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.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.