Derrick Rose: Is he who we think he is?

In the past few weeks there has been so much buzz about Derrick Rose's MVP candidacy, whether it's Stan Van Gundy claiming that the media has all but crowned him MVP already, ESPN.com essentially agreeing, or a number of outlets vehemently stating that he should or should not win the award and how they can't see how the other side of the argument even exists.

It seems like so long ago that we were talking about LeBron James, after his 2nd consecutive MVP with fans and media alike already wondering if it a 3rd straight was inevitable, or Kevin Durant, with his humility, leadership, and 30 points per game making his case, as surefire MVP candidates.

But now it seems as if it's Rose's award to lose. Personally, I don't see it. Not to say I don't think he's a great player, which he clearly his. His defense seems to be getting better, and while his jump shot has very clearly not improved as much as some might lead you to think (his percentages on mid and long 2s is actually worse than last year), he has at least replaced relatively inefficient 2 pointers with 3 attempts, which effectively makes him a better shooter. He has clearly taken ownership of this Chicago Bulls team which has risen into the elite class of the Eastern Conference.

Still...I don't think any of this makes him a lock for the MVP. Defense in the NBA is clearly a team effort. Sure, great individual lockdown players always helps but only to an extent. The arrival of guru Tom Thibodeau and the continued maturation of players like Taj Gibson definitely played a big role in Chicago's improved defense. Rose may be getting better, but many people count the point guard spot as one of the least important spots in a team's defense. His offensive stats are impressive, and yet look at this comparison.

Player A: 22.2 PPG, 4.6 RPG, 8.3 APG, 1.8 SPG, 3.9 TO, 44.4% FG, 84.1% FT, 53.9 TS%, 23.8 PER
Player B: 24.9 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 7.8 APG, 1.1 SPG, 3.4 TO, 44.0% FG, 84.7% FT, 54.0 TS%, 23.3 PER

Pretty freakin identical right? So why is Player B, Derrick Rose, talked about like he absolutely deserves the MVP above and beyond everyone else while Player A, Russell Westbrook, is not even in the discussion? Yes, Rose took a team that was .500 and an 8 seed last year to the top of the conference (for now). But I think it's equally impressive that Westbrook's team, the Oklahoma City Thunder, has moved into the upper half of the deeper Western Conference this year while also being an 8 seed last year. OKC was a 50 win team last year and, avoiding a massive losing streak, will win over 50 this year, due in no small part to Westbrook's emergence as not just a second fiddle to Durant, but a sidekick and equal.

And this is before we even talk about James, still putting up gaudy statlines, Dwight Howard, a defensive juggernaut and growing offensive weapon, or Dirk Nowitzki, who can still ball and whose Dallas Mavericks looked lost without when he went down.

I'm not trying to diminish Rose at all here. He and his team have kicked their play up another level this year and that is certainly to be commended. But it seems like there are too many holes in his MVP argument and too many other viable and legitimate candidates to be speaking of him as a lock.

The bigger problem is one that's familiar with sports fan. What exactly does the MVP award mean? How do we weigh a player's stats with his team's record with the simple eye test we all use when we watch him play? The MVP means something different to every person, which is why there's often such great debate over it.

In the end, because the definition of the MVP is so nebulous and vague, I think it's remarkable that Rose is even in this position. He is no doubt a legitimate candidate for the award, and, in just his third season, that's saying a lot. The rest is for the voters to decide.

P.S. I should note I looked into the Rose/Westbrook comparison because of this post from Hoopdata.com: http://hoopdata.com/blogengine/post/2011/03/26/Nix-The-Knicks-Offense-is-Fine-Chatter.aspx

"Rose is definitely a terrific talent. If all NBA contracts were declared null and void at midnight tonight, and all NBA players were re-drafted, would Rose go first? Can you find meaningful statistical differences this year between Rose and Russell Westbrook (they sit next to each other on this page)? It takes some significant rhetorical limbo to get a point guard on an offense that's only a point per 100 possessions better than league average as the MVP...particularly when it's DEFENSE that's taken the team to new heights...and he plays one of the least important defensive positions."

Geeks and Jocks

There's always been a certain kind of tension in the sports world between stat heads and traditional analysts. Every sport has a set of traditional knowledge, things that people who have played the game just know and understand as part of the game and how its supposed to be played. These insiders and analysts don't take too kindly when people focusing on stats, "quants" as they're sometimes called, come along and dispel or at least call into question things everyone already knows is right, no matter what or how many numbers and data sets they have to back it up.

A famous example would be Michael Lewis's Moneyball, a book discussing Oakland A's manager Billy Beane and how he used advanced and non-traditional statistics to find undervalued production. In the book, on base percentage is preached over batting average, walks are king and sacrifice bunts and stolen bases shouldn't be bothered with. There's a lot of detail and logical arguments supporting these ideas, mostly based around the fact that the most important thing on offense in baseball is to avoid making outs. Of course, you still see teams move guys over with bunts and send runners, and batting average is still prominently mentioned.

Who knows if there will ever be a perfect coexistence between the box score people and the "watch the game" people or even what that would look like, but there's no question that you need both. Just looking at stats often ignores elements that don't show up in any box score such as momentum, leadership, and a general understanding of the flow of a game. Not taking into account stats at all leaves someone vulnerable to small sample sizes and misinterpreting fluke occurrences as patterns. Neither is necessarily better than the other, rather, they inform and complete each other.

While Moneyball might be the most famous example, advanced stats are making a push in basketball as well. Often, these stats can validate or disprove certain things that observers notice through watching the game.

One of the biggest stories in the NBA this year has been the explosion of Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose. He established himself as a solid point guard in his first two years in the league, but has really busted out this year, averaging about 5 more points and 3 more assists a game while also raising his PER (player efficiency rating) from 18.60 to 22.72. While he's exceptionally fast and has incredible athleticism, the knock on him has been an inability to hit jump shots. He seemed to have worked on it over the summer, and last night's game against San Antonio led ESPN's Ric Bucher to tweet, "I try like heck not to be reactive, but it's time to stop talking as if Derrick Rose doesn't have a J. Or three-point range. He has both."

And based on last night's game, that's true. He was 5-6 from 16-23 feet (long twos) and 2-4 from 3 point range. But again, we're dealing with a really small sample size (one game). While his 3 point shooting has seemed to improve (up to 34.2% from 26.7%), his improvement from 16-23 ft has been marginal (2%) and he's shooting far worse from 10-15 ft (30%, a huge decrease from 50% last year).

Is his long range shooting better? Yes. But it should be noted that he's still in the bottom half of regular point guards in 3 point percentage, and the shot he improved most (long twos) is the most inefficient way to score in the game.

Don't get me wrong. This is no knock on Rose at all. He is a phenomenal player. It just strikes me as kind of ridiculous to make a disclaimer against being reactive, then proclaim his jump shot to be fixed based on one night. On the other hand, his improvement and the impact he has on this Bulls team can't be stated in any box score or statistical summary.

And this is where watching the games and tracking stats have to meet.

Stats courtesy of Hoopdata