- 150,703
- 201,601
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
where would the hornets have been without the 1 legged chris paul?
2011 NBA MVP Thread
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by CP1708,
- Start date
- 2,950
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
So many people in this thread have no logic. Thankfully they'll probably never make any decisions that matter.
- 2,950
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
So many people in this thread have no logic. Thankfully they'll probably never make any decisions that matter.
- 6,774
- 3,078
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
russy
he's doing what rose is doing without the hype.
- 6,774
- 3,078
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
russy
he's doing what rose is doing without the hype.
- 517
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
You're not telling the whole story, though.
Celtics had Perkins missing for probably more than half of the time he was there until he was traded. Both Oneals out.
Also ya'll were lucky Miami started off horribly and then had that grip of games after the all-star game where they lost like 5 in a row.
- 517
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
You're not telling the whole story, though.
Celtics had Perkins missing for probably more than half of the time he was there until he was traded. Both Oneals out.
Also ya'll were lucky Miami started off horribly and then had that grip of games after the all-star game where they lost like 5 in a row.
- 2,509
- 54
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
No, not his fault, but CLEARLY that comes into play when you discuss these kinds of things.
Ok, great, he's as productive as Rose, but you didn't answer my question, who gets the ball to close the game for each team? Also, if Westbrook shares SOME of the load at the end of the game and is as productive as Rose, how many times does he have actually the ball in his hands come clutch time? Also, do teams not expect it to go to D. Rose? I mean, really? Teams know it can go to Durant (1) or Westbrook (2) ...
- 2,509
- 54
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
No, not his fault, but CLEARLY that comes into play when you discuss these kinds of things.
Ok, great, he's as productive as Rose, but you didn't answer my question, who gets the ball to close the game for each team? Also, if Westbrook shares SOME of the load at the end of the game and is as productive as Rose, how many times does he have actually the ball in his hands come clutch time? Also, do teams not expect it to go to D. Rose? I mean, really? Teams know it can go to Durant (1) or Westbrook (2) ...
- 2,509
- 54
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
That gif is hilarious!
- 2,509
- 54
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
That gif is hilarious!
- 5,456
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
[h1]If Derrick Rose Didn't Shoot as Much Would He Have a Shot at MVP?[/h1]
Rose still gets props tho. MIP imo.
Spoiler [+]
http://www.huffingtonpost...-didnt-sho_b_826200.html
Rose is currently taking 20.2 field goal attempts per game. Only two players in the league -- Monta Ellis and Kobe Bryant -- have attempted more field goals this season. And for the season he has taken nearly 300 more shots from the field than Luol Deng, the player who ranks second on the Bulls in shot attempts.
Of course, Rose is the team's point guard so he has a great deal of influence on who gets to shoot. But let's imagine that Rose decided to take just six fewer shots a game.
Rose currently has an effective field goal percentage of 0.488. Kyle Korver, Carlos Boozer, Kurt Thomas, Keith Bogans, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng are all more efficient from the field than Rose. So if Rose let just let one of these teammates take three of his shots each half, it seems unlikely the Bulls would be worse off.
After all, many of these players have taken more shots per game (at similar levels of shooting efficiency) for other teams in the past. So it seems likely that Rose passing the ball a bit more often wouldn't cause the number of games won by the Bulls to decline.
But Rose's scoring per game would clearly decline. If Rose took six fewer field goal attempts per game, his scoring per game (given his current level of shooting efficiency) would decline from 24.9 to 19.0.
In this scenario, the Bulls would probably still be just as successful on the court. But since Boozer scores more than 19.0 points per game, Rose would no longer be the leading scorer on the team. And if Rose is not the leading scorer on this team, would Rose still be an MVP candidate?
It is still possible he might. Steve Nash won two MVP awards without leading his team in scoring. And if Rose passed more often, he might finish with as many assists as Nash (Rose would need to average two or three more assist per game to match Nash's performance during his MVP season). But although voters have rewarded a passer in the past, more often than not it is scoring that attracts the attention of the media.
So if Rose wants to win this award -- and yes, he said he did -- then he would be wise to keep focusing on his shot attempts and his scoring. The media, though, would be wise to ask themselves the following question: Should Rose's decision to give himself more shots at the expense of his teammates be rewarded?
Rose is currently taking 20.2 field goal attempts per game. Only two players in the league -- Monta Ellis and Kobe Bryant -- have attempted more field goals this season. And for the season he has taken nearly 300 more shots from the field than Luol Deng, the player who ranks second on the Bulls in shot attempts.
Of course, Rose is the team's point guard so he has a great deal of influence on who gets to shoot. But let's imagine that Rose decided to take just six fewer shots a game.
Rose currently has an effective field goal percentage of 0.488. Kyle Korver, Carlos Boozer, Kurt Thomas, Keith Bogans, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng are all more efficient from the field than Rose. So if Rose let just let one of these teammates take three of his shots each half, it seems unlikely the Bulls would be worse off.
After all, many of these players have taken more shots per game (at similar levels of shooting efficiency) for other teams in the past. So it seems likely that Rose passing the ball a bit more often wouldn't cause the number of games won by the Bulls to decline.
But Rose's scoring per game would clearly decline. If Rose took six fewer field goal attempts per game, his scoring per game (given his current level of shooting efficiency) would decline from 24.9 to 19.0.
In this scenario, the Bulls would probably still be just as successful on the court. But since Boozer scores more than 19.0 points per game, Rose would no longer be the leading scorer on the team. And if Rose is not the leading scorer on this team, would Rose still be an MVP candidate?
It is still possible he might. Steve Nash won two MVP awards without leading his team in scoring. And if Rose passed more often, he might finish with as many assists as Nash (Rose would need to average two or three more assist per game to match Nash's performance during his MVP season). But although voters have rewarded a passer in the past, more often than not it is scoring that attracts the attention of the media.
So if Rose wants to win this award -- and yes, he said he did -- then he would be wise to keep focusing on his shot attempts and his scoring. The media, though, would be wise to ask themselves the following question: Should Rose's decision to give himself more shots at the expense of his teammates be rewarded?
- 5,456
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
[h1]If Derrick Rose Didn't Shoot as Much Would He Have a Shot at MVP?[/h1]
Rose still gets props tho. MIP imo.
Spoiler [+]
http://www.huffingtonpost...-didnt-sho_b_826200.html
Rose is currently taking 20.2 field goal attempts per game. Only two players in the league -- Monta Ellis and Kobe Bryant -- have attempted more field goals this season. And for the season he has taken nearly 300 more shots from the field than Luol Deng, the player who ranks second on the Bulls in shot attempts.
Of course, Rose is the team's point guard so he has a great deal of influence on who gets to shoot. But let's imagine that Rose decided to take just six fewer shots a game.
Rose currently has an effective field goal percentage of 0.488. Kyle Korver, Carlos Boozer, Kurt Thomas, Keith Bogans, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng are all more efficient from the field than Rose. So if Rose let just let one of these teammates take three of his shots each half, it seems unlikely the Bulls would be worse off.
After all, many of these players have taken more shots per game (at similar levels of shooting efficiency) for other teams in the past. So it seems likely that Rose passing the ball a bit more often wouldn't cause the number of games won by the Bulls to decline.
But Rose's scoring per game would clearly decline. If Rose took six fewer field goal attempts per game, his scoring per game (given his current level of shooting efficiency) would decline from 24.9 to 19.0.
In this scenario, the Bulls would probably still be just as successful on the court. But since Boozer scores more than 19.0 points per game, Rose would no longer be the leading scorer on the team. And if Rose is not the leading scorer on this team, would Rose still be an MVP candidate?
It is still possible he might. Steve Nash won two MVP awards without leading his team in scoring. And if Rose passed more often, he might finish with as many assists as Nash (Rose would need to average two or three more assist per game to match Nash's performance during his MVP season). But although voters have rewarded a passer in the past, more often than not it is scoring that attracts the attention of the media.
So if Rose wants to win this award -- and yes, he said he did -- then he would be wise to keep focusing on his shot attempts and his scoring. The media, though, would be wise to ask themselves the following question: Should Rose's decision to give himself more shots at the expense of his teammates be rewarded?
Rose is currently taking 20.2 field goal attempts per game. Only two players in the league -- Monta Ellis and Kobe Bryant -- have attempted more field goals this season. And for the season he has taken nearly 300 more shots from the field than Luol Deng, the player who ranks second on the Bulls in shot attempts.
Of course, Rose is the team's point guard so he has a great deal of influence on who gets to shoot. But let's imagine that Rose decided to take just six fewer shots a game.
Rose currently has an effective field goal percentage of 0.488. Kyle Korver, Carlos Boozer, Kurt Thomas, Keith Bogans, Joakim Noah, and Luol Deng are all more efficient from the field than Rose. So if Rose let just let one of these teammates take three of his shots each half, it seems unlikely the Bulls would be worse off.
After all, many of these players have taken more shots per game (at similar levels of shooting efficiency) for other teams in the past. So it seems likely that Rose passing the ball a bit more often wouldn't cause the number of games won by the Bulls to decline.
But Rose's scoring per game would clearly decline. If Rose took six fewer field goal attempts per game, his scoring per game (given his current level of shooting efficiency) would decline from 24.9 to 19.0.
In this scenario, the Bulls would probably still be just as successful on the court. But since Boozer scores more than 19.0 points per game, Rose would no longer be the leading scorer on the team. And if Rose is not the leading scorer on this team, would Rose still be an MVP candidate?
It is still possible he might. Steve Nash won two MVP awards without leading his team in scoring. And if Rose passed more often, he might finish with as many assists as Nash (Rose would need to average two or three more assist per game to match Nash's performance during his MVP season). But although voters have rewarded a passer in the past, more often than not it is scoring that attracts the attention of the media.
So if Rose wants to win this award -- and yes, he said he did -- then he would be wise to keep focusing on his shot attempts and his scoring. The media, though, would be wise to ask themselves the following question: Should Rose's decision to give himself more shots at the expense of his teammates be rewarded?
- 8,131
- 618
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
KingJames23 wrote:
So many people in this thread have no logic. Thankfully they'll probably never make any decisions that matter.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=xQOQTZCYMIOI0QGqlICiCw&ved=0CBgQ9QEwBASAY IT WIT YA CHEST!!! You need to name names to that WE will know.
Celtics were #1 without Perkins and then made the decision to dump him because of money. The O'Neal brothers were known to be injury problems prior to signing. I can hardly even remember JO playing. Rondo, Garnett, Pierce and Allen, this team would not be in the same position if you were missing two of the four for 30 games.
Miami started off horribly because they didn't have time to mesh together in the preseason....but they still were pitiful when you look at who they had on the floor. If any two of the big three were out for 30 games, the only one that might have them on course would be Bron. Wade and Bosh would not have carried this team because they have no bench. Just a bunch of shooters relying on the penetration of their two superstars.
You can say the same for all of the other teams with MVP candidates. If Kobe didn't have Gasol and LO for 30 games, their record would have been affected, but they would still have a top four seed for being the division winner.
Dwight is really the #2 in my book. His team changed completely, but I would say they would still be a playoff team.
As I said earlier, and no one has responded to it, take all 16 playoff teams and take off two starters for 30 games each and realistically tell me if their primary player would have them in the same position as they are in now (f the expectations)
- 8,131
- 618
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
KingJames23 wrote:
So many people in this thread have no logic. Thankfully they'll probably never make any decisions that matter.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=xQOQTZCYMIOI0QGqlICiCw&ved=0CBgQ9QEwBASAY IT WIT YA CHEST!!! You need to name names to that WE will know.
Celtics were #1 without Perkins and then made the decision to dump him because of money. The O'Neal brothers were known to be injury problems prior to signing. I can hardly even remember JO playing. Rondo, Garnett, Pierce and Allen, this team would not be in the same position if you were missing two of the four for 30 games.
Miami started off horribly because they didn't have time to mesh together in the preseason....but they still were pitiful when you look at who they had on the floor. If any two of the big three were out for 30 games, the only one that might have them on course would be Bron. Wade and Bosh would not have carried this team because they have no bench. Just a bunch of shooters relying on the penetration of their two superstars.
You can say the same for all of the other teams with MVP candidates. If Kobe didn't have Gasol and LO for 30 games, their record would have been affected, but they would still have a top four seed for being the division winner.
Dwight is really the #2 in my book. His team changed completely, but I would say they would still be a playoff team.
As I said earlier, and no one has responded to it, take all 16 playoff teams and take off two starters for 30 games each and realistically tell me if their primary player would have them in the same position as they are in now (f the expectations)
- 6,782
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
This.
MVP isn't about who is the best on paper....It's more than that.
We get it guys Westbrook = D.Rose on the stat sheets.
There's a quantitative as well as qualitative factor. D.Rose has a compelling story for why he should be MVP which has been iterated in this thread numerous times.
- 6,782
- 18
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
This.
MVP isn't about who is the best on paper....It's more than that.
We get it guys Westbrook = D.Rose on the stat sheets.
There's a quantitative as well as qualitative factor. D.Rose has a compelling story for why he should be MVP which has been iterated in this thread numerous times.
- 8,956
- 39
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
They would be pretty !@%#*+, but no way Chicago would be in the top 4 in the east if they didn't have Rose.
That > what CP is doing
- 8,956
- 39
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
They would be pretty !@%#*+, but no way Chicago would be in the top 4 in the east if they didn't have Rose.
That > what CP is doing
- 1,941
- 297
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
Rose is going to win it. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees.
- 1,941
- 297
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
Rose is going to win it. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees.
yeeupp
Banned
- 5,697
- 166
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
Rose or Dwight
yeeupp
Banned
- 5,697
- 166
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
Rose or Dwight
- 12,209
- 277
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
But it's Derrick's fault that "you" basketball fans didn't expect the Bulls to be this good. That's Rose's fault?
It works both ways.
- 12,209
- 277
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
But it's Derrick's fault that "you" basketball fans didn't expect the Bulls to be this good. That's Rose's fault?
It works both ways.
