Breaking News: Derrick Rose named 2010-2011 MVP

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by dland24

When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams, what should you use to compare them then?

You say it shouldnt be used as the crux of an argument.  But what should then?  Your eyes?  Isnt the point of arguing to provide some sort of evidence or basis of your argument?  When you are comparing two (or three) players to each other, if you cant use stats to compare, what can you use?

I am seriously asking this.  Id love a response.
Click to expand...
Game bruh, seriously. For instance, alot of these guys in the pro were statistically unimpressive in college/Europe, Take Marvin Williams, and Brandon Jennings respectively- If they were drafted on college production like Sheldon Williams who was perhaps the greatest reach in NBA draft history than they would have never been drafted as high as they were. 
Also stats rely so much on playing time, and rosters. For instance, before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?

Stats are nice to support an argument, but the first and foremost thing should be their game, and anyone who has hooped, knows damn well 80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore. It's really quite simple, can one play or not? If they are close enough to where stats are needed, it is probably subjective at that point anyway......

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" 
Click to expand...
I offer the rebuttal asked and you refuse me?, I'd love a response.
Click to expand...



Because your argument makes no sense. dland said "When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams". We've already looked at their games to establish the fact they are extremely close in value. Nobody is arguing that you should make the decision by looking solely at a piece of paper.

1. Your draft comparison might be one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. College and NBA aren't the same game. To use raw numbers makes no sense especially the the wide range of competition levels for all the players in CBB. See my first two sentences

2+3. See my first two sentences again. You assess value then for players of similar levels, then go to stats.

This very much reminds me of sabermetrics in baseball. The resistance to advanced stats was so strong but they started to gain more acceptance and finally had their huge break through when Felix won the AL CY. Not sure if basketball will ever get to that point because we believe our eyes in basketball more than any other sport, even if evidence proves otherwise.

I can make the same argument that Rose people are making with just as much validity for Dwight or LeBron (particularly Dwight). That's why so many people have a problem with this.

80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore.

You used a made up statistic to show that statistics are useless. Well done
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by dland24

When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams, what should you use to compare them then?

You say it shouldnt be used as the crux of an argument.  But what should then?  Your eyes?  Isnt the point of arguing to provide some sort of evidence or basis of your argument?  When you are comparing two (or three) players to each other, if you cant use stats to compare, what can you use?

I am seriously asking this.  Id love a response.
Click to expand...
Game bruh, seriously. For instance, alot of these guys in the pro were statistically unimpressive in college/Europe, Take Marvin Williams, and Brandon Jennings respectively- If they were drafted on college production like Sheldon Williams who was perhaps the greatest reach in NBA draft history than they would have never been drafted as high as they were. 
Also stats rely so much on playing time, and rosters. For instance, before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?

Stats are nice to support an argument, but the first and foremost thing should be their game, and anyone who has hooped, knows damn well 80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore. It's really quite simple, can one play or not? If they are close enough to where stats are needed, it is probably subjective at that point anyway......

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" 
Click to expand...
I offer the rebuttal asked and you refuse me?, I'd love a response.
Click to expand...



Because your argument makes no sense. dland said "When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams". We've already looked at their games to establish the fact they are extremely close in value. Nobody is arguing that you should make the decision by looking solely at a piece of paper.

1. Your draft comparison might be one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. College and NBA aren't the same game. To use raw numbers makes no sense especially the the wide range of competition levels for all the players in CBB. See my first two sentences

2+3. See my first two sentences again. You assess value then for players of similar levels, then go to stats.

This very much reminds me of sabermetrics in baseball. The resistance to advanced stats was so strong but they started to gain more acceptance and finally had their huge break through when Felix won the AL CY. Not sure if basketball will ever get to that point because we believe our eyes in basketball more than any other sport, even if evidence proves otherwise.

I can make the same argument that Rose people are making with just as much validity for Dwight or LeBron (particularly Dwight). That's why so many people have a problem with this.

80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore.

You used a made up statistic to show that statistics are useless. Well done
Click to expand...
 
Also stats rely so much on playing time
You realize there's such a thing as per-minute and per-possession stats, right?

before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?
No.

80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore.
80%, though...
laugh.gif
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Also stats rely so much on playing time
You realize there's such a thing as per-minute and per-possession stats, right?

before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?
No.

80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore.
80%, though...
laugh.gif
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by dland24

When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams, what should you use to compare them then?

You say it shouldnt be used as the crux of an argument.  But what should then?  Your eyes?  Isnt the point of arguing to provide some sort of evidence or basis of your argument?  When you are comparing two (or three) players to each other, if you cant use stats to compare, what can you use?

I am seriously asking this.  Id love a response.
Click to expand...
Game bruh, seriously. For instance, alot of these guys in the pro were statistically unimpressive in college/Europe, Take Marvin Williams, and Brandon Jennings respectively- If they were drafted on college production like Sheldon Williams who was perhaps the greatest reach in NBA draft history than they would have never been drafted as high as they were. 
Also stats rely so much on playing time, and rosters. For instance, before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?

Stats are nice to support an argument, but the first and foremost thing should be their game, and anyone who has hooped, knows damn well 80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore. It's really quite simple, can one play or not? If they are close enough to where stats are needed, it is probably subjective at that point anyway......
Click to expand...
Sorry I just saw your response....

1- Your first paragraph is completely meaningless and pointless to this argument.  How a player will translate his game from college to the pros means nothing in this argument.  Comparing college stats to judging the MVP arent related at all.

2- (Second paragraph) Stats alone would not have told you that Al Jefferson was better than Love.  And even if they did, its a completely different situation.  Comparing the idea of letting a proven player go in hopes that a young less-proven player can come in and exceed his production to judging the MVP arent related at all.

3- (Third paragraph) Yes, I complete that stats are a nice way to support an argument.  But in this case, there are no stats that support Rose's MVP case.  His entire MVP campaign is based on a story.....a story that has no stats to support it.  I also agree with you that not everything that goes on shows up in the boxscore, but if that is your ONLY means of support for one side of the argument, its a VERY weak argument.  The assumption that what Rose does for the Bulls that cant be seen in the boxscore, is more valuable than what Bron/Dwight/Dirk/Kobe/Durant does for their perspective teams is nothing more than an assumption.

So now that we dont have any measurable way of determining how what Rose does for his team (outside of stats) is more valuable than what the other candidates do for their teams, we need to turn to statistics.  When comparing two or more players, you HAVE to use statistics.  Its the only measurable way of determining value. 
 
Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by dland24

When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams, what should you use to compare them then?

You say it shouldnt be used as the crux of an argument.  But what should then?  Your eyes?  Isnt the point of arguing to provide some sort of evidence or basis of your argument?  When you are comparing two (or three) players to each other, if you cant use stats to compare, what can you use?

I am seriously asking this.  Id love a response.
Click to expand...
Game bruh, seriously. For instance, alot of these guys in the pro were statistically unimpressive in college/Europe, Take Marvin Williams, and Brandon Jennings respectively- If they were drafted on college production like Sheldon Williams who was perhaps the greatest reach in NBA draft history than they would have never been drafted as high as they were. 
Also stats rely so much on playing time, and rosters. For instance, before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?

Stats are nice to support an argument, but the first and foremost thing should be their game, and anyone who has hooped, knows damn well 80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore. It's really quite simple, can one play or not? If they are close enough to where stats are needed, it is probably subjective at that point anyway......
Click to expand...
Sorry I just saw your response....

1- Your first paragraph is completely meaningless and pointless to this argument.  How a player will translate his game from college to the pros means nothing in this argument.  Comparing college stats to judging the MVP arent related at all.

2- (Second paragraph) Stats alone would not have told you that Al Jefferson was better than Love.  And even if they did, its a completely different situation.  Comparing the idea of letting a proven player go in hopes that a young less-proven player can come in and exceed his production to judging the MVP arent related at all.

3- (Third paragraph) Yes, I complete that stats are a nice way to support an argument.  But in this case, there are no stats that support Rose's MVP case.  His entire MVP campaign is based on a story.....a story that has no stats to support it.  I also agree with you that not everything that goes on shows up in the boxscore, but if that is your ONLY means of support for one side of the argument, its a VERY weak argument.  The assumption that what Rose does for the Bulls that cant be seen in the boxscore, is more valuable than what Bron/Dwight/Dirk/Kobe/Durant does for their perspective teams is nothing more than an assumption.

So now that we dont have any measurable way of determining how what Rose does for his team (outside of stats) is more valuable than what the other candidates do for their teams, we need to turn to statistics.  When comparing two or more players, you HAVE to use statistics.  Its the only measurable way of determining value. 
 
Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by dland24

When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams, what should you use to compare them then?

You say it shouldnt be used as the crux of an argument.  But what should then?  Your eyes?  Isnt the point of arguing to provide some sort of evidence or basis of your argument?  When you are comparing two (or three) players to each other, if you cant use stats to compare, what can you use?

I am seriously asking this.  Id love a response.
Click to expand...
Game bruh, seriously. For instance, alot of these guys in the pro were statistically unimpressive in college/Europe, Take Marvin Williams, and Brandon Jennings respectively- If they were drafted on college production like Sheldon Williams who was perhaps the greatest reach in NBA draft history than they would have never been drafted as high as they were. 
Also stats rely so much on playing time, and rosters. For instance, before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?

Stats are nice to support an argument, but the first and foremost thing should be their game, and anyone who has hooped, knows damn well 80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore. It's really quite simple, can one play or not? If they are close enough to where stats are needed, it is probably subjective at that point anyway......
Click to expand...
Sorry I just saw your response....

1- Your first paragraph is completely meaningless and pointless to this argument.  How a player will translate his game from college to the pros means nothing in this argument.  Comparing college stats to judging the MVP arent related at all.

2- (Second paragraph) Stats alone would not have told you that Al Jefferson was better than Love.  And even if they did, its a completely different situation.  Comparing the idea of letting a proven player go in hopes that a young less-proven player can come in and exceed his production to judging the MVP arent related at all.

3- (Third paragraph) Yes, I complete that stats are a nice way to support an argument.  But in this case, there are no stats that support Rose's MVP case.  His entire MVP campaign is based on a story.....a story that has no stats to support it.  I also agree with you that not everything that goes on shows up in the boxscore, but if that is your ONLY means of support for one side of the argument, its a VERY weak argument.  The assumption that what Rose does for the Bulls that cant be seen in the boxscore, is more valuable than what Bron/Dwight/Dirk/Kobe/Durant does for their perspective teams is nothing more than an assumption.

So now that we dont have any measurable way of determining how what Rose does for his team (outside of stats) is more valuable than what the other candidates do for their teams, we need to turn to statistics.  When comparing two or more players, you HAVE to use statistics.  Its the only measurable way of determining value. 
Click to expand...
My argument wasn't PRO rose, it was against statistics. Unless a player is playing the exact same schedule and in the exact same situations than how can a true comparison ever be attained? The only thing every NBA team shares is 82 games, everything else is subjective. 
Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct? 

I aint even going to lie to you, the first time me seeing Rose play consistently is the playoffs. Only team I see on a consistent basis is the wolves, and they for obviously have no MVP candidate so I really can't chime in on the debate, and because I know statistics aren't even half the story, I won't pretend to know by looking at a spread sheet.
Beasely is the best player on the Timberwolves, not because he gets the most boards, points, or even minutes on the team, it is because he is the only player on the squad who can consistently make his own shot, and score at any given time. See how subjective that was? Obviously the NBA agrees with me, they let writers decide who the MVP is.
 
Originally Posted by dland24

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by dland24

When you have a group of players who are extremely close in terms of their value to their teams, what should you use to compare them then?

You say it shouldnt be used as the crux of an argument.  But what should then?  Your eyes?  Isnt the point of arguing to provide some sort of evidence or basis of your argument?  When you are comparing two (or three) players to each other, if you cant use stats to compare, what can you use?

I am seriously asking this.  Id love a response.
Click to expand...
Game bruh, seriously. For instance, alot of these guys in the pro were statistically unimpressive in college/Europe, Take Marvin Williams, and Brandon Jennings respectively- If they were drafted on college production like Sheldon Williams who was perhaps the greatest reach in NBA draft history than they would have never been drafted as high as they were. 
Also stats rely so much on playing time, and rosters. For instance, before Al Jefferson was traded, if one based off stats alone would they not say Jefferson > Love?

Stats are nice to support an argument, but the first and foremost thing should be their game, and anyone who has hooped, knows damn well 80% of what goes on does not show up in the boxscore. It's really quite simple, can one play or not? If they are close enough to where stats are needed, it is probably subjective at that point anyway......
Click to expand...
Sorry I just saw your response....

1- Your first paragraph is completely meaningless and pointless to this argument.  How a player will translate his game from college to the pros means nothing in this argument.  Comparing college stats to judging the MVP arent related at all.

2- (Second paragraph) Stats alone would not have told you that Al Jefferson was better than Love.  And even if they did, its a completely different situation.  Comparing the idea of letting a proven player go in hopes that a young less-proven player can come in and exceed his production to judging the MVP arent related at all.

3- (Third paragraph) Yes, I complete that stats are a nice way to support an argument.  But in this case, there are no stats that support Rose's MVP case.  His entire MVP campaign is based on a story.....a story that has no stats to support it.  I also agree with you that not everything that goes on shows up in the boxscore, but if that is your ONLY means of support for one side of the argument, its a VERY weak argument.  The assumption that what Rose does for the Bulls that cant be seen in the boxscore, is more valuable than what Bron/Dwight/Dirk/Kobe/Durant does for their perspective teams is nothing more than an assumption.

So now that we dont have any measurable way of determining how what Rose does for his team (outside of stats) is more valuable than what the other candidates do for their teams, we need to turn to statistics.  When comparing two or more players, you HAVE to use statistics.  Its the only measurable way of determining value. 
Click to expand...
My argument wasn't PRO rose, it was against statistics. Unless a player is playing the exact same schedule and in the exact same situations than how can a true comparison ever be attained? The only thing every NBA team shares is 82 games, everything else is subjective. 
Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct? 

I aint even going to lie to you, the first time me seeing Rose play consistently is the playoffs. Only team I see on a consistent basis is the wolves, and they for obviously have no MVP candidate so I really can't chime in on the debate, and because I know statistics aren't even half the story, I won't pretend to know by looking at a spread sheet.
Beasely is the best player on the Timberwolves, not because he gets the most boards, points, or even minutes on the team, it is because he is the only player on the squad who can consistently make his own shot, and score at any given time. See how subjective that was? Obviously the NBA agrees with me, they let writers decide who the MVP is.
 
Originally Posted by kix4kix

Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct?.
Click to expand...



That's the key word. Giving an individual award based on the accomplishments of the team is stupid.
 
Originally Posted by kix4kix

Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct?.
Click to expand...



That's the key word. Giving an individual award based on the accomplishments of the team is stupid.
 
Originally Posted by KingJames23

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct?.
Click to expand...



That's the key word. Giving an individual award based on the accomplishments of the team is stupid.
Click to expand...


Not when that guy carried his team with next 2 best players on his team missing a combined 57 games. Both of them big men too. Asik, Thomas and Gibson as your 4 and 5's during that stretch?? That is a pitiful team that should have been battling for the 6 or 7 seed. Yet they never lost more than 2 games at any one time.

All that talent on Miami and they still managed a 4 and 5 game losing streak with all guys healthy.
 
Originally Posted by KingJames23

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct?.
Click to expand...



That's the key word. Giving an individual award based on the accomplishments of the team is stupid.
Click to expand...


Not when that guy carried his team with next 2 best players on his team missing a combined 57 games. Both of them big men too. Asik, Thomas and Gibson as your 4 and 5's during that stretch?? That is a pitiful team that should have been battling for the 6 or 7 seed. Yet they never lost more than 2 games at any one time.

All that talent on Miami and they still managed a 4 and 5 game losing streak with all guys healthy.
 
Originally Posted by PrinSe3

nicedude, i think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I was giving battier his props and basically saying that PER and statgeeks overlook the nuances of the game that are involved in hoops. Things that a "glue guy" like battier brings.

cmon your better than that
Click to expand...
I think you need to understand that PER alone does not represent advance stats. 
laugh.gif


I doubt you better than this tho. Talking about reading comprehension when you can't even write complete sentences and end sentences with periods. Jeez. No hate tho. 
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by PrinSe3

nicedude, i think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I was giving battier his props and basically saying that PER and statgeeks overlook the nuances of the game that are involved in hoops. Things that a "glue guy" like battier brings.

cmon your better than that
Click to expand...
I think you need to understand that PER alone does not represent advance stats. 
laugh.gif


I doubt you better than this tho. Talking about reading comprehension when you can't even write complete sentences and end sentences with periods. Jeez. No hate tho. 
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by JD617

Beasely is the best player on the Timberwolves
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Forget about stats for a second, how is this even possible? Unless I'm missing sarcasm...

How many Wolves games did you watch? Honestly? .....Sure Love looks like a gift from heaven if you look at his stats, but he was the second best basketball player on that team last year. I consistently watched him get torched by players such as Al Jefferson and Zach Randolph , and would disappear at times.  Mind you, this is the same player who was being outplayed by ANTHONY TOLLIVER at the beginning of the season. 
I am far from a Beasley apologist, he takes plays off, does the same spin move into the lane
eyes.gif
, and rarely passes, but he still was the only player on that team who would have the ball in his hands with the game on the line, and could actually do something with it. This in my opinion is something that separates a player, to you Love's rebounds could outshadow everything I just said. It's all subjective.
 
Originally Posted by JD617

Beasely is the best player on the Timberwolves
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Forget about stats for a second, how is this even possible? Unless I'm missing sarcasm...

How many Wolves games did you watch? Honestly? .....Sure Love looks like a gift from heaven if you look at his stats, but he was the second best basketball player on that team last year. I consistently watched him get torched by players such as Al Jefferson and Zach Randolph , and would disappear at times.  Mind you, this is the same player who was being outplayed by ANTHONY TOLLIVER at the beginning of the season. 
I am far from a Beasley apologist, he takes plays off, does the same spin move into the lane
eyes.gif
, and rarely passes, but he still was the only player on that team who would have the ball in his hands with the game on the line, and could actually do something with it. This in my opinion is something that separates a player, to you Love's rebounds could outshadow everything I just said. It's all subjective.
 
Originally Posted by KingJames23

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct?.
Click to expand...



That's the key word. Giving an individual award based on the accomplishments of the team is stupid.
Click to expand...
Yes, and so are government subsidies, but I live in reality. 
 
Originally Posted by KingJames23

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Most meaningful statistic in the NBA: At the end of the year Rose's team had the best record, and he was the best player on that team-Statistically. Correct?.
Click to expand...



That's the key word. Giving an individual award based on the accomplishments of the team is stupid.
Click to expand...
Yes, and so are government subsidies, but I live in reality. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom