes me roll my eyes.

And I guess that changes my outlook on Ellis then. I would disagree that Ellis is inefficent too. He scores 25ppg. Sure he takes a lot of shots but shooting 45% is very good for a guard. So I would have no problems with it. If he started to drop to 40% or high 30s, and still taking 22 shots, then that would be an issue with me.

Thanks for pointing that out Fritz.