meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TheGame wrote:This is great news. With Rose there the Cavs will feel more comfortable about trading Irving. A team of Rose, smith, Melo, Lebron, and Love would be pretty tough on offense.

Was exactly does a guy have to do to demonstrate he's not a good NBA shooter?

Being able to take a shot is a legitimate NBS skill.

Be able to score points efficiently in relation to how many shots you take is far more important.

He is Nba mediocre at that.

Rose is decent. His weakness is no defense and no 3pt shooting. He actually can shoot 3s but for some reason he just wants to drive. I think he just has the mindset that I can drive on anyone so why shoot 3s. Anyway, he probably a better defender than Irving, so in the Cavs mind; he probably gives them 75% of what Irving gave them. Then you add what they can get for Irving and the cave might be able to put together an even stronger team.

Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL

Produce a metric that shows Irving was worse.

I don't believe any of the metrics provide a basis for comparison across teams because what your teammates are doing is absolutely worked into them.

So in other words your basis for comparison doesn't exist either way.

These comparisons are silly. When Rose was on a good defensive team in Chicago his metrics looked better as well.

Better, but still on the lower half of that team.

And he was a better, healthier player then.

fishmike wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:D Rose is no slouch of a player--anyone you add with LBJ goes up a few notches on top of it.

I don't put anything past James, but this past year rose was the definition of a slouch.

Low assist rate, low efg%, no defense.

His penetration is only useful if it leads to converted scores.

It did not.

2016/17 rose

triangle, mass confusion, dysfunctional team ,rape trial, awol, no leader, no real team direction.

Exactly who on the knicks had a good yr, other than willy

His numbers were an improvement over 2015-16.

At his nadir rose was handing out néarly 8 assists a game and getting to the line 7 times.

He is no longer that player and hasn't been in half a decade.

wouldn't that be his zenith?

Heh, yes.

Brain freeze.

Thanks.

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TheGame wrote:This is great news. With Rose there the Cavs will feel more comfortable about trading Irving. A team of Rose, smith, Melo, Lebron, and Love would be pretty tough on offense.

Was exactly does a guy have to do to demonstrate he's not a good NBA shooter?

Being able to take a shot is a legitimate NBS skill.

Be able to score points efficiently in relation to how many shots you take is far more important.

He is Nba mediocre at that.

Rose is decent. His weakness is no defense and no 3pt shooting. He actually can shoot 3s but for some reason he just wants to drive. I think he just has the mindset that I can drive on anyone so why shoot 3s. Anyway, he probably a better defender than Irving, so in the Cavs mind; he probably gives them 75% of what Irving gave them. Then you add what they can get for Irving and the cave might be able to put together an even stronger team.

Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL

Produce a metric that shows Irving was worse.

Heres a metric of value with Kyrie

Hes played an average of 63 games a year since he was drafted in his prime athletic years. He misses on average 20 games a year. If he wasnt on LNJs team who carries it--hed be just another gunner who doesnt play that much D

In the year before LBJ came

Kyrie was 43% 20-6-3.5
Rose last year was 47% 18 -4.5 4

So for 3-4 assets and 150mm $ you can have the oft injured Irving(and just like Noah--you KNOW you are buying tarnished goods)for slightly more production---nah unless its for melo and junk---steer clear

You're demonstrating the same blindspot so many sports fans have.

All I said was Irving isn't as bad as Rose defensively. I have said nothing else about him.

Respond to what I actually post, not what you assume I think.

Rose, by himself, isn't a good offensive player anymore, which means he isn't a good player anymore.

Hes not a good 3 point shooter--but hes a good offensive player.

There were 40 NBA players who avg 18 or more

Out of those 40 Rose ranked 13 in FG% NOT eFG just FG. So you are talking about a player who is one of 14 players in the NBA who did 18 and 47%+ Hes not a great 3 point shooter and he was "smart" to move away from that shot to focus on the mid range and drive.

In order to justify Rose's ineffective 3pt shooting, and his lack of creating FTs and his lack of creating assists, you've managed to turn his high volume of 2 pt shots at a relatively pedestrian rate made into a virtue.

Yes, his overall % is "high" because he no longer attempts 3 pointers because he can't make them.

But his percentage of 2pt FG was lower than Deron Williams. He just took a lot more of them.

Look around a today's NBA, that isn't a good thing.

THAT's inefficiency, defined.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TheGame wrote:This is great news. With Rose there the Cavs will feel more comfortable about trading Irving. A team of Rose, smith, Melo, Lebron, and Love would be pretty tough on offense.

Was exactly does a guy have to do to demonstrate he's not a good NBA shooter?

Being able to take a shot is a legitimate NBS skill.

Be able to score points efficiently in relation to how many shots you take is far more important.

He is Nba mediocre at that.

Rose is decent. His weakness is no defense and no 3pt shooting. He actually can shoot 3s but for some reason he just wants to drive. I think he just has the mindset that I can drive on anyone so why shoot 3s. Anyway, he probably a better defender than Irving, so in the Cavs mind; he probably gives them 75% of what Irving gave them. Then you add what they can get for Irving and the cave might be able to put together an even stronger team.

Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL

Produce a metric that shows Irving was worse.

I don't believe any of the metrics provide a basis for comparison across teams because what your teammates are doing is absolutely worked into them.

So in other words your basis for comparison doesn't exist either way.

These comparisons are silly. When Rose was on a good defensive team in Chicago his metrics looked better as well.

Better, but still on the lower half of that team.

And he was a better, healthier player then.

My basis for comparison is from me watching them play. Kyrie is along the same lines as Rose in terms of defense. I also take into consideration the duration of our commitment to the player and salary when making comps. Rose was a one year experiment that cost is Rolo, Kyrie will come at a much higher price which makes him much less valuable to me.

No one could get all that from "Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL"

Seems to imply Irving is a worse defender than Rose. Doesn't seem to suggest several qualifiers. That's all I responded to.

If that isn't exactly wha you mean, no big deal.

As far as I am concerned Kyrie is a worse defender AND/OR Kyrie costs more to be equally bad as Rose. Just because I don't agree on using metrics to compare players across teams doesn't mean I am changing my position.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TheGame wrote:This is great news. With Rose there the Cavs will feel more comfortable about trading Irving. A team of Rose, smith, Melo, Lebron, and Love would be pretty tough on offense.

Was exactly does a guy have to do to demonstrate he's not a good NBA shooter?

Being able to take a shot is a legitimate NBS skill.

Be able to score points efficiently in relation to how many shots you take is far more important.

He is Nba mediocre at that.

Rose is decent. His weakness is no defense and no 3pt shooting. He actually can shoot 3s but for some reason he just wants to drive. I think he just has the mindset that I can drive on anyone so why shoot 3s. Anyway, he probably a better defender than Irving, so in the Cavs mind; he probably gives them 75% of what Irving gave them. Then you add what they can get for Irving and the cave might be able to put together an even stronger team.

Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL

Produce a metric that shows Irving was worse.

I don't believe any of the metrics provide a basis for comparison across teams because what your teammates are doing is absolutely worked into them.

So in other words your basis for comparison doesn't exist either way.

These comparisons are silly. When Rose was on a good defensive team in Chicago his metrics looked better as well.

Better, but still on the lower half of that team.

And he was a better, healthier player then.

My basis for comparison is from me watching them play. Kyrie is along the same lines as Rose in terms of defense. I also take into consideration the duration of our commitment to the player and salary when making comps. Rose was a one year experiment that cost is Rolo, Kyrie will come at a much higher price which makes him much less valuable to me.

No one could get all that from "Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL"

Seems to imply Irving is a worse defender than Rose. Doesn't seem to suggest several qualifiers. That's all I responded to.

If that isn't exactly wha you mean, no big deal.

As far as I am concerned Kyrie is a worse defender AND/OR Kyrie costs more to be equally bad as Rose. Just because I don't agree on using metrics to compare players across teams doesn't mean I am changing my position.

I asked you to provide a metric, you have your opinion. If you don't have what I asked for no need to further this discussion.

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

TheGame wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TheGame wrote:This is great news. With Rose there the Cavs will feel more comfortable about trading Irving. A team of Rose, smith, Melo, Lebron, and Love would be pretty tough on offense.

Was exactly does a guy have to do to demonstrate he's not a good NBA shooter?

Being able to take a shot is a legitimate NBS skill.

Be able to score points efficiently in relation to how many shots you take is far more important.

He is Nba mediocre at that.

Rose is decent. His weakness is no defense and no 3pt shooting. He actually can shoot 3s but for some reason he just wants to drive. I think he just has the mindset that I can drive on anyone so why shoot 3s. Anyway, he probably a better defender than Irving, so in the Cavs mind; he probably gives them 75% of what Irving gave them. Then you add what they can get for Irving and the cave might be able to put together an even stronger team.

Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL

Produce a metric that shows Irving was worse.

I don't believe any of the metrics provide a basis for comparison across teams because what your teammates are doing is absolutely worked into them.

So in other words your basis for comparison doesn't exist either way.

These comparisons are silly. When Rose was on a good defensive team in Chicago his metrics looked better as well.

Better, but still on the lower half of that team.

And he was a better, healthier player then.

My basis for comparison is from me watching them play. Kyrie is along the same lines as Rose in terms of defense. I also take into consideration the duration of our commitment to the player and salary when making comps. Rose was a one year experiment that cost is Rolo, Kyrie will come at a much higher price which makes him much less valuable to me.

No one could get all that from "Agree, people think Rose was a bad defender, wait till they see Kyrie. LOL"

Seems to imply Irving is a worse defender than Rose. Doesn't seem to suggest several qualifiers. That's all I responded to.

If that isn't exactly wha you mean, no big deal.

As far as I am concerned Kyrie is a worse defender AND/OR Kyrie costs more to be equally bad as Rose. Just because I don't agree on using metrics to compare players across teams doesn't mean I am changing my position.

So you use metrics to compare players on the same team and eyeball assessments to compare players on different teams?

Kyrie Irving                   Derrick Rose
        ORtg	DRtg  WS/48    ORtg    DRtg   WS/48
2014-15 117	108   .183     97      108    .038
2015-16 109	106   .143     96      110    .009
2016-17 116	112   .170     108     115    .068

It could be that Kyrie had a very off year defensively but i'd bet he could be coached up to do better than he did this year. I'd prefer Kyrie to Rose obviously. I think he's being criticized a bit harshly at times. Kyrie is a better version of Goran Dragic. Very similar Assist % and I believe Jeff can work with Kyrie as he did with Dragic.

2013-14 NBA Phoenix Suns - J. Hornacek (48-34) Top Win Shares - G. Dragic (10.3)

Cleveland relies much on drive and kicks. They have better 3 point shooting, Better spacing and players that can make shots than the Knicks. Rose will have more gaps to drive in. I think they use him for 30 minutes a game, he gives them 16 points 4assists. Fits in well. Love gets more opportunities.

The big thing for them is what they get for Kyrie.

martin wrote:ugh

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JoshEberley/status/889880124509667328

At least they have Cameron for that. Lol

Agree, frustrating to watch. Always thought he could have at least 6 assists per game. But again, don't think they need him to be a facilitator. That's what Lebron does. If Rose can penetrate when Love and Korver are sitting on the 3pt. line and Lebron can convince him to kick out the ball once in a while, he is a better fit than anyone still out there. Specially for 2.1M. And don't think anyone can argue that he is a great talent. IF he stays healthy.

HofstraBBall wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:D Rose is no slouch of a player--anyone you add with LBJ goes up a few notches on top of it.

I don't put anything past James, but this past year rose was the definition of a slouch.

Low assist rate, low efg%, no defense.

His penetration is only useful if it leads to converted scores.

It did not.

Are you really signing Rose because of his 3 pt. shooting? Defensive prowless? Court vision? The metrics are great... But mostly for guys sitting in front of a their computers trying to prove they know all aspects of playing basketball. Metrics do not tell the whole story or talk about filling a need on a team. As it is still a team game and not a individual statistical competition.

Did not like Rose's tunnel vision, lack of assists or 3pt shooting. However was one of our best penetrating guards, in a long time. and was great to have as an option in tight game? The guy can still create as well as anyone in the NBA. Now is that worth $20M? Of course not. Half of Ron Bakers salary? Absolutely. Also consider that he was not a good fit on the 2016 Knicks. Team that needed a passing/set up point guard. A team that needed additional 3pt. shooting.

Briggs is right. For $2,1 Million, Rose is a very good signing. A great signing if he stays healthy. Specialy on the Cavs. As Lebron is the facilitator and they have several 3pt shooters. A drivinng point guard will help their team.

I can't respond to what people meant, only what they write.

Rose is a slouch of a player, which helps explains why he could only find a min deal.

If his effectiveness has to be qualified by his minimum salary and/or playing with James, I think that speaks somewhat for itself in the bigger picture.

But I didn't respond to that qualification, just the basic idea he is not a poor player in general.

He is.

Cleveland can apparently sign anyone for the min and it becomes a great signing because Lebron will make them better.

If they get him to pass the ball, out of drives, 3 or 4 times more per game, he then turns into a great addition.

If anyone fundamentally changes their game, of course all bets are off the table.

If the Knicks get Hardaway to grab 3 or 4 more rebounds, he becomes a different player.

The rub is it actually occurring.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Rose will be a better player with LBJ than he was with Melo.

You can say that about any player. It is a constant, is is not tan argument for any one player

Rose can get easy baskets and take some pressure off of LBJ.

No, he doesn't.

He gets a a LOT of contested buckets.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Rose will be a better player with LBJ than he was with Melo.

You can say that about any player. It is a constant, is is not tan argument for any one player

Rose can get easy baskets and take some pressure off of LBJ.

No, he doesn't.

He gets a a LOT of contested buckets.

Right, so you agree? I am not sure about his tan but I do think he will be better.

Kyrie's buckets are contested too. The point is that they both get to the rim but Kyrie finishes at a higher rate but Rose is still good at this as he proved last season. One difference is that Rose does not get the calls as much any more.

Perhaps the uncontested 3 is the easier basket these days. That may be true.

Yes, I believe Lebron James will elevate most players to a certain degree. The point is he'd elevate a better pre-Lebron player than Rose to a better post-Lebron player than Rose.