chw42

That called back 3 was huge. If only Rose had not hurt his ankle...

QUOTE (daa84 @ Apr 23, 2011 -> 03:34 PM) rose responds to my halftime criticism of his 0 assists with a 7 assist quarter....whered the shooting go that quarter though? another awful % - 4/16 He can't get to the basket with that ankle right now. He basically just has settle for jumpers.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Apr 23, 2011 -> 02:30 PM) yup, if anything has been proven this series is that if the Bulls are relatively close near the end they can win. Not with a slowed-down Derrick Rose.

Rose should probably sit out the rest of the first half. Get him an hour to rest that ankle.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 10:45 PM) Actually that's exactly what's happening, pay attention and read the post above you. Trying to prove Paul is better than Rose, which is literally retarded. There isn't one gm in the NBA who would agree. He's pointing out flaws in Rose's game, which is fine. I don't care that his agenda is to prove Paul is better than Rose, because you can build a legitimate argument to prove that case. There's numerous numbers out there to prove this and I don't know if I agree with all of them. BUT, that is a better argument than calling somebody a retard for having a legitimate, yet different opinion. Do you know what isn't a legitimate point in the argument you're making? How do you know that no GM in the NBA would trade have Paul instead of Rose? Seriously, how do you know? You really can't prove that. I'm sure the majority would want Rose because he's A) the MVP B) only 22 and C) one of the top 5 NBA players in the league already. Are you insinuating that you think exactly like a GM? That really isn't a legit argument. I don't think "watch the games" is really a legit argument either unless the other person says some random s*** that makes no sense. Seriously, if you're going to make other people respect your argument, at least come up with something that doesn't make them want to chuck their computer out of the window.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 10:38 PM) When you have to go to dissecting 3 point s*** rate to prove a player is better you have already lost the battle. If you had a discussion with anyone in the NBA about who the top 3 players are, is Paul even in the conversation? Nope. Rose is. Nobody is dissecting 3 point shooting percentage to prove Paul is better than Rose. It's parts of Rose's game that he could improve on and shot selection is one of them. If he is as aggressive in the first 40 minutes of the game as he is in the last 8, this argument wouldn't be happening, because Derrick Rose would clearly be the best player in the NBA.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 10:35 PM) Lol, yes it's legitimate that someone who hates the bulls would not like their best player. But arguing that a guy who isn't even in the MVP conversation is better than the 22 year old clear favorite is moronic. You should go read the RealGM general boards. That's some real Derrick Rose hating.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 10:25 PM) Your points are moot since you are a terrible hater. You should enjoy watching winning basketball. I preach exactly what Felix has said. Rose shouldn't be taking so many 3s. It doesn't really benefit him to be chucking so many up at a mediocre percentage. He can shoot 3 of them per game instead of 5 and guys will still play close on him at the perimeter, giving him a good chance to blow past his defender. Rose's mid-range shot is pretty good. He really needs to go back to that more (like 2-3 times more a game) instead of shooting the 3s. I'm not saying Rose should shoot less necessarily, because the Bulls need him to shoot 20-25 times a game to win. It's really just a shot selection thing. I don't know if I agree with Felix that Paul is necessarily better, but there's nothing wrong with what Felix has said. Just because he's not a Bulls fan doesn't mean his opinion doesn't matter.

12 goals in 5 periods? Holy s***. At least there's a good chance this series goes 7 now. Good to see the Hawks on a roll.

Is this the first game the team has had a lead since the last game of the Oakland series?

Jesus christ Foster's foul on Deng was a f***ing wrestling move, except this is an actual hit in the head, not pretend. He should be suspended for that.

How bad were Foster's fouls? I didn't see the first 47:30 of the game.

My god Rose was terrible. 4-18 and 5 TOs. He and Boozer were terrible on offense. Can't argue with the game winning shot though. Good thing Deng and Korver showed up.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 21, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) They switched defenders on him(wasn't Fisher the whole game) and he basically just disappeared in the 4th quarter. Wasn't one of his better efforts, that's for sure. Thought so. That's the kind of defense that's been on Derrick Rose all season (especially in the playoffs).

I didn't have a chance to watch the game, but CP3's line tonight was quite mediocre (for him) and regular-season like. Did the Lakers finally give him more attention on defense?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 01:42 AM) <!--quoteo(post=2359119:date=Apr 20, 2011 -> 12:32 AM:name=JorgeFabregas)-->QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Apr 20, 2011 -> 12:32 AM) <!--quotec-->Looks like Rose had a higher defensive win share than Paul this year and equal points allowed per 100 possessions. I don't know enough about basketball metrics to evaluate that, but there it is. As for the Paul/Rose debate, Rose is my #1 with a close Paul, when he's healthy. What's worse is when Rondo gets brought into these debates. It's Rose vs. Paul, with Williams getting the bronze. Then let Westbrook and Nash duke it out for 4th. Rondo's such a horrific shooter that he shouldn't even be in the discussion right now. He was Brandon Jennings bad this year when it came to efficiency.

We're 17 games into the season. Pressing the panic button now is silly.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:52 PM) Just Fine≠Difference Maker. Paul, James, Howard, Wade all excel on both ends. Say whatever you want about DRtg (how team-oriented it is, etc), but Rose has one of the top marks for a PG in the game this year at 103. He's tied with CP3, good for second behind Rondo. http://www.basketball-reference.com/league...nced_stats.html

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 04:15 AM) haha relax about what? I didn't bring up sabermetrics, J4L did.. I was just pointing out that this is another stupid stat like the nonsense that you try to shove down everyone's throats every other post.. This is nothing like the stats that I use, but you wouldn't know anyways.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Apr 19, 2011 -> 08:26 AM) Actually, this has been a major criticism of PER. It's just a hodge podge of efficiency metrics that Hollinger thinks are important. However, other, more widely accepted efficiency metrics, also pin Paul as the better player. Efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all in basketball that it is in baseball, though. Someone needs to take the shots. PER actually awards players for inefficient shooting. Take Roy Hibbert for instance. He has a TS% of just over 50% on the year (bad. especially for a big man), yet his PER is 16 (above average), mostly because he averaged around 7 rebounds per 36. PER often rewards too much for rebounds and it can erase the detriment of inefficient offense. All PER is is a league average normalization of efficiency, the stat that adds everything good, subtracts everything bad. It wasn't really rocket science to begin with. Hibbert's Win Shares is a low 3.3, with only 0.3 coming from the offensive end. That's a much better picture of his overall performance. PER is a nice number to look at for a quick look, but there's other numbers that go deeper for better analysis. Luol Deng is even a better example of this. His PER this season is actually LOWER than it was last year. Anybody who's watched him play this year can tell you he's a far improved player on both ends of the floor. But once again, it's the rebounds. Deng had 1.7 less rebounds per 36 this year, leading to a 15.5 PER in comparison's to last year's 16.1. And that's with Deng being a better shooter and better defender this season.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 16, 2011 -> 10:36 PM) qwerty that has nothing to do with THESE stats.. this is pointless crap that guys like chw42 beat off to Here's a question for you, do you beat off to your avatar? Just so you know, there is nothing sabermetric about whatever sqwert brought up, so you can take off those ignorance glasses and relax.

Bulls gotta be sharp in game 3. Can't sleep walk through a whole half and shoot below 40% and expect to win on the road.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 11:27 PM) Didn't Duncan get thrown out of a game once for laughing? Duncan is like the dude you hang out with just to study with. And use to help you cheat on an exam. I hear he's pretty good at geometry, being such a good bank shooter and all...haha.

QUOTE (Felix @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 11:24 PM) True, but they shouldn't be. If an excessive reaction is a T for one player, it should be the same for another. Rasheed Wallace got a T for staring at a ref. lol it's just the way it is.

QUOTE (Felix @ Apr 18, 2011 -> 11:22 PM) Rose is lucky he didn't get T'd up. That's a technical every day of the week and twice on Sunday for Dwight. You don't see Rose that mad very often. Price clearly kicked his leg out and that's worth a foul call. T's are based on reputation. Rose might have had a couple of Ts in his career, Howard has, what, 50 in the past 3-4 years?