2010-2011 Chicago Bulls Thread

[UMFan83]

I don't get why people get so up in arms over "non-deserving" people winning things like this. Most Valuable Player doesn't mean anything, as far as I know it doesn't have a definition. It's really just something for sports writers to fill pages.

 

I think it has to do with signifying how something will be remembered in 10, 20, 50 years, etc. when many people were not around to watch the season first hand. Winning an MVP award really bumps up the value of how a player is remembered.

[Soul]

And I can totally see that. I can see valid, objective arguments that James or Howard should be MVP, and the only valid argument for Rose is that he's the best story, which is clearly subjective due to public perception.

 

Subjective, like the award itself, since there are no defined metrics attached to it. It's a popularity contest.

[SpongeWorthy]

I think this is the crux of Hollinger's (and every other advanced stats user's) argument for MVP:

 

- LeBron, Howard and Wade are pretty clearly the best 3 players in the NBA this year, by almost any measure. Rose is in a mix of players 4-11 a clear step below the top 3. So, if the MVP is the best player, it's pretty clearly not Rose.

- If the MVP is the player that means the most to his team's success, such that his team would be awful without him there, that's also pretty clearly Howard.

- If the MVP is the best player on the best team, that's the Lakers and Kobe (or Gasol).

- So yes, Rose may be in the top 5 in everything, but he's never really first in anything, so it's difficult to make an objective argument for Rose to be singled out as the #1 candidate.

 

When any Rose counter-argument is completely subjective and biased (and sadly, every pro-Rose argument online is done by the least objective analysts in the business), it gets pretty annoying (understandably). Nobody has anything against Rose, nobody hates the way Rose plays, they just disagree with the subjectivity of the best story getting the MVP rather than any objective measure.

 

And I can totally see that. I can see valid, objective arguments that James or Howard should be MVP, and the only valid argument for Rose is that he's the best story, which is clearly subjective due to public perception.

 

You're reflexively taking the position that these advanced metrics are always a better gauge of value than a little bit of stats and a little bit of the eye test.

 

1) Sometimes the model stinks (just because these stats are advanced compared to their precedecessors doesn't necessarily make them all that great; I think a lot of these numbers are getting the SABR treatment when they fall wayyyy short of them in actually quantifying value)

 

2) Even if the model doesn't stink it doesn't work the same way in all cases

 

I mean if these metrics are enough to say Rose isn't a real MVP contender then why weren't the militant stat heads waving the Kevin Love for MVP banner earlier on? To me, that's just a tacit admission that their numbers can be misleading.

[Soul]

The thing is, even though some may be using stats, it's still subjective because they're saying those stats should mean the award goes to that person, even though the award itself does not define it specifically according to those stats.

 

So ALL the arguments for the MVP are subjective, stat-based or not.

[WrigleyField 22]

It may look a little weird a couple of years down the road, because it's unlikely to be Rose's best season, but it could easily be his only MVP award.

 

This I definitely agree with. But I won't care if he improves next season and doesn't get it. Especially if there is a guy who has similar "qualifications" as Rose this year.

[17 Seconds]

I don't get why people get so up in arms over "non-deserving" people winning things like this. Most Valuable Player doesn't mean anything, as far as I know it doesn't have a definition. It's really just something for sports writers to fill pages.

 

I think it has to do with signifying how something will be remembered in 10, 20, 50 years, etc. when many people were not around to watch the season first hand. Winning an MVP award really bumps up the value of how a player is remembered.

 

i think it's mostly championships and numbers that players are remembered for

 

when i think of the best athletes of all time, i really have no idea how many MVPs were won by the guys who were before my time.

[17 Seconds]

I don't get why people get so up in arms over "non-deserving" people winning things like this. Most Valuable Player doesn't mean anything, as far as I know it doesn't have a definition. It's really just something for sports writers to fill pages.

 

i pretty much feel this way about the hall of fame also, to be honest

[DivineBovine]

I think this is the crux of Hollinger's (and every other advanced stats user's) argument for MVP:

 

- LeBron, Howard and Wade are pretty clearly the best 3 players in the NBA this year, by almost any measure. Rose is in a mix of players 4-11 a clear step below the top 3. So, if the MVP is the best player, it's pretty clearly not Rose.

- If the MVP is the player that means the most to his team's success, such that his team would be awful without him there, that's also pretty clearly Howard.

- If the MVP is the best player on the best team, that's the Lakers and Kobe (or Gasol).

- So yes, Rose may be in the top 5 in everything, but he's never really first in anything, so it's difficult to make an objective argument for Rose to be singled out as the #1 candidate.

 

When any Rose counter-argument is completely subjective and biased (and sadly, every pro-Rose argument online is done by the least objective analysts in the business), it gets pretty annoying (understandably). Nobody has anything against Rose, nobody hates the way Rose plays, they just disagree with the subjectivity of the best story getting the MVP rather than any objective measure.

 

And I can totally see that. I can see valid, objective arguments that James or Howard should be MVP, and the only valid argument for Rose is that he's the best story, which is clearly subjective due to public perception.

 

You're reflexively taking the position that these advanced metrics are always a better gauge of value than a little bit of stats and a little bit of the eye test.

 

1) Sometimes the model stinks (just because these stats are advanced compared to their precedecessors doesn't necessarily make them all that great; I think a lot of these numbers are getting the SABR treatment when they fall wayyyy short of them in actually quantifying value)

 

2) Even if the model doesn't stink it doesn't work the same way in all cases

 

I mean if these metrics are enough to say Rose isn't a real MVP contender then why weren't the militant stat heads waving the Kevin Love for MVP banner earlier on? To me, that's just a tacit admission that their numbers can be misleading.

 

 

Agreed. Why are LeBron, Howard and Wade clearly the "best by any measure"? I don't get that. They are the best by statistical measures that Hollinger and others have used. They try and use math and statistics to simplify a complicated game.

 

Didn't Hollinger predict the Heat to win 72 games? Didn't he predict pretty early in the season that the Pacers had a better chance of making the playoffs than OKC? He loves it when he can say something controversial and back it up with statistics. But really, in both cases above, any casual fan with common sense would've outpredicted his fancy statistics.

 

 

Rose is the best player on the best team, by most people's rankings, including Hollinger's. He'll win MVP.

 

And don't get me started on LeBron. What a waste of talent. I definitely wouldn't take him first if I were starting a team. The most talented player in history- yes. But the best? Not even close. He's the definition of a Rotisserie League player.

[SpongeWorthy]

Also the NBA mvp is kinda a big deal imo. I couldn't tel you who was nfl mvp a few years ago (besides "randomly" picking brady or manning) but I can tell you who was nba mvp going back pretty far. Its a well marketed award.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

And don't get me started on LeBron. What a waste of talent. I definitely wouldn't take him first if I were starting a team.

 

There you go UMFan.

[UMFan83]

 

And don't get me started on LeBron. What a waste of talent. I definitely wouldn't take him first if I were starting a team.

 

There you go UMFan.

 

?

 

I Would definitely take LeBron 1st have had said that multiple times

[bukie]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

[SpongeWorthy]

Howard finally expands his offensive game and his team gets appreciably worse

 

mvp

[apete6]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

 

According to the name of the award, its not Best player, its most valuable. I'm fairly certain the Bulls would be worse without Rose than the Heat would be without LeBron. Dwight Howard has a legitimate argument, but I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

[bukie]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

 

According to the name of the award, its not Best player, its most valuable. I'm fairly certain the Bulls would be worse without Rose than the Heat would be without LeBron. Dwight Howard has a legitimate argument, but I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

And I never said that it was, I'm saying that Hollinger et all thinks it should be, and in that situation Rose just isn't the best player. Some folks just see anything that suggests Rose may not be #1, and they drink the red kool-aid and stop listening to their brains.

[Tyrant]

I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

 

Or has cost his team two wins (lost to Bulls by 3, Blazers by 4) because he's been suspended.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

And don't get me started on LeBron. What a waste of talent. I definitely wouldn't take him first if I were starting a team.

 

There you go UMFan.

 

?

 

I Would definitely take LeBron 1st have had said that multiple times

 

Rose has had a fantastic season, but I don't know who would rather him than LeBron when starting a team.

[SouthSideRyan]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

 

According to the name of the award, its not Best player, its most valuable. I'm fairly certain the Bulls would be worse without Rose than the Heat would be without LeBron. Dwight Howard has a legitimate argument, but I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

 

I'd argue the Heat drop off more without Lebron than the Bulls do without Rose. Wade, Bosh, and not another player worth a damn? That team might not make the playoffs.

[UMFan83]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

 

According to the name of the award, its not Best player, its most valuable. I'm fairly certain the Bulls would be worse without Rose than the Heat would be without LeBron. Dwight Howard has a legitimate argument, but I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

 

I'd argue the Heat drop off more without Lebron than the Bulls do without Rose. Wade, Bosh, and not another player worth a damn? That team might not make the playoffs.

 

Do you think they'd have a similar dropoff without Wade instead of James? James, Bosh and a whole lot of garbage.

[Brian]

I don't get why people get so up in arms over "non-deserving" people winning things like this. Most Valuable Player doesn't mean anything, as far as I know it doesn't have a definition. It's really just something for sports writers to fill pages.

 

i pretty much feel this way about the hall of fame also, to be honest

 

Yes, HOF and All-Star.

[bukie]

The beginning of one crazy playoff preview: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Bulls' and Pacers' offenses

[SouthSideRyan]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

 

According to the name of the award, its not Best player, its most valuable. I'm fairly certain the Bulls would be worse without Rose than the Heat would be without LeBron. Dwight Howard has a legitimate argument, but I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

 

I'd argue the Heat drop off more without Lebron than the Bulls do without Rose. Wade, Bosh, and not another player worth a damn? That team might not make the playoffs.

 

Do you think they'd have a similar dropoff without Wade instead of James? James, Bosh and a whole lot of garbage.

 

Not quite as extreme a dropoff. I'd rank them LBJ > Rose > Wade. I should amend my previous statement as well. I can't imagine them being worse than the Pacers and Bucks this year (either LBJ+Bosh+flotsam or Wade+Bosh+flotsam)

[CubColtPacer]

The beginning of one crazy playoff preview: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Bulls' and Pacers' offenses

 

This will be an interesting preview on the Pacers side since their team philosophy changed so dramatically mid-year. It's hard to use their statistics for the entire year to define them. This was a team that was dead last in average free throws attempted in November and December and 1st in the league in free throws attempted in February and March. They went from a team who was averaging 22-24 3's a game to a team that only averages 16-18. Are they that much better after the change? Not enough to where they can put any serious challenge to the Bulls. But they have a lot of variable parts and they are hard to pin down.

[bukie]

Also, from Rose's facebook: Rose gives a tour of the Berto Center (practice facility)

[ConstableRabbit]

If anyone honestly believes that Rose has been a better player this year than James or Howard, they are beyond delusional. It's not even up for debate, it's just wrong. Very wrong.

 

According to the name of the award, its not Best player, its most valuable. I'm fairly certain the Bulls would be worse without Rose than the Heat would be without LeBron. Dwight Howard has a legitimate argument, but I find it hard to give an MVP award to a guy who does absolutely nothing during crunch time.

 

I'd argue the Heat drop off more without Lebron than the Bulls do without Rose. Wade, Bosh, and not another player worth a damn? That team might not make the playoffs.

 

Do you think they'd have a similar dropoff without Wade instead of James? James, Bosh and a whole lot of garbage.

Isn't this whole argument kind of dumb argument anyway? They built the team around having James, and James is a big part of why the rest of the team is garbage outside of Wade and Bosh.

 

The argument inherently overvalues the true cost of having a certain player.