Derrick Rose

Obviously readers are aware that I don't watch much college basketball, and therefore my scouting opinions are worthless. But thought Derrick Rose looks like a fine basketball player, talk of picking him ahead of Michael Beasley seems kind of crazy to me:

Beasley scores way more (26.2 versus 14.9) on better shooting from the field (.532 versus .477) from the line (.774 versus .712) and from beyond the arc (.379 versus .337). Beasley's a forward who snags 12.4 rebounds per game (to Rose's 4.5) while Rose is a guard who gets 4.7 assists per game to Beasley's 1.2 while their turnovers are similar (2.9 for Beasley to 2.7 for Rose). Chad Ford's rationale for the pick doesn't make me feel much better about Rose:

Everyone likes scorers and rebounders, which is why Beasley is so appealing. Statistically, as John Hollinger shows, he's one of the best college prospects ever.

However, Paxson is in desperate need of a leader who's willing to sacrifice for the team -- a guy whose value doesn't always show up in the box score, just the win column. He had to be grinning from ear to ear when Rose said, "I'm an unselfish guard that's willing to do anything to win ... I mean anything."

Those intangibles aren't nothing, but the Bulls look to me an awful lot like a team that needs someone who can hit shots reliably and good rebounders are always welcome. Apparently Rose played much better at the end of the season, and if you throw out the first half of his season then the numbers look better for him though Beasley is still better.

Comments

As you know I'm a huge Bulls fan, and I couldn't agree with you more. This has been such a frustrating month. I just can't even look at BlogaBull anymore. All the commenters are so irrational. We've needed a low post player desperately since we traded Brand. People forget, but Jayson Williams was considered a once in a lifetime prospect. Clearly, it's unfair to say he wouldn't have panned out. But his rookie season was nothing to write home about and he was regularly outplayed by Crawford. I mean, really-- what did Derrick Rose do that Mike Conley didn't do last year? And while Conley looks like a nice piece, he isn't setting the world on fire.

Really what's happening here is the Chris Paul effect. Paul is so good (and he really is) everyone wants that great point guard. But they don't seem to realize that Paul is a truly unique talent. I keep hearing "when was the last small forward that took his team to a championship", to which I ask "who was the last point guard dominant team to win the championship?" You could make the argument for Chauncey Billups, but I would say that that Pistons team was defined by it's interior defense. You have to go back to the Isiah Pistons to find a championship team whose best player was a PG.

I wonder if we can trade the pick to Miami for the 2nd overall and a role player.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2008 12:33 PM

Did you see that Beasley measured only 6'7"? I suppose he could become a Barkley-type of undersized 4 but realize that he's shorter than Kobe and LeBron, so I don't think his college game/stats necessarily translate into NBA success. Especially the rebounding numbers.

Posted by ASDem | June 22, 2008 12:38 PM

Come on now. Beasley was the go to guy on a relatively weak team.

In contrast, Rose felt obligated in the beginning of the year to dish to the other star players on Tigers.

Posted by thehova | June 22, 2008 12:42 PM

I think some people are wary of Beasley's potential for flakiness, viz:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101466.html

Six high schools in five states? That implies a little rockiness in his life.

Plus people are in love with the CP/Deron Williams/Nash model, where an ace PG makes you both a winner and fun to watch. I could see how a GM would convince himself that Rose is the safer pick.

Now IMO a #1 pick is a rare gift, and when you get it you shoot for the moon. (I say this as a Wiz fan who thinks MJ was a terrible GM, but still doesn't blame him for rolling the dice with Kwame.) But many GMs like keeping their jobs, so they play it safe. And Paxson has proven himself to be a pretty crappy GM in general, so maybe he'll pick Rose.

Now a Rose-Wade-Marion team in Miami with the right coach - that could be fun.

Posted by hubcap | June 22, 2008 12:46 PM

This draft reminds me of the Oscars back in the early part of this decade when the academy was a year late with the awards. Russell Crowe's best performance was "The Insider" but he won it the next year for "Gladiator. "Moulin Rouge" was a phenomenal movie and paved the way for musicals which allowed "Chicago" to win the best picture oscar the next year despite being an inferior film. This draft seems to be an example of NBA teams wanting to avoid the mistakes of the 2005 NBA draft where Bogut and Marvin Williams were taken ahead of Paul and Deron Williams.

While I think there is an argument for positional scarcity with Point Guards (They would be the equivalent of a 2B or CF in baseball since I'd argue Centers are closer to C or SS in terms of scarcity) that makes Rose more valuable than his absolute production in college, Beasley is such a ridiculously talented and productive player that it would be foolish for him to be taken second or (as a Twolves fan, it would be my dream) third. His story wasn't as good as Durant's but, as one commenter has noted, he was the only good player on the team and had the entirety of defenses focus on him (which wasn't the case with Durant).

Posted by Mark | June 22, 2008 12:59 PM

Derrick Rose is Stephon Marbury 2.0. His skills, style, and statistics are all similar to Marbury's after his freshman year at Georgia Tech.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Despite where he is now, Marbury was one of the top 5 pg's in the league for several seasons. Check his pre-Knicks numbers, they're much better than you would think.

Posted by Rigaudeau | June 22, 2008 1:20 PM

Did you see that Beasley measured only 6'7"? I suppose he could become a Barkley-type of undersized 4 but realize that he's shorter than Kobe and LeBron, so I don't think his college game/stats necessarily translate into NBA success. Especially the rebounding numbers.

Speaking of the Chris Paul Effect, hasn't this pretty much been debunked? If a player has the necessary speed and skills, height's not going to stop them from being effective in the NBA.

If you look at all the supposed 'surprise' breakout players from the last few years -- from Chris Paul on down -- they've all been blue-chip players who got downgraded because of their size.

Posted by bh | June 22, 2008 1:35 PM

Chad Ford wrote:

However, Paxson is in desperate need of a leader who's willing to sacrifice for the team -- a guy whose value doesn't always show up in the box score, just the win column.

As someone who's suffered through many Bulls games the last few years, all I can say is... huh?

Paxson's Bulls have been full of talent-shy 'hustlers' for years, and it's just not enough. The last thing we need is yet another guy who gives Jay Bilas a boner but doesn't have NBA talent.

Unless, of course, losing The Right Way really is Paxon's goal.

Posted by bh | June 22, 2008 1:52 PM

I keep hearing "when was the last small forward that took his team to a championship",

Some Big Bird looking dude from Boston. Larry Something.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 22, 2008 2:03 PM

Rose's numbers improved at the end of the season because, aside from the tournament Memphis was playing conference games against teams with 150 plus rpi.

Posted by Jack | June 22, 2008 2:08 PM

Freddie:
I'd argue that the last point guard driven team to win was the "Magic" Johnson Lakers. Kareem was on the down side by then. Was Isiah that much better then the other Pistons? Just look at the other players those Piston teams had. Laimbeer, Vinnie "The Microwave" Johnson, Dumars, Dennis Rodman.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 22, 2008 2:10 PM

Joe Klein's conscience,

"Was Isiah that much better then the other Pistons?"

Uh, yes. People forget Isiah as a player cause of his disastrous post-NBA career, but he was insanely good. One of the 5 best PGs of all time. He was a dominating scorer at times, an excellent distributor all of the time, and a great leader. The difference b/w Isiah and the next best player, Rodman or Dumars, is no less (and is probably more) than that between Jordan and Pippen or Bird and McHale.

And Magic Johnson's Lakers? There is simply no argument that the margin b/w Isiah and Dumars was not greater than that b/w Magic and Worthy/Kareem. Worthy and Old Man Kareem were WAY better than Dumars ever was, and Magic was only somewhat better than Isiah.

Posted by montefiore | June 22, 2008 2:43 PM

I usually only saw players that played against the (shall we say) somewhat flawed Oregon team this past year, and by that standard Beasley certainly isn't anything to write home about. Robin Lopez (or his brother, for that matter) made a far better impression.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 22, 2008 3:33 PM

What's your excuse for not watching college ball again, other than trying to be hip and contrarian?

Posted by Mike | June 22, 2008 4:06 PM

Yeah, Bird did lead a team to a title (and Dr J won some in the ABA, no? And I think the NBA, though it's arguable if he "lead" those teams), but you could also argue Jordan did as well.

Now, I know, Jordan is classically considered a 2, but in the triangle offense after his first retirment, he actually played the SF spot; Scottie Pippen was the PG, as the main offense initiator, and the in-name PG (Kerr, Paxon, whoever) was generally a spot-up shooter who filled the shooting-guard role. Jordan filled the SF role, scoring from the high post as much as slashing or mid-range shooting.

Just worth noting. On a different team, with different players (Scottie was only an inch taller), he easily could've been listed as a SF, and would've been no less great, and no less able to win titles.

Worth noting.

Posted by Michael | June 22, 2008 4:09 PM

Beasley was the go to guy on a relatively weak team.

Which is why his percentage numbers are all the more impressive. You'd expect a guy like that to have more points per game but lower scoring efficiency. But his is higher. His only weak spot, as far as I can tell, is defense.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 22, 2008 4:29 PM

Why post about college basketball if you don't watch it?

Rose would be a huge upgrade over Hinrich. Beasley would be nice, but a line-up of Rose, Sefo, Deng, Ty and Noah could run some teams out of the gym.

Please stop posting about basketball and email Ezra and tell him to stop with his cooking posts.

Posted by Coach Skiles | June 22, 2008 4:33 PM

I don't think his college game/stats necessarily translate into NBA success. Especially the rebounding numbers.

Actually, rebounding is the stat most likely to translate well from college to NBA.

Speaking of the Chris Paul Effect, hasn't this pretty much been debunked? If a player has the necessary speed and skills, height's not going to stop them from being effective in the NBA.

Plus, wingspan and jumping ability are much more correlative with NBA success than height. Beasley is an OK leaper and has very long arms for his height.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2008 4:51 PM

The last small forward to lead his team to a championship? Um, that would be Paul Pierce. Unless you think Rondo led them to the championship.

Posted by jamie | June 22, 2008 5:05 PM

William Kristol on Iraq - tragic consequences = Matt Yglesias on basketball

Never let having no idea what you're talking about stop you!

If you have a forum you're a defacto expert!

Posted by a guy who enjoys the thrill of censorship! | June 22, 2008 5:28 PM

I'm as big a fan of statistics as anyone, but in this case they're somewhat deceptive. First off, Beasley was the only player on K-State who could rebound; his rebounding numbers are inflated for that reason. Same thing for scoring. Once defenses got around to doubling/showing complex looks, he looked lost and his decision making was laughably poor. Watch the Wisconsin-K State game if you want to see what I mean. He appeared uninterested in defense and I doubt he can be a very good defender in the NBA.

As for Rose, the system he played in, the DDM, discourages racking up assists in favor of drives. Furthermore, there were no 3 point shooters for Memphis, which meant that Rose's assist totals are deceptively low. And Rose's defense is pretty good for his age and, with his wingspan and size, might become dominant. Rose compares very favorably with Paul and Williams at the same age. I prefer Rose, personally, though I can see why people would like Beasley.

Posted by dtah | June 22, 2008 6:03 PM

My concern when reading Matt's basketball opinions is that if he's willing to toss out such naive ideas about one subject (that I know something about) how do I know that he's not tossing out equally naive ideas about other, more important, subjects (that I don't know much about).

It's a matter of credibility, and every laughable hoops post drains a little more of it.

Posted by Skyhook | June 22, 2008 6:08 PM

Freddie is right on target on this one.

Posted by Petey | June 22, 2008 6:38 PM

OJ Mayo >>> Rose

And if you don't believe me, get some tape of the game they played against each other this year.

People who underestimate OJ Mayo's defense, competitive drive, jump shot and athleticism are in for a big surprise.

Rose is super athletic but his size was overestimated by a lot of folks and while he is a good player he is nowhere close to the dominant college player Chris Paul and Deron Williams were. I see very little reason to believe Rose will be in there class. Not even close to the scorer those guys are. Not even close.

If Beasley goes #1, I can see Miami taking Rose 2 because I can understand the argument that he's a better complement to Dwayne Wade.

Kevin McHale has to take OJ Mayo then.

OJ and Al Jefferson >>>>>>>>> KG and Starbury

Posted by Tell Your Crew To Be Easy | June 22, 2008 8:26 PM

Ah, OJ Mayo. What a player. Tell that to USC fans, who not only saw him take a huge dump in the first round of tournament, who saw him shot only 40% from the field for the year, who witnessed him average about as many assists as turnovers, but who also may see their program severely sanctioned as a result of what was essentially a money-laundering scheme between his family and Billy Duffy and Associates.

He is a DUI/pot arrest/sexual harassment scandal/pick-a-scandal away from truly being the next Starbury.

Tell Your Crew To Be Easy: Enjoy your decade of suckiness, T-Wolves.

Posted by Shine | June 22, 2008 9:50 PM

If you're making the choice between Rose and Beasley based on the current Bulls roster, you're answering the wrong question.

Pick the one that will help you win a championship and then trade the other bits you have to build the necessary team around him. You do not make a #1 overall pick the way you make a #8 overall.

Posted by dbt | June 22, 2008 10:48 PM

Every statistical analysis says it's Beasley by a country mile. But basketball's hard to measure statistically, especially when you're projecting very young players.

Still, I'd go with Beasley.

And Starbury was never very good, but KG is a top-five player of his generation, so I'd go easy on the "more than" signs in that comparison.

(Also, while Paul Pierce showed some serious leadership in the playoffs, KG is the best player on the Celtics-- so I'm not sure the 2008 C's fit into the "led by a small forward" category. The 1980s Celtics champs do, obviously.)

Posted by C | June 22, 2008 11:49 PM

Interesting thread, and in lieu of having anything substantive to add to the conversation, I'd like to echo Simmons' thought that maybe it's not a good idea to give a 19-year old top-pick money and then send him back to his hometown.

My concern when reading Matt's basketball opinions is that if he's willing to toss out such naive ideas about one subject (that I know something about) how do I know that he's not tossing out equally naive ideas about other, more important, subjects (that I don't know much about).

An easy solution to this dilemma is not to rely on pundits to do your thinking for you.

Posted by scythia | June 23, 2008 12:09 AM

Matt, I know this isn't a request thread, but here's my request anyway: please stop writing about basketball. Every time you do, it becomes more apparent that you know absolutely nothing about it. But since you probably grew up watching those '90's Knicks team that represent the NBA's absolute nadir, I suppose that's understandable.

Posted by vanillablue | June 23, 2008 12:33 AM

An easy solution to this dilemma is not to rely on pundits to do your thinking for you.

Wow, thank you! I never considered that. Matt, what do you think?

Posted by Skyhook | June 23, 2008 12:36 AM

I don't get the OJ Mayo love. The guy is a short 2-guard. He's listed at 6'4", but I think is shorter than that. While there are a few 2-guards in the NBA that are below, 6'5", there aren't many - Monta Ellis and Ben Gordon come to mind. Other short guards, like D-Wade and Iverson, are thought of as combo guards, but Mayo last year was horrifically bad in that department - a 1-to-1 assist to turnover ratio. OJ is gonig to be able to guard T-Mac and Kobe and Roy and Joe Johnson?

Posted by Al | June 23, 2008 10:29 AM

I actually agree with the point here -- Beasley's a better fit for the bulls than Rose. I haven't seen either guy play enough to have an informed opinion about who's the better player.

But if you're going to use their college statistics to judge them, why not just say Tyler Hansborough is the best player in the country?

Posted by too many steves | June 23, 2008 11:18 AM

Because Beasley's numbers were better than Hansborough as well. Beasley was by far the best player in the country last year.

Posted by Stacy | June 23, 2008 12:56 PM

The real question here is: would this debate be happening if Chris Paul didn't have such a great season? If so, wouldn't it be dumb (and hilarious) to make a draft decision based on that?

Posted by mpowell | June 23, 2008 1:03 PM

I think Beasley's size, 6'7" while wearing shoes is going make some team's nervous. There are a slew of larger frontcourt players that dominated in college, but couldn't do the same without the advantage in the pros (Corliss Williamson, Sean May, Gary Trent). Also, as others mentioned, Rose was surrounded by NBA caliber talent he had to share the ball with. Both played in weak conferences that probably inflated their numbers a bit.

That said, I think Beasley is much more skilled than the players I mentioned. However, the quick dominant PG is the fad in the NBA, and I fully expect the Bulls to select Rose.

Posted by Bum | June 23, 2008 7:29 PM

Beasley is actually 6'8 1/4 with shoes. Not 6'7.. Barkley was only 6'6 with shoes. Boozer 6'7 with shoes. Ben Wallace 6'8 with shoes. Elton brand 6'8 with shoes. Not a big deal. It's about skills. If he were 6'9 with shoes you guys would be singing a different tune. Plus he has GREAT wingspan.

Posted by Justin | June 26, 2008 4:10 PM