During the MVP debate the champion of the stat geek crew became John Holllinger, who would frequently a) ignore any numbers that favored Derrick Rose, b) only point to numbers that didn't favor Derrick Rose, c) pompously declare that he was just going by what the numbers showed him and then d) mock anyone who pointed him out on his obvious hating as being just too in love with Rose to acknowledge objectivity.
Now of course when he referred to "looking at the numbers" he was referring to actually looking at his number, which is Player Efficiency Rating, and that that number was actually an opinion disguised as a number in that he exercised an opinion in determining the value of certain basketball plays and didn't account for the value of others (like unassisted field-goals).
Hollinger has a little trick he uses. He presents "numbers" and he waves his hand over it and makes them appear to be something that it isn't, which is why you get people convinced that the the Bulls having the best record in the NBA really doesn't have that much to do with the guy that produces 45 percent of their points.
Now he's at it again. In his little write up from the Chicago Bulls incredible comeback in which they outscored the Pacers 18-8 in the final three minutes to win the game, and in which Rose scored or assisted on 14 of those points, this is what Hollinger had to say.
The Bulls took their first lead of the game when Kyle Korver hit a 3-pointer with 48 seconds left. That's classic Korver. The former Creighton star made 58 three-point field goals in the fourth quarter or overtime this season, tops in the NBA.
Subtext: Korver won the game! That's what Korver does!
But you want to hear about Derrick Rose and how he put his team on his back for the win while pouring in 39 points. Nineteen of his points came from the charity stripe, the most by a player in a playoff game since Kobe Bryant in 2008.
Subtext: You silly Rose fans want to give Rose all the credit! Korver won the game remember! And really, He really just scored all those points because he made a lot of free throws because he got all those calls.
Granted you could argue that I'm just reading too much into the "But you wanted to hear about Derrick Rose" part but I think the fact that this is from the fifth paragraph of the article and it's the first mention of the name, Derrick Rose in the article.
Notice how he doesn't actually say that Rose put the team on his back, but just says that "you want to hear...he put the team on his back." Then he says that 19 of the points came from the stripe (he didn't really earn them.)
Hollinger continues,
With 4:52 remaining in the game and the Bulls trailing by five, Luol Deng picked up a technical foul. Deng appeared to spark his All-Star teammate as Rose single-handily outscored the Pacers the rest of the way. He either scored or assisted on 14 of the Bulls' final 18 points.
Subtext: Deng appeared to spark his All-Star teammate. Deng is the real leader of the team.
This appears to be a reference to Deng's actions after the tackle in which he waved his arms, inciting the crowd to get into the game. After the game in the press conference they asked Rose what he thought about what Deng did and Rose answered, "What did he do?" He wasn't even aware of what Deng had done (and Hollinger's article was written well after the press conference).
Certainly Luol Deng sparked the United Center with what he did, but that doesn't mean he sparked Rose. Anyone who knows the Bulls knows that it is Rose who ignites his teammates, not the other away around. Make no mistake about it that was an insinuation that Rose isn't the leader of this team.
There's still room to improve for the 2011 MVP candidate. Rose scored 35 of his 39 points either at the free-throw line or on field goals inside of 10 feet of the basket. He was 2-11 from outside 10 feet Saturday and came up empty on all nine of his three-point attempts. Only two other players in the last 20 postseasons have attempted at least nine trifectas and made none. Rashard Lewis was the last in 2008 and the other was John Starks, who famously went 0-11 in Game 7 of the 1994 NBA Finals.
Subtext: Rose missed a whole lot of shots and actually was horrible from the field and the only reason he scored 39 points was that he got all those free throws. You see, he had a historically bad shooting day.
First, this is bad because it ignores the fact that three of those misses from behind the arc were half-court chucks as the buzzer sounded. They were good basketball plays, make or miss, because you never know, it might go in. It's not like you can take the possession with you.
A lot of players won't take those shots because they hurt the stats. Really he was 0-6 from the three in terms of actual three point attempts from say, the same side of the court as the rim. It's disingenuous to not even mention that.
But here's the reason that this really just comes across as hating and why I see all this subtext in the article. Let me repeat this part again, the italicized word is mine.
He was 2-11 from outside 10 feet Saturday and came up empty on all nine of his three-point attempts.
Overall he was 10-23. The way this reads it makes it seem like the 2-11 from outside 10 feet and the 0-9 (or six) from behind the three are two separate instances. One would think that combined, Rose missed a total of 18 shots from beyond 10 feet. Actually the only nine shots he missed from outside 10 feet though were from outside the arc.
He didn't mention that he was 2-2 from between the lane and the arc. Another way of saying it would be "He was 10-14 from inside the arc, 0-3 from the other side of the court, and 0-6 from in between.
So to recap, Hollinger's recap first waits four paragraphs before bringing up Rose's name at all, when he finally does it is a begrudging "you want to hear." He gives Deng credit for igniting the comeback and Korver for finishing it. What little credit goes to Rose is followed up by twice as much copy space devoted to putting him down.
John Hollinger is a hater. He just hates to admit it.
Minnesota Twins New York Yankees Oakland Athletics Seattle Mariners Tampa Bay Rays Texas Rangers
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen