fishmike wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Dagger wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Cartman718 wrote:mreinman wrote:Cartman718 wrote:Great video.So is Hornacek going to show Rose how many times a game he passes while jumping up in the air?
Because the NY crowd will surely let him know if he keeps messing that up.
I am sure that he will because Thibs, Hoiberg and the Chicago fans were always too drunk to pick up on this 
He was "the man" in Chicago...different role here. Probably more open to suggestion. Also contract year. More assists more efficiency = More $$ for him.
He had a lot of excellent players in Chicago. There was no reason for him to chuck low percentage shots.
What "excellent" offensive players did he play with in Chicago when he was healthy? Who were the offensive equivalents of Melo and KP on those teams?
Are you talking about last year? I'd consider Gasol and Butler on the border between very good and excellent. Many of their role players are good and have spots on the court where they're very effective. There was no need to put up 16 points on 16 shots a game. That's chucking. I'm really hoping Hornacek can change Rose's mindset.
what mindset? Butler/Gasol/Rose were pretty even in shot attempts. Gasol and Butler were about 48% in their EFG% while Rose was 45%. How much Bulls BB did you watch last year to get a handle on Rose's mindset? You do understand someone has to score the ball to win? I can see why you miss Jose.
WS48:
Butler .177
Gasol .149
Rose .009
Hence the problem with FG.
Im sorry, I thought we were actually talking about basketball. Carry on...
I'm just responding as our coach would ... FG who?
mreinman, do you believe that by adding Rose the Knicks should lose 4 more game than they did last year? (Based on win shares)Please do tell me you believe that since that is the # you just posted. According to you swapping Calderon for Rose should net 28 wins vs. the 32 we had last year. Agree?
yes (or more) if Rose plays like he played last year.
of course its a silly question since we made a ton of other changes.
So there you go... its not silly at all. In your opinion we have downgraded PG from last year. Pretty straightforward.
He added the caveat *if Rose plays the same as last year*. I'd say that's correct. If Rose is a 16 shot, 16 PPG chucker, I think he will probably cost us more wins than Jose cost us last year. It would be close. If Rose plays the same as he did in the 2nd half of last year, I think he'll help a little but not a lot. It would add a couple wins. If he stays healthy and actually learns good shot selection, he could help more.Rose and Butler took the same amount of shots but Butler was much more efficient and played fewer minutes. If you look at per 36 min, Rose averaged 18.5 points on 18.0 shots. Butler was at 20.4 points on 15.1 shots.
Even our coach has stopped using simple FG% and is using the advanced measures of efficiency, BTW.
actually I quoted EFG%, not FG%.And that's not a caveat its an out.
What is really weird is that the Bulls got the better PG back in Jose, then gave him away for nothing. Bulls must not use advanced stats. Hinkie is looking for the job though so there is hope in Chi-Town
OK, efg% is better than fg% but TS% and offensive rating are still much better stats. Butler and Gasol are excellent offensive players because of the damage they do from the line and their passing, not their efficiency with field goals. Either way, the difference between .440s and .480s efg% is huge in a sport where so many games are decided by a few points. I'd want a guy in the .480s to be taking far more shots than a guy in the .440s. For a little context, the Lakers were dead last in efg% last year and they were at .460.
I'm sure the Bulls used advanced stats. They probably don't use them as well as the Spurs, Cavs, Warriors, and other top teams do though.
