APBRmetrics

Mike G wrote:How many players, in at least 2000 minutes, have averaged at least 24 points and 7.3 assists, shooting .550 or better TS% ?
Rose, LeBron last year, Nate Archibald in '73, and Oscar in 6 of his first 8 seasons.

There's no doubt Rose is on a great looking career trajectory. His TS has gone up by double digits each season, as his USG has gone up at the same time by 5 points.

But you missed Jerry West ('69), Dwyane Wade ('08), and Michael Jordan ('88):

http://bkref.com/tiny/IvFSm

There are 15 such seasons total.

How many players, in at least 2000 minutes, have averaged at least 24 points and 7.3 assists, shooting .550 or better TS% ?

"7.3" assists? i'm thinking that's a weird cutoff to choose...

that's because at 24 pts, 7 ast, and 55% TS lebron james has done that in each of the past 4 seasons (he averaged 7.2, 7.2, 8.6, and 7.0 ast/g)...

how about 26 pts/g, 7 reb/g, 7 ast/g, all-NBA 1st team, and all-D 1st team in the same season?...

just two players - michael jordan in 88-89, and lebron james in 08-09, 09-10, and, yes, this 10-11 season...

Sorry, I meant to write '24 points and 7.3 assists per 36 minutes' for 2000+ minutes.
http://bkref.com/tiny/cRiIn
Thanks for noticing.

But now that link doesn't list LeBron. Hmm.
Relaxing the standards allows (as noted by BobC) some slackers like West and Jordan, Bird, Magic, Wade, KJ, or Westphal.

By creating cutoffs right below Rose's level, he ranks near the bottom in areas like Win Shares, PER, etc.
Rose didn't play gargantuan minutes, but he played for an elite defensive squad; so there's a tradeoff.

Yeah league environment does matter, unless you want to defend Allen Iverson's award then don't bother.

Are you going to compare Chris Paul's TS% to Rose's too? Your context is terrible.

Mike G wrote:

If you translate Iverson from the 103.0 league-ORtg environment of 2001 to the league ORtg of 107.1 in 2011, his ORtg/%Poss/DRtg becomes 110.5/33.8/103.0, production that is basically equivalent to Rose's after adjusting for usage."

I don't know if ORtg, %Poss, and DRtg are equivalent to 'production', but I do believe a league's averages are less significant than a team's averages, and especially their opponents' averages vs that team. That is, after all, the league's averages in the games these players were in.

Playing for an offensively challenged Sixers team in '01, Iverson shot .518; Philly as a whole shot .518, and their opponents shot .499 (TS%).
Rose shot .550 this year, the rest of the Bulls shot .538, and their opponents shot .509 .

Rose shot .012 better than the rest of his team and .041 better than the opposition.
Iverson'01 shot no better than his teammates and .019 better than their opponents.

Iverson scored 28.4% of his team's points and 29.8% of what opponents scored.
Rose had 25.1% of Bulls' points and 27.1% of what opponents got.

Ast% : Rose 38.7 - 23.0 Iverson; Ast/36 Rose 7.4 - 3.9 Iverson
TReb% : Rose 6.4 - 5.2 Iverson
Stl+Blk% : Iverson 3.7 - 2.8 Rose
TO% : Iverson 10.0 - 13.1 Rose; TO/36 Iverson 2.9 - 3.3 Rose

Some of these are close, and some are not at all close. Rose "not an efficient player"? In what way?

Why are you comparing a 30+ PPG scorer in a tougher defensive era, to Rose's TS%? Your comparison is completely illogical and disingenuous.

Stop trying to dilute the conversation dude, you know exactly what I mean. Rose uses less possessions and his efficiencies are slightly higher. Adjust for usage like Neil states and you have two identical players. I don't care what opponents shoot against the Bulls that's not because of Rose, LeBron and Wade are both better defenders. The Bulls are a great TEAM which is something people have trouble admitting.


Neil's quote is as clear as day, Rose is not efficient, in the Allen Iverson way.

Successful teams have to out-shoot their opponents, or out-rebound them, or both. League average can a reference point, but a positive differential is what wins.

Are you going to compare Chris Paul's TS% to Rose's too?

We can do that, and with context.
Paul shot .578 vs opponents who shot .543 . That's .035 better -- and .047 better than his teammates' .531 .
Paul raised his team's TS% (strictly thru his own shots) by .006, to Rose's +.003 .
But Rose was better relative to their teams' competition, by .041 to .035 .

If Rose would cut his assists almost in half, while taking an additional 7 shots per game, at about .430 TS%, he'd be about like Iverson.

In Neil's post with the Iverson/Rose quote being mentioned, here's another quote of his:

All told, Rose and Iverson's MVP campaigns are almost eerily similar. Each player was worth approximately 6-7 points of on-court offensive rating above average for a middling offensive team, and each was essentially an average defender on a very strong defensive squad. ... But when James dropped to +8 in 2011 (a down year by his ridiculous standards), after committing the horrible basketball atrocity of choosing his next team on national TV, he basically disqualified himself from the MVP race.

So Neil is saying Iverson/Rose were +6/+7 players (based on APM comparables, seems about right), while James was a +8 player this year. Factor in James' missed clutch attempts, the Heat's 2-8 record in close games compared to a 9-5 record for the Bulls, James' team finishing with the #2 seed compared to Rose's #1 overall, James' team losing three close games to Rose's team... and isn't it very possible that, even if Rose was less efficient per possession, he still made a bigger wins/seed impact than James did this season?

My take on the MVP race this year is any of a bunch of superstars would have been good choices, and so I have no problem with voters giving it to one of the good choices whose team finished with the highest seed / the player who had the best story this season. In the case of Iverson's MVP, Shaq was in prime form with a 30.2 PER on a team that also won 56 games, and maybe there's ample evidence there to say he was clearly more valuable. But there was no Shaq this year. Every anti-Rose debate seems to target one or two pieces of the puzzle (not that efficient, had a good coach, had a good bench) without actually addressing the only issue that matters: proving statistically that another candidate was more deserving.

YaoPau wrote:... without actually addressing the only issue that matters: proving ... that another candidate was more deserving.

Hey, maybe they're all Republicans.

YaoPau wrote:In Neil's post with the Iverson/Rose quote being mentioned, here's another quote of his:

All told, Rose and Iverson's MVP campaigns are almost eerily similar. Each player was worth approximately 6-7 points of on-court offensive rating above average for a middling offensive team, and each was essentially an average defender on a very strong defensive squad. ... But when James dropped to +8 in 2011 (a down year by his ridiculous standards), after committing the horrible basketball atrocity of choosing his next team on national TV, he basically disqualified himself from the MVP race.

Wow I can't believe I missed this post.

Yeah Iverson was the +7 player. Rose was below that, you're not addressing the real matter here. Unless you want to defend Allen Iverson as a legit MVP then you have no case. A double standard?

So Neil is saying Iverson/Rose were +6/+7 players (based on APM comparables, seems about right), while James was a +8 player this year. Factor in James' missed clutch attempts, the Heat's 2-8 record in close games compared to a 9-5 record for the Bulls, James' team finishing with the #2 seed compared to Rose's #1 overall, James' team losing three close games to Rose's team... and isn't it very possible that, even if Rose was less efficient per possession, he still made a bigger wins/seed impact than James did this season?

My take on the MVP race this year is any of a bunch of superstars would have been good choices, and so I have no problem with voters giving it to one of the good choices whose team finished with the highest seed / the player who had the best story this season. In the case of Iverson's MVP, Shaq was in prime form with a 30.2 PER on a team that also won 56 games, and maybe there's ample evidence there to say he was clearly more valuable. But there was no Shaq this year. Every anti-Rose debate seems to target one or two pieces of the puzzle (not that efficient, had a good coach, had a good bench) without actually addressing the only issue that matters: proving statistically that another candidate was more deserving.

How do you know Shaq was even better in his prime, when the data doesn't suggest that? Even in their Primes Shaq is a little inferior, LeBron was not at his best this season but Shaq got swept 5 times in his career. You're obsessed with team results....