Ah... I get you, Potted Plant.

I personally hold the opinion that if Player A is more SKILLED, but doesn't contribute as much to his team's winning as Player B-------then Player B is the greater player.

Half court offense related to defense? There's a debate. Transition offense related to defense? There's NO debate. OF COURSE they're related. There isn't actually an arguement regarding this, is there? Someone would have had to never see or play an organized, full court basketball game to not recognize this. I can't imagine anyone actually believes transition offense---and therefore OFFENSE in an absolute sense---isn't inter-related with defense.

What I meant is that Kobe is probably the better player in terms of skills (although that's a bit hard to compare across positions) but he does not contribute as much to the Lakers winning because he often does not play team ball. He is very selfish in his shot selection and lack of passing. You can appreciate Kobe's skill when he makes another completely retarded shot while Gasol or Bynum are wide open at the basket and at the same time acknowledge that taking that shot instead of passing is not good for the team. I remember last year when Kobe was out the Lakers were arguably playing better without him, winning 4 out of 5 against good teams. I mean Kobe never shot over 47% or had an assist/TO ratio over 2. He is capable of playing more efficiently and playing team ball but he does not actually do it (at least for extended periods).

Or look at this:
http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm
Those are arguably the worst clutch stats in the NBA over a 6 year period. On the one hand it is quite impressive that he managed to even shoot 25% with everybody knowing he would be the one to take that shot and triple-teaming him on the other hand it did not help the Lakers.

Why can't players simply get credit for doing THEIR job? Does Rose play defense for them?

"IMO, 'stats gurus' indicate a serious lack of sound basketball judgment, if/when they try to assert nonsense like that, since Offense, Defense and Rebounding ... executed properly ... are inter-related within the game of basketball."

Well it's your opinion. It's just not one supported by evidence if you mean to say that offense and defense are mainly linked.

Rose does not "man" his team's defense "ala Dwight Howard" ... primarily because D-12 is a Center and D-Rose is a PG, and these two distinct positions do not effect a team's defensive performance in a similar way.

That said, it would be a serious error in basketball judgment to think that the level of defensive improvement which D-Rose has exhibited this season is NOT a primary catalyst for Chaicago's marked improvement on that end of the floor.

Coaches can devise and attempt to implement the most ingenious defensive schemes, in order to stifle an opponent's offense BUT, it all goes for naught, unless that coach also has the horses required to pull his specific wagon up and down the court on a consistent basis.

The fact is ... D-Rose is one of the few starting PGs in the NBA with the capacity to get the job done properly, within Coach Thibodeau's defensive scheme, given his combination of size, strength, explosive quickness, tenacity, and Bball IQ, etc., in a similar way to what Rajon Rondo was able to do for him with the Boston Celtics.

re: "If you mean that his OFFENSE is why they're playing good defense, that's also not true. Especially with offense and defense in basketball being mostly independent of each other."

IMO, 'stats gurus' indicate a serious lack of sound basketball judgment, if/when they try to assert nonsense like that, since Offense, Defense and Rebounding ... executed properly ... are inter-related within the game of basketball.

So while Gasol may not be a better player than Kobe he definitely contributes more to the Lakers winning.>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's something fundamentally wrong with this, isn't there? Wouldn't the better player be the one 'contributing more to the team's winning'??
How is the guy contributing LESS to the team's winning--------the better player?(and I understand you said 'may not be the better player'... but if it's been determined that he 'definitely contributes more to the Lakers winning'------why is it in question?)

I'm not saying who is contributing more to winning----or who is better... I just find it interesting that one player could (A) be deemed to 'definitely' be contributing more to winning, yet (B) is maybe not considered the better player.

I'm left wondering what we're looking for most in players if it's NOT 'contributions to team winning'.

--> Lebron has the best floor time winning percentage in the league
Bulls win less while Rose is on the floor than overall

Of course that doesn't mean that Rose makes his team worse, just that using the Bulls better record in favor of Rose vs. Lebron is unfair because the Bulls have a better record than Miami because of how those teams play with Rose/Lebron off the floor.

Also interesting:
Gasol: 78.4% win%, 14.3 win shares (2nd best in the league in both)
Kobe: 72.4% win%, 10.0 win shares
So while Gasol may not be a better player than Kobe he definitely contributes more to the Lakers winning. It's certainly impressive that Kobe hits a fair percentage of the retarded shots he takes but taking them in the first place is obviously not that helpful for his team. At least he has a lot of efficiency upside for the playoffs.

If you mean that Rose is manning his team's defense a la Dwight Howard, that's incorrect.

If you mean that his OFFENSE is why they're playing good defense, that's also not true. Especially with offense and defense in basketball being mostly independent of each other.

Au contraire ... as a good portion of the Bulls' stingy defense is being generated by the performance of Derrick Rose.

A record that has alot more to do with their stingy defense than Rose.