Derrick Rose: Perfect Storm of Overrated?

Wow, that's a real softpedal on the "point of the article." I didn't view the point of the article as being that "Rose is truly great but his aesthetic appeal makes him seem even more great, which isn't a bad thing." It seemed pretty clear that your point is that his aesthetic appeal (and the other factors you discuss) are misleading fans into thinking that Rose is better than he really is. Maybe its just the difference between a positive and negative outlook, but the pejorative tone is pretty well captured by applying the label "overrated" in the first place. Rose is the best point guard in the NBA. Rose is the clear leader, game changer, and clutch playmaker for arguably the best team in the East. Rose's stats, I believe, undervalue his effectiveness by, for example, ignoring that his missed drives to the basket (his so-called "inefficient scoring") regularly result in easy putbacks by Bulls bigs, which is actually effective offense. To me, the fact that Rose looks so good doing all this makes him greater. Why? Because its awesome to watch. That doesn't mean I overrate him. It means I appreciate what he brings to the game, statistically, aesthetically, competitively. Its like saying Jordan was overrated because he was so awesome to watch. No, he was the best to ever play AND he was awesome to watch.

You guys are making a giant effort to ignore the point of this article. The point: Rose is great, but certain factors will always magnify his greatness--and this isn't even a bad thing, really. The prediction: I was way off. The Bulls are awesome, Thibs has employed a great defense. Ironically, I think they're the best team in the East right now.

Maybe...just maybe one should consider who the Bulls are beating. The Bulls have a winning record against above .500 teams and above .700 teams. IF the game is close with time winding down...the Bulls have repeatedly seen that Rose will try and make the right play. Can LeBron fans for example say any of the above? Aren't the Heat like 1-9 agains the elite teams? 1-7? 1-8? I forget which p1ss poor record is theirs. How does LeBron get all the hype for MVP is my question. Doesn't he have a player with practically identical stats on his team? Didn't they promise like 7 or 8 championships in a row...while showing on the court that they cannot possibly match that boast unless series are reduced to one game in length...and even then they'd be the under dog?

I, too, am wondering where your retraction article is now that the Bulls have actually risen in the standings (closer to top seed than before) instead of having fallen to fifth with Noah out. And with Rose's numbers even better than before now that he has learned how to draw contact and get to the line.

Agree with Kamal. you were right on with that Bulls falling to 5th with Noah out fool. Please write another article explaining how you're wrong, im sure it would be a good read. Pretty sure Bulls moved closer to first and have one of the top records in the East from the day that Noah went out

What exactly is Rose's rating that is over/under? You should name WHO over rates him. Not a blanket statement like "fans". Duh...Tyreke Evans was the greatest talent in the history of the NBA according to "fans". Ditto with every team's best player. Name a sports writer that you think over rates Rose. So that way we can read his stuff and know that you rate Rose lower than that guy does. Me? I think he's a smart basketball player with skills and athleticism that are unmatched at his position. If Rose isn't a viable MVP candidate...who is?

good thing the bulls fell to the 5th seed with noah out. maybe rose is under rated?

Rose plays strong and silent, which wins respect but not whistles. Fair enough; if he learns to "play smarter" by exaggerating contact and bitching at the refs he will get those whistles. He'll lose a lot of fans though, the ones who hate watching half an hour of FTs. Hey, that'd solve his overrated problem! Perfect! I think discussing someone's overratedness without even citing one instance of Rose being overrated is a little weak. How does one measure overrating, especially in the fashion you approach it? If someone sees a discrepancy between a player's ability and reputation, that's one thing: they're talking about their own preferences. But you're mindreading an entire fanbase. You ask: "So what if he’s overrated?" So what indeed? After all, overrated is only a pejorative wielded by those who like bands their friends have never heard of. After all, the people overrating Rose are only the easily fooled, the dog-like fans who do not even realize that a point is as valuable as a rebound, the major market magpies who like a flashy pretty game over one with real substance, the idiots simple enough to imagine they've got some stake in a kid just because they watched him in March. I do like that your formula can rank just how overrated every NBA player, even without reference to the discussion around that player.

Classic, now you just sound like LeBron commercial...

@JJ What do u want him to do? Pretend that he's weak and not get the basket?!?

@JJ So you're saying it's Derrick Roses' fault that he's so gifted?!

Classic, I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here. But, to answer your question... Sometimes, especially in a case like you described, a team earns the win. The other team didn't give them the win. So, there is no one to blame. Also, you can foul any basketball player. Even a super one like you described. This is because basketball is played inside a court with fairly limited space and even super players have to start their "flying" from the ground. Thus, the other team can foul the player before he "takes off". Anyway, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say. Rose's athleticism is not the sole reason he gets few foul calls. It's more because of his playing style and demeanor, which affects refs' judgement. After all, refs are humans and get influenced by players one way or another.

Here is a silly question - What if there was a basketball player that can actually fly? Like literally soar over defenders from full court?All he'd have to do is take-off, fly over defenders, and put the ball in the basket! But, he would have no free-throw attempts because he'd basically be "avoiding contact" the whole game. So, my question is - Who is to blame when he scores and his team wins? the defenders? The player? or God for making such an incredible athlete?

Most people who go on NBA blogs probably have played ball. Not at the NBA level, perhaps you have? Most fans in general have not played at any high level of the sport, whether they are mathematically inclined or not. Not that the argument has no merit, for many things it's important to experience it before analyzing it so you can recognize when the conclusions don't make sense. For me, that's why I disregard the theory that the hot hand doesn't exist. It doesn't mesh at all with my personal feelings and observations on the court. But most of all, you're proving the author's point by being a Derrick Rose supporter plus a moron. @John: Yeah I did look at free throws made, if Rose didn't improve his shooting percentage but took as many FTs as Westbrook, he'd average about 2.2 more FTs per game than he does now. That's not as big, given the fact that if he finishes one of those plays that some other player doesn't, that's 2 points right there. That said, it helps the team to accumulate fouls on the opposing team, getting into the penalty, taking big men (maybe shot blockers) out of games, etc.

Pau and Kobe are exactly the same, both are consistently about 5-7 in PER. That's why they're successful. Also, stop the anti Kobe bias, a lot of advanced stats prove that he's not the best player in the league, most say he's been in the top 3 for the last ten years which is pretty damn good: http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=8359

I bet you stat geeks must've felt that he should of initiated contact HAHAHAHAHAHA... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eOqcPNBNFQ

Stat geeks are so annoying because they have never dribbled a basketball a day in their life... and they think they know how this game works simply based on stats. D

How do you get fouled when you're so strong, so fast, & jump so high that defenders can't even get to you in time to foul you, and when they do foul you it doesn't even bother you cuz you're so strong?! You guys are basically asking a bird to stop flying, a frog to stop leaping, a cheetah to stop running, u r asking Rose to not use the gifts that God has given to him... WHY? I bet some haters must've felt that Rose should of initiated contact on that dunk vs. New York a couple of weeks ago LOL... they're just mad he's better than every body else... even when you foul him HE STILL CAN'T BE STOPPED!!! This is your average nba player: "Oh please mr. referee... help me! Blow the whistle so I can go to the line & get free shots, cuz I'm not good enough to score on my own like Derrick Rose can, so I need free shots, please help mr. referee... call the foul..."

@Ethan Honestly, I think you can reach more of those fans that over-hype Rose if you offer them a balanced perspective on him. The approach you take here is only going to make the more rabid fans dig their heels in more. Rose is an easy player to like because of the way he plays the game. There is an elegance and dignity to his game that a lot of people love. Unfortunately, it hurts him in that it probably costs him a foul call or two along the way. Last year, we heard about his bad 3 point shooting, his mediocre passing, and his poor defense. He's improved on all of them, particularly the 3 point shooting and the passing -- but he's also shown some glimpses on defense this year (he's also had stretches where he's been terrible -- check out the first 5-6 minutes of the Toronto game. He was like a sieve.) Still, we're excited about his progress in all those areas-- and now all people want to talk about are his free throws. Give Rose some respect beyond saying he's an exciting player and you'll find that you'll get a few more of those rabid Rose fans to see your point of view. But keep in mind that Rose will always be big in Chicago. Among some fans, he was big before he even stepped on the floor at Simeon. But we're not complete homers in Chicago, some of us had to endure the Eddy Curry experience. That's a guy who had the exact same opportunity that Rose did, and he seemed to throw it all away. Rose deserves some credit for working hard to earn that admiration, and working even harder to keep it.

@Asher I want to emphasize that Rose can become a truly great player. Despite the current free throw flaw, he has all the tools, and he's quite young. The main point of the piece is that, no matter how great Derrick gets, he will always be overrated due to circumstances beyond his control (the converse would be that Rose would be undervalued if he played for say, Toronto). And I guess the second point is, shouldn't we want our favorite players to be overrated? The goal here really isn't to tear down Derrick Rose. -ESS

And additionally, Asher, you obviously twisted what I wrote in previous posts as to completely change it's intention. Nobody said Rose goes out of his way to hide that he's been fouled. It sounds desperate when you have to change the meaning of someone's words so that you can try to sound clever. I trust that you're able to understand what I actually wrote and are simply being willful.

Rose is "stupid", huh? Didn't take much to show you're true colors. Rose just plays the game, he isn't a prima donna...doesn't expect freebies. He's like that guy in your office that works hard, probably the most talented, but doesn't schmooze the boss. He's learning to play "the game within the game" and like everything else he's done (and Strauss and his toadies have ignored), he'll improve it. If you were a fan of the game and not just the theory, you'd appreciate the way Rose plays it. The game would be better if everyone played it that way, instead of players mucking up the game by exploiting flaws in the current officiating system. And the one thing you seem to want to talk about...statistics...are wrong. Westbrook shoots an 3 extra FTs game, actually. Not 4. And Rose doesn't shoot 100% on his FTs, so even if it was a difference of 4 FTAs, it wouldn't be an extra 4 FTs/game, it would be an extra 3 points. But it isn't even that, the FTA disparity is 3. So we're talking 2-3 points game on FTs. However, Rose also shoots an extra 1.5 three pointers/game than Westbrook, and that adds efficient points that Westbrook doesn't. Especially since Rose shoots them at a 42% clip and Westbrook shoots an inefficient 26%. So your numbers are skewed-- you're way, way overstating the difference here (and that's even assuming NBA advanced stats are 100% accurate when rating players/projecting wins to begin with, which they obviously aren't). But, of course, you've already shown your bias, so I can't really expect a balanced view from you. The same goes for this Strauss guy that you're trying to please. The other writer by the way, Mason, destroyed him in that conversation/debate. And Strauss knows it too, which is why he felt the need to write a second piece. He still fell short, well, except for guys who are already predisposed to buy 100% into the anti-hype extreme. Mason's point of view is far more balanced and accurate. That's more along the lines of what I want to read. I'd much rather see an article that talks about all the great things Rose does (statistically, not just highlight reel stuff) while also talking about his flaws and where he needs to improve, rather than one which strictly talks about his flaws and ignores everything else. To you, this piece is preaching to the choir. To an objective fan, it reads like a bad high school persuasive paper.

2 extra fouls is a huge deal because that's basically 4 free points. They'd have 2 more wins right now if he drew those extra fouls. By the end of the season, maybe 6, 7, 8 more wins. Anyway, if he's constantly getting fouled but he "never lets on," or goes out of his way to hide it, which would kind of have to be the case since the refs seem to call tons of fouls on every other guard who has the ball in his hands as much as Rose does, then he's kind of stupid. Why would a player choose to not let on that he's being fouled, forfeiting easy points?

Here's the thing, though, Luis. That's the part that gets me, ..."that he's worth watching" or "fun to watch". Sure he is, but if that's the only positive thing people have to say, then it ignores what a truly great basketball player he is. It's patronizing, in a way. Like people who start sentences with "with all due respect" then go on to trash the person afterward. Saying Rose is "fun to watch but..." is simply a way of trying to legitimize what comes next. To give the appearance of objectivity (Hey, I like the guy but...) before lowering the boom. We know he's not Wade or LBJ, we know he's not MVP (at least some of us in Chicago do), we know there are things he needs to work on (i.e. learning how to get calls)-- but to dismiss him as simply a highlight reel player diminishes the value that he brings to the team. If you really want to be objective, you can also talk about his strengths and everything he's added to his game this year, including better passing and a three point shot. You can talk about how much better he's helped make the Bulls since his arrival. Saying he's fun to watch and just leaving it at that is grossly unfair. And unbalanced. Those of us who truly follow the game from every angle, on an off the court, deserve a better analysis than that. This piece just panders to the anti-hype crowd the same way Wilbon's article pandered to the pro-hype crowd. Two wrongs do not make a right, here. To me the answer is somewhere in between both extremes. It'd be nice if we can read a truly objective, balanced article on Rose as a player. If you know of one, let me know.

John I agree and love the way that Rose plays the right way, except the last part where you don't think it's a big deal because it's "just two fouls. It's a huge deal. Westbrook is a knockdown FT shooter too, 3.5 more FTs made per game than Rose. Meanwhile, the average team in the NBA has a point differential of about 4.3 (either plus or minus)...also I don't get the attitude. Ethan isn't saying Rose isn't worth watching, he's saying that given the way the NBA works, he could be a lot more efficient, which is true.

Asher, you're obviously a guy who knows the game from a stat sheet. Well, so do I. We can all read numbers after the game is over. But I also know the game itself and I know that those stats can't possibly tell you everything. If you ever watched Rose play closely -- with an open mind, which you obviously haven't, you'd see he draws plenty of contact. You'll also see that he never pump fakes and then leans into a leaping player, he never puts on a drama show when people hit him, he never flops, he rarely complains, and he almost always finishes cleanly whether he draws contact or not. The game is too fast for refs to see contact unless they consistently see results of that contact. Rose never lets on that he's fouled, either physically or verbally. And duh, of course, you learn to manipulate the system. Corey Maggette does it and Brandon Jennings credited him with showing him how this year. Brandon Jennings didn't know how to do it, why is it so hard for you believe Rose doesn't? He's tried different things to get calls. None of them have worked. And how ridiculous to say that Rose is overrated because he isn't drawing an extra TWO fouls a game. Rose gets 5 FTAs, Westbrook gets 9...we're talking about 2 extra fouls! And thanks for providing stats that only re-state the same thing in a different way. It was pointless. It didn't prove anything new. See? I can be sarcastic too.

So John's claim is that Rose is singularly bad at manipulating the officiating system. All these other guards, like a Kevin Martin or Eric Gordon or Wade, or Billups, Williams, Harris, Love, Stuckey, Monta - they're all expert manipulators. Rose is the one big-time scorer in the league who still can't figure out how to manipulate the system. Did you know that Rose takes 4 shots for every free-throw? The average player takes 3 shots per free-throw. Kevin Martin takes only 1.66 shots per free-throw. Gordon takes about 2 shots per free-throw. Wade, about 1.8. These guys must be extraordinarily gifted manipulators. Maybe Martin has the refs under an hypnotic spell or something.

I don't worry too much about Rose. He DOES remind me of Kobe, especially YOUNG Kobe, who also specialized in find ridiculous angles around the basket. Simply put, they have the rare talent of creating and hitting difficult shots. It's not just about making the shots you gotta have the skills to set up the impossible shot. The recent game Rose had against the Lakers showed me he now has a reliable jumpshot to go to at the end of games. The biggest weakness everyone mentions when regarding Rose is his inability to get to the line. Look man, when you only have eyes for the basket, you don't look for cheap fouls. He will get better at this as he gets older, he will also need to learn how to draw subtle fouls, a la Kevin Durant. But it's like I tell people all the time, the fact that he averaged 25+ easily on an undermanned team WITHOUT drawing fouls is amazing in and of itself and speaks to his potential. If he can get to the line 8-10 times per game, he could average 30 points easily... and he's getting closer and closer to averaging double digit assists...

That he doesn't draw contact is a cliche that has become perpetuated by people who read more than they watch Rose play. There's nothing new presented here. No insight. It's safe, vanilla writing that tries to pass itself as looking beyond the hype. But really, in this arena, in this type of analysis of Rose, it isn't insightful. It's commonplace. In the world of bloggers who are fundamental believers in the undeniable truth of advanced statistics. This view of Rose IS the hype. And I don't buy it. Rose draws plenty of contact. He's bruised up, sore, iced down after every game. What Rose doesn't know how to do is manipulate the officiating system. He can finish despite contact, so he does. Maybe he should yell out a primal scream when he receives a glancing blow or maybe he should throw up awkward shots. Maybe he should complain more. Maybe he should pump fake and lean in. But if he draws any more contact on his drives, he's going to have to start bathing in Ben Gay. When people watch games, they don't necessarily notice contact. They notice the results of that contact, whether it be a fall, a loss of body control, or the player's exaggerated scream. Most importantly, they notice the official's whistle. And then they see the results of those whistles on a stat sheet -- so they draw conclusions and quote numbers. And who can deny someone who can impressively rattle off statistics? It seems so objective that it just has to be true. Well, maybe it isn't. Maybe you should take a second look at Rose. And for many people maybe they should take a first. But this time observe what you see, not what you expect to see because of what you've been told or because of what you have read on a stat sheet. Always be wary of hype, whether that comes from the highlight reel or from somebody's stat sheet.

@Asher: Very good point @Vadim: I firmly believe everything I wrote, dumb as you might find it.

"Perhaps this is why we relate to Greg Oden’s pain, while snickering at Kwame Brown." No, I think that's primarily because Oden's a pretty good player who's been the tragic victim of a ton of freak injuries, whereas Kwame Brown is not a good player and people think it could be his fault. After all, he is a freak athlete, had the skills and potential. But even if it's not his fault and he was just never that good to begin with, why should I feel sorry for a guy for sucking at NBA basketball?

Hey, I dont want to get into all of the details on why D Rose is properly rated, etc. Just want to say that there are only 2 conclusions that come to mind after reading this. 1)Anything that you say from here on out regarding the NBA has to be taken with a grain of salt since basketball clearly isn't your expertise. 2)Maybe you don't really believe anything you wrote here but just thought it would be a good way to get some hits on the website. Kind of like what Skip Bayless does.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the level of Rose hype that you're seeing...I mean there are always absurd "so-and-so for MVP" ideas, I don't see it being historically bad with him. He SHOULD be celebrated for his exciting play by anybody except some Chicago fans who may really want to win regardless of how ugly it is. It's good to show the NBA what they can have if they stopped players from hurling themselves into any airborne defender at any angle to get to the line.

huh?

The hyperbole is coming exclusively from the 2/3rds of his fanbase that are Cubs fans.

Kobe Bryant is like a fake pair of Jordans... just an imitation copy. We basketball enthusiasts despise that. Derrick Rose was brought to us basketball enthusiasts by the basketball gods, kinda like a gift, the savior to all basketball purists around the world. He transcends the sport the way Jordan did in the 80's... with talent nobody has ever witnessed before. Derrick Rose and Steve Nash brought joy to this basketball purists' life when he really needed it. Every god-like lay-up, effortless dunk, graceful glide, shift of gears, blazing power-speed fast-break fills my life with joy. The way every Nash-back-door-Barbosa, half-court-alley-oop-Marion, pick-n-roll-Stoudemire, drive-n-kick-Bell, dime did. So people can say what they want about Derrick Rose, but he will the MVP in my book til' the day I'm not able to watch basketball anymore. We enthusiasts can't wait til' he arrives at the mecca on Christmas day. Whether he performs well or not, seeing Rose dribbling a basketball in the GAAHDEN is special all on it' own.