Chicago Bulls' Derrick Rose Is MVP, Stat Geeks, It's Time To Accept It

The change in the MVP conversation has been pretty definitive of late. The modifier using MVP and Rose together has changed from "candidate" to "favorite" to "presumptive" and all along, every step of the way, there is a group of stat geeks  who get themselves worked up into a lather at the very notion of it. 

They argue that LeBron James is the best player, which he is, and that therefore he's the MVP. If that's your definition then fine. LeBron James is your MVP. Let's not redefine history around an argument though. There's an almost ironclad consistency to the award though. MVPs win. Over the last 20 years:

• Every MVP came from a team that finished with a top-four record league wide.
• 17 of 20 MVPs were from a team with one of the two best records in the NBA.
• 19 of 20 MVPs (or all of them if you toss that outlier Steve Nash 2005-06 award from the analysis) came from a team with one of the NBA's three best records.
• MVPs' teams, on average, won 62 games (after adjusting for the lockout shortened 1998-99 season) a season, or about a 75 percent clip.

The teams with the three best records are Chicago, San Antonio and Boston. Guess which of those teams had only one All-Star?

It sort of begs the question doesn't it? If the Bulls are one of the leagues three best teams, and they have only one All-Star then...

There is another historical kind of precedent where every winner other than Steve Nash has finished top three in in either scoring or PER.

The thing worth noting here is that the exception was a point guard. Now granted Steve Nash led the league in assists. However, Rose is top 10 in both scoring and assists, and that seems to be enough to mollify the media because that's what they say. 

So in a nutshell, what's happened is that predominately over the last 20 years, the MVP comes from the most statistically dominant player on a top three team. At least that's how the media seem to define it.

And really, the media decides it, so they somewhat have the right (if not responsibility) to define what the criteria are.

Since they define the rules, and cast the votes, you can't really say they're "wrong" so to speak. You can say you disagree, but that's another mater. 

The reason the stat-geeks (which I'm actually often accused of being, don't get me as a hater) are so bothered by the notion of Rose, is that in stat geekdom, there's a sort of "formula" to winning.

It's not wrong, but it's a little myopic. There's a confusion between a way to win and the way to win. 

The basic principle is correct. Monopolize on possessions. Score when you have the ball, keep your opponent from scoring when they have the ball. Not a difficult concept to grasp.

All kinds of things are factored in, but generally it's regarded that the way to be efficient when you have the ball is to do one of three things: Get to the rim, hit from the arc or get to the line. Those are good.

What's bad are not drawing fouls and shooting long two's.

The logic is that long two's (outside the paint but inside the arc) kill you. They are less likely to go in than a shot at the rim, but there's not a bonus point to hitting them. Go out or go in, but don't shoot from 20 feet. 

Now Derrick Rose is not the most efficient scorer. His "effective field goal percentage or eFG percentage is below .500 which is "bad" in efficiency speak, particularly since Rose is taking a lot of shots.

Again the logic is that all those missed shots are lost possessions. The critics argue, If he's a "pure" point guard, he should be looking to pass first. 

When you look at Rose's teammates, he's 10th in eFG percentage on the Bulls so the obvious question comes to mind: Why isn't he passing instead of shooting?

It's a fair one; I'm going to answer that but it's going to take some explanation to build up to it.  

His usage percentage  is 32.4. That means when he's on the court, 32.4 percent of possessions end with him either taking a shot or turning it over.

That  means that 69 percent of the time he does pass. Unlike shooting guards, he’s the principle ball handler so virtually every possession begins with him.

If he’s passing out 65-70 percent of the time then that means he is passing first, not shooting first. So there's that. 

So you're still asking, "why does he shoot so much? Why does he have to have such a high usage rate? Wouldn't the team be better if the better shooters were taking the shot?"

Let me ask you this: How many times have you heard Tom Thibodeau complain about Rose shooting too much? None. In fact Thibs designed the offense for him to shoot so much. Are you actually going to fault a player for being coached?

So instead of challenging Rose for doing what he's coached to do, why not ask why he's coached to do it?  

Two things I'm certain of: Tom Thibodeau knows more about basketball than me and he knows more about basketball than you.

I have confidence in saying this because Thibs probably knows more about basketball than anyone alive.

So why is a basketball genius coaching his star player to do a thing that is "basketball stupid?" Just pause and consider the possibility, maybe Thibs is right and the stat geeks are wrong.

The answer lies in the fact that it’s actually productive for Rose to shoot whether he’s scoring or not. The fact that he doesn’t score matters some, but not as much as that he shoots.

And believe me, I know that sounds like balderdash, but it’s counter-intuitive.

When Rose penetrates, he breaks down defenses and causes them to collapse. He doesn’t just draw double teams, he draws triple teams and quadruple teams. Some time's he splits quintuple teams and scores the ball. Teams collapse on him. 

If teams don’t collapse on him, he’s going to be dunking every ball. You have to double team him, or triple team him. The entire offense is predicated on Rose being a threat with the ball.  

If he never shoots or rarely shoots he’s not a threat. Teams don’t collapse on him, they don’t leave players wide open with enough time to watch the extended version of Avatar.

That increased efg percentage by his teammates is a direct result of the threat of Rose getting to the rim, not Rose's scoring..

That’s why Thibs wants Rose to shoot, because it’s the threat that sets up the offense.

When people look at the other Bulls eFG percentage, they need to realize it's not independent of the rest of the offense. Part of the reason Rose's teammates eFG percentage is so high is because he takes so many shots.

In fact, when he passes out of isolation, his teammates shoot well above .540 from the field, period (not just eFG percentage but FG percentage).

That's really, really good. And don't think that means to the player he's passing to. It's when he passes out of isolation. 

Sometimes this doesn't show up on the stat sheet.

The idea is to get the ball over to the man who was opened up by the help defense coming to help stop Rose.

Sometimes he'll pass out, but the ball gets whipped around and ends up drained by a player who received the pass from the guy Rose initially passed to, but that field goal was set up by Rose's penetration. There's just not a stat for that. 

Second, people that complain about his not being a "true point guard" need to realize his assist percentage is somewhere between eighth and 10th (depending on whatever happens day to day) and is around 40 percent. That means he assists on 40 percent of the field goals not made by him.

Saying he's not a true point guard is like saying that about 80 percent of the point guards in the league are not true point guards.

While I don't have the data I need to determine an exact figure, I can say that based on his usage rate, assists percentage and the field goal percentages of his teammates, Rose creates something around 80 percent of the field goals attempted by his team while he's on the court, but only takes about one third of them. 

Some of Rose's critics point to his high assist to turnover ratio.

That's a problem because he just handles the ball more often.  

His turnover percentage is less than 12.9 percent.  Chris Paul, who is often held up as the epitome of the "pure" point guard and the player that Rose "should be" has a turnover percentage of 14.2 percent. 

It's actually a remarkable achievement and indicative of his incredible ball handling skills to have such a high usage rate and assist percentage with such a low turnover percentage.

The only other player in NBA history to do that was Dwyane Wade a couple of years ago.  

There are some things which are similar on the surface to players like Allen Iverson (who actually won the MVP) or Stephon Marbury (who was the MV-ME). As a result of some statistical similarities, they describe Roses's game as "selfish." 

The whole "post hoc ergo propter hoc" kind of logic that goes into seeing a casual relationship between the numbers and assuming that means a similiar attitude is where people go wrong. Their game was selfish. Rose’s game is selfless.

Here's an illustration: During the Pacers game, the Bulls could have won in regulation when Rose passed it out to Korver for a wide open three. Korver didn’t take the shot but gave it back to Rose. After the game Rose privately told Korver (according to Korver) that the team needs him to take open shots.

Rose publicly takes the blame for another players' mistakes, and privately discusses it with the player to save them face.

Exactly how often did you see Iverson or Marbury do something like that? Or for that matter, how often did you hear them say that the problem was that someone other than them needed to shoot more?

Rose absorbs the blame and gives the spotlight to his teammates. They absorbed the spotlight and gave the blame to their teammates.  

In one interview Rose mentioned how Thibs is "always there." He mentioned he'd be lying awake at night trying to figure out what he should have done on a particular play so he'll call or text Thibs and Thibs is there no matter what time it is. Think about that. 

Iverson fought coaching. Rose fights for coaching. 

That’s where the difference is between guys like Allen Iverson or Stephon Marberry and Derrick Rose. Rose does it because he’s asked to, not in spite of the fact that he’s asked not to. Rose wants the team to benefit. They wanted to be heroes.

Derrick Rose does what he's coached to do and the Bulls are winning, but are they winning because Rose is doing what he's coached to do? Another complaint about Rose's MVP run is that the team is winning because of defense, not offense. 

Teams point to the fact that the Bulls are the number one defense, and that the defense is actually slightly better when he's out than when he's in.

They are only 12th in Offensive Rating now (which they are steadily moving up in but more on that momentarily).

Their argument is that coaching and defense are why the Bulls are winning, so Rose is not the MVP.

If you really believe that then you should be campaigning like a mad man for Luol Deng to be Defensive Player of the Year.

He's been the key player on the best defensive team in the league, regularly takes the toughest defensive assignment, but gets zero credit. So why aren't you campaigning for Deng instead of against Rose if you really believe that? 

The answer is that people don't really completely believe that.

And while they are talking about how much "better" the defense is when Rose is off the court, they ignore certain facts: When Rose is on the court he generally is playing against starters and he's playing 38 minutes a night.

Rose's backup, CJ Watson is playing against backups and for eight minutes a night, so off the bat, that whole two points per 100 possessions is a tad specious.

In terms of starting lineups in the NBA, Rose is a member of the starting lineup with the lowest points allowed per 100 possessions.

Furthermore, in terms of points per play, Rose yields the lowest points per play of any starting guard in the NBA, better than Paul, Deron Williams or Rajon Rondo.

Rose has outplayed all of them on the season. 

Now, about the offense.

First if you're going to talk about the defense with Rose out versus in, you need to talk about the offense with Rose out versus in too.

While Rose is on the court, the Bulls score 112 points per 100 possessions. That's up there with the best offenses in the league. 

Furthermore, while people talk about how the Heat needed to figure out how to play together and all that, they don’t take into account that the same is true for the Bulls who added more new pieces than Miami.

And the Bulls have had Boozer and Noah playing musical chairs with injuries, which that, more than anything, has been slowing down the offense.

Since the break, the Bulls offense has begun to really find itself. Their ORtg since then is a whopping 113.5 and their defense has maintained it’s usual stellar play.

Since the break, the Bulls have been scoring six more points per 100 possessions, they are averaging more than 2.5 more assists by players not named Rose, they are getting more offensive boards and they are getting to the line more often.

Before the break they were beating teams. Now they're beating down teams. And the team's improvement on offense is the difference between them being a 50 win team and being the top seed in the East. 

It wasn’t that long ago the Bulls were 23rd in Offensive Rating and at that time they were fourth in the Eastern Conference. That they’re 12th right now is pretty telling and a big part of the reason why they are in first.  

People need to set aside their myopic obsession with “efficiency.” I understand the principles behind it, but clearly the Bulls are winning. If the whole argument is that efficiency helps you win, shouldn't the Bulls actual wins account for something?

Clearly they are becoming a highly effective offense and adding that on to their stellar defense.

If the whole notion of why efficiency is so important is that it helps you win, and the Bulls are winning with Derrick Rose being “inefficient” maybe people need to stop arguing that Derrick Rose isn’t helping the Bulls win and start wondering why.

They need to question the paradigm, not the reality.