Neither plays a lick of defense.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
(http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/captain-obvious-to-the-rescue.jpg)
To be fair, I think Kyrie is behind only Paul, Westbrook, and Rose at the PG spot. Already. In a year or two I think he'll only be looking up at CP3.
p.s. watch out I think I hear BBallTim coming
Rondo is a better passer.
Rondo is better in the open court.
Rondo is a better defender.
Rondo is a better rebounder.
Rondo can run a team offense better.
Irving is a better scorer and shooter.
Always been a big fan of Kyrie. Would love him here.
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated
He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated
He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.
Well, if Monta Ellis was more efficient, he'd be a superstar.
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated
He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.
Well, if Monta Ellis was more efficient, he'd be a superstar.
(http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/captain-obvious-to-the-rescue.jpg)
To be fair, I think Kyrie is behind only Paul, Westbrook, and Rose at the PG spot. Already. In a year or two I think he'll only be looking up at CP3.
p.s. watch out I think I hear BBallTim coming
Ha, this might be my favorite line in a post ever, TP. I wish I could give multiple TPs. I'm waiting for the dig at CP3's playoff record (or Kyrie's lack of a playoff record), ignoring the three Hall of Famers we won titles with. Any minute now.
On the topic at hand, I am certainly willing to consider the possibility of Kyrie being superior to Rondo. I haven't seen enough of him to tell, but his skill set seems to make his potential ceiling higher.
Rondo runs a better team offense. His offense is more efficient and it relies on him so much less. Rondo's usage rate(21.2) is nine points lower than Irvings usage rate. Rondo's assist rate is 20 points higher than Irving's. To me this point to one guard who runs an offense and another who runs an offense geared to finding him the best shot.
Rondo is a better passer.
Agreed.QuoteRondo is better in the open court.
Disagree. Kyrie is one of the best -- if not the best -- dribblers in the NBA, and he is better at attacking the basket.QuoteRondo is a better defender.
Agreed, although Irving has made huge strides in this area, to the point of ranking in the top-20% in points per possession allowed. Kyrie has also been better in isolation defense.QuoteRondo is a better rebounder.
Agreed. He grabs around 20% more rebounds.QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.QuoteIrving is a better scorer and shooter.
Agreed. Irving scores at about double the rate that Rondo does. He's got an elite killer instinct when it comes to scoring.
If given my choice between the two players, both for this team and for any hypothetical team out there, I'd take Kyrie.
Kyrie is a gunner, a darn good gunner, but that is it. Maybe as he gets older, that will change. Until then, he does not deserve to be mentioned with the likes of CP3, Rondo, etc..
First he should lead the league in assists.
Then field goal percentage.
Then start to take charges.
And dominate a game when he can't shoot well.
(http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/captain-obvious-to-the-rescue.jpg)
To be fair, I think Kyrie is behind only Paul, Westbrook, and Rose at the PG spot. Already. In a year or two I think he'll only be looking up at CP3.
p.s. watch out I think I hear BBallTim coming
Ha, this might be my favorite line in a post ever, TP. I wish I could give multiple TPs. I'm waiting for the dig at CP3's playoff record (or Kyrie's lack of a playoff record), ignoring the three Hall of Famers we won titles with. Any minute now.
On the topic at hand, I am certainly willing to consider the possibility of Kyrie being superior to Rondo. I haven't seen enough of him to tell, but his skill set seems to make his potential ceiling higher.
Just a thing about Rondo. He won a championship with those 3 HOF's before he was even close to entering his prime.
When Rondo came into his own was probably the 2009 playoffs (while KG was injured) and the ensuing season after when the Celts made the finals.
Kg and Ray were both 34 at the time and Pierce was 32. They are HOF players but they were in their mid 30's (and have aged since then). I wouldn't consider Sheed or Shaq to be a HOF that played with Rondo either. Technically they are (well maybe not Sheed)but Shaq could barely even run.
You might as well list other great players that played with us like JO, Michael Finley, Stephon Marbury, and Sam Cassell as well.
Sorry for the rant but it's just a pet peeve when people talk about Rondo playing with HOF's and thats why he has been successful when he pretty much had one year with them (maybe) at HOF level and it was before Rondo was even really good.
You think Chris Paul would rather have a 22 year old Blake Griffin or a 34 year old one?
I know id rather have a 22 year old KG
QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.
QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.
Kind of a shocking indictment, huh?
Says a lot about how far having an elite 1 on 1 scorer and some athletic rebounders in the frontcourt will take you.
Fact is this is Roy's opinion. Stats say the Celtics have a more efficient offense than Cleveland. Given he scores 25% of their points, I think it fair to say Irving is not running an offense better than Rondo, he's just running an offense that gets him not his team points better than Rondo does.QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.
Kind of a shocking indictment, huh?
Says a lot about how far having an elite 1 on 1 scorer and some athletic rebounders in the frontcourt will take you.
QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.
Kind of a shocking indictment, huh?
Says a lot about how far having an elite 1 on 1 scorer and some athletic rebounders in the frontcourt will take you.
How has Tristan Thompson been for them? His stats aren't terrible, but I don't know enough about him to judge properly. Does he bring good energy? Set good screens? Do things that don't show up on the stat sheet?
Fact is this is Roy's opinion. Stats say the Celtics have a more efficient offense than Cleveland. Given he scores 25% of their points, I think it fair to say Irving is not running an offense better than Rondo, he's just running an offense that gets him not his team points better than Rondo does.QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.
Kind of a shocking indictment, huh?
Says a lot about how far having an elite 1 on 1 scorer and some athletic rebounders in the frontcourt will take you.
Fact is this is Roy's opinion. Stats say the Celtics have a more efficient offense than Cleveland. Given he scores 25% of their points, I think it fair to say Irving is not running an offense better than Rondo, he's just running an offense that gets him not his team points better than Rondo does.QuoteRondo can run a team offense better.
You would think so. Cleveland's offense has been better than the Celtics' this year, though, despite having less talented players.
Kind of a shocking indictment, huh?
Says a lot about how far having an elite 1 on 1 scorer and some athletic rebounders in the frontcourt will take you.
First he should lead the league in assists.
Then field goal percentage.
Then start to take charges.
And dominate a game when he can't shoot well.
Definitely. That's why it was almost comical when some on here were saying they wouldn't do a Rondo for Irving/Varejao trade a few ago.I would would definitely have done a Rondo for Irving and AV trade. If AV ever gets healthy thats a steal of a trade, but then again, that's the kicker. Will AV ever be healthy during his contract ever again.
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated
He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.
Well, if Monta Ellis was more efficient, he'd be a superstar.
So you admit you think scoring is the only part of the game that matters?
I see...
Good game by Irving tonight. He got the better of Rondo and led his team to the win.
Congrats, Kyrie. I'm sure these two will have some more great battles over the years. Maybe the Cavs will even make the playoffs some day.
Offensive efficiency
Boston 100.2
Cleveland 98.9
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats
Boston 20th
Cleveland 27th
All the PG talk is nice but what was the last team that won a championship having their PG as the best player on that team? Was it Billups for the Pistons? And before that I can't think of anyone all the way back to I.Thomas & Magic.Billups was not the best player on the championship team. He did win the finals MVP, but both Wallace's were better players and Hamilton might have been as well. By the end of that 5 or so year run, Billups was by far the best player, but he was not the title season which was the beginning of that run.
I'm fine with Rondo as out PG, I'm not so happy with most of the other guys on the team right now.
He was last night...he's a young player with something to prove in the match up...rondo in his second year was better than Chris Paul by these standards
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
If we had traded Rondo for Kyrie at the beginning of the year, would our record be better, worse, or the same? Would we have a better or worse shot in the playoffs?
I think we'd be better with him. His ability to create his own offense is exactly what our aging stars need to take some of the pressure off of them.
If we had traded Rondo for Kyrie at the beginning of the year, would our record be better, worse, or the same? Would we have a better or worse shot in the playoffs?
I think we'd be better with him. His ability to create his own offense is exactly what our aging stars need to take some of the pressure off of them.
If we had traded Rondo for Kyrie at the beginning of the year, would our record be better, worse, or the same? Would we have a better or worse shot in the playoffs?
I think we'd be better with him. His ability to create his own offense is exactly what our aging stars need to take some of the pressure off of them.
How much pounts would the others score per game though. He's only averaging 6 assist a game? Will Pierce have his points average this season the same with Kyrie?
Also he might make us worse in rebounding.
If we had traded Rondo for Kyrie at the beginning of the year, would our record be better, worse, or the same? Would we have a better or worse shot in the playoffs?
I think we'd be better with him. His ability to create his own offense is exactly what our aging stars need to take some of the pressure off of them.
How much pounts would the others score per game though. He's only averaging 6 assist a game? Will Pierce have his points average this season the same with Kyrie?
Also he might make us worse in rebounding.
Well, we won a championship with Rondo averaging 5.1 assists per game. I think spreading the ball around on offense more and relying more upon movement would be helpful to this team. Irving isn't a completely ball-dominant PG, as he allows his teammates (especially Waiters) to handle the ball quite a bit, too. I think he'd be a great fit next to Pierce and KG.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
Yeesh,
Let it go, Roy. Celticsblog draft is supposed to be a fun activity to pass us through the dog days of Summer.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
I kid, of course.
Give me Irving, and I don't have to think about it much.
EDIT: So I dont' come off bandwagon, I actually did a 9 on 9 'draft' with a friend. For a billion dollars best in the NBA, 1 game only, and Irving was my reserve Point Guard.
I agree that most GM's would probably take Irving over Rondo but that's because the entire league has been transformed by the "shooting guard that can't play shooting guard because he's not big enough but is a great passer for a shooting guard so let's make him a point guard" syndrome.Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
It's his personal opinion, but I question how unfounded it is.
A couple of years ago, Danny tried to move Rondo for Steph Curry, and was rebuffed. Similarly, New Orleans indicated it had no interest in Rondo, despite him being on a very good contract relative to his talent.
Now, that's just two GMs out of 30, but I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
If we had traded Rondo for Kyrie at the beginning of the year, would our record be better, worse, or the same? Would we have a better or worse shot in the playoffs?
I think we'd be better with him. His ability to create his own offense is exactly what our aging stars need to take some of the pressure off of them.
How much pounts would the others score per game though. He's only averaging 6 assist a game? Will Pierce have his points average this season the same with Kyrie?
Also he might make us worse in rebounding.
Well, we won a championship with Rondo averaging 5.1 assists per game. I think spreading the ball around on offense more and relying more upon movement would be helpful to this team. Irving isn't a completely ball-dominant PG, as he allows his teammates (especially Waiters) to handle the ball quite a bit, too. I think he'd be a great fit next to Pierce and KG.
don't forget the drose injury factor, completely change our path to the ECF.Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
I agree that most GM's would probably take Irving over Rondo but that's because the entire league has been transformed by the "shooting guard that can't play shooting guard because he's not big enough but is a great passer for a shooting guard so let's make him a point guard" syndrome.Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
It's his personal opinion, but I question how unfounded it is.
A couple of years ago, Danny tried to move Rondo for Steph Curry, and was rebuffed. Similarly, New Orleans indicated it had no interest in Rondo, despite him being on a very good contract relative to his talent.
Now, that's just two GMs out of 30, but I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, Ellis, Lillard, Walker, Robinson, Hill, Jennings, etc.
The trend is to have a PG that can score first, shoot efficiently from three second, pass third.
That's not my type of PG. A huge amount of NBA GMs might love that. I don't.
I agree that most GM's would probably take Irving over Rondo but that's because the entire league has been transformed by the "shooting guard that can't play shooting guard because he's not big enough but is a great passer for a shooting guard so let's make him a point guard" syndrome.Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
It's his personal opinion, but I question how unfounded it is.
A couple of years ago, Danny tried to move Rondo for Steph Curry, and was rebuffed. Similarly, New Orleans indicated it had no interest in Rondo, despite him being on a very good contract relative to his talent.
Now, that's just two GMs out of 30, but I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
Irving, Rose, Westbrook, Curry, Ellis, Lillard, Walker, Robinson, Hill, Jennings, etc.
The trend is to have a PG that can score first, shoot efficiently from three second, pass third.
That's not my type of PG. A huge amount of NBA GMs might love that. I don't.
Discuss...
Good game for Rondo, but Kyrie was at another level tonight.
I kid, of course.
Give me Irving, and I don't have to think about it much.
EDIT: So I dont' come off bandwagon, I actually did a 9 on 9 'draft' with a friend. For a billion dollars best in the NBA, 1 game only, and Irving was my reserve Point Guard.
Who was your starting point guard? I can guess who, but one other poster here seems to think he's the worst PG around.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
The bulk of KG's baskets were open jumpers and an extremely high percentage of his shots were off of assists from Rondo. Not to rag on Paul (who was playing through an injury) but he shot under 40% for the playoffs. I love those two players, but people who are calling them elite scorers haven't updated their scouting reports in the last few years.
Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
If we had traded Rondo for Kyrie at the beginning of the year, would our record be better, worse, or the same? Would we have a better or worse shot in the playoffs?
I think we'd be better with him. His ability to create his own offense is exactly what our aging stars need to take some of the pressure off of them.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
The bulk of KG's baskets were open jumpers and an extremely high percentage of his shots were off of assists from Rondo. Not to rag on Paul (who was playing through an injury) but he shot under 40% for the playoffs. I love those two players, but people who are calling them elite scorers haven't updated their scouting reports in the last few years.
Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
co-sign.
count me inAre you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
co-sign.
co-sign your co-sign.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
The bulk of KG's baskets were open jumpers and an extremely high percentage of his shots were off of assists from Rondo. Not to rag on Paul (who was playing through an injury) but he shot under 40% for the playoffs. I love those two players, but people who are calling them elite scorers haven't updated their scouting reports in the last few years.
That's severely underplaying what Garnett brought to this team. He was on another level last playoff, and many of his baskets - specifically in the Sixers and Hawks series - were baskets that came off of hard work in the post. Easy baskets they were not.
Rondo's been the point guard for this team for years, with 3 hall of fame players, and each year it's been in the bottom half of the league in offense.
Cleveland couldn't possibly be that stupid. to trade . Kyrie is without a doubt superior to ROndo...ROndo is mentally WEAK and not a very good leader. Give me Kyrie anyday.
CP3 would have NEVER EVER EVER let his team down , like ROndo has these past few games. IF Rondo was so great why can't he take over like Westbrooke, CP3 , Irving , Rose ect ...becasue he is a TERRIBLE shooter., and not a smart player.
Do it in a heart beat.
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
It's his personal opinion, but I question how unfounded it is.
A couple of years ago, Danny tried to move Rondo for Steph Curry, and was rebuffed. Similarly, New Orleans indicated it had no interest in Rondo, despite him being on a very good contract relative to his talent.
Now, that's just two GMs out of 30, but I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Opinions tend to be personal. As for unfounded... do you think I'm incorrect? It's conceivable 1 or 2 would deviate, but they'd likely be one of the lower half of NBA GMs (King, Smith, Petrie, etc), and they'd be making a mistake.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
The bulk of KG's baskets were open jumpers and an extremely high percentage of his shots were off of assists from Rondo. Not to rag on Paul (who was playing through an injury) but he shot under 40% for the playoffs. I love those two players, but people who are calling them elite scorers haven't updated their scouting reports in the last few years.
I'd say your imaginary scouting reports are pretty poor. Maybe they only have player ages and ignore their contributions?
As others have noted, you are greatly underestimating KG's contributions last year. And Paul shot a poor percentage in last year's playoffs, but mitigated that by getting to the line (6 times a game, more than Westbrook and 1 less than Durant). The only players to get to the line more in the playoffs than Paul were Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, and Wade. I'd call those players elite scorers.
Getting to the line is a valuable skill for an elite player. You might want to update that fact on your Rajon Rondo scouting report.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
The bulk of KG's baskets were open jumpers and an extremely high percentage of his shots were off of assists from Rondo. Not to rag on Paul (who was playing through an injury) but he shot under 40% for the playoffs. I love those two players, but people who are calling them elite scorers haven't updated their scouting reports in the last few years.
I'd say your imaginary scouting reports are pretty poor. Maybe they only have player ages and ignore their contributions?
As others have noted, you are greatly underestimating KG's contributions last year. And Paul shot a poor percentage in last year's playoffs, but mitigated that by getting to the line (6 times a game, more than Westbrook and 1 less than Durant). The only players to get to the line more in the playoffs than Paul were Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, and Wade. I'd call those players elite scorers.
Getting to the line is a valuable skill for an elite player. You might want to update that fact on your Rajon Rondo scouting report.
Obviously if you're trying to claim that PP scores like Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, and Wade because he gets to the line a lot I'm not the one with the outdated scouting report.
I agree. I'm sure more than half of NBA GMs will take Rondo, mostly because I firmly believe more than half of NBA GMs are completely incompetent.Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Opinions tend to be personal. As for unfounded... do you think I'm incorrect? It's conceivable 1 or 2 would deviate, but they'd likely be one of the lower half of NBA GMs (King, Smith, Petrie, etc), and they'd be making a mistake.
Yes, I think you are incorrect.
Cleveland couldn't possibly be that stupid. to trade . Kyrie is without a doubt superior to ROndo...ROndo is mentally WEAK and not a very good leader. Give me Kyrie anyday.
CP3 would have NEVER EVER EVER let his team down , like ROndo has these past few games. IF Rondo was so great why can't he take over like Westbrooke, CP3 , Irving , Rose ect ...becasue he is a TERRIBLE shooter., and not a smart player.
Do it in a heart beat.
TP...Yeah I agree with that
And I remember the age-old question of "Was Rondo's talent carrying the Big 3 (Paul, Ray, KG) for the Celtics to be successful, or was it the other way around?"
Guess now that Pierce and KG are getting old, and Ray is traded, we now we got our answer
I wouldn't call a GM incompetent for taking Rondo over Irving. Irving seems to have trouble staying healthy. what good is a top PG if he can't play. Rondo's proven to be very durable.I agree. I'm sure more than half of NBA GMs will take Rondo, mostly because I firmly believe more than half of NBA GMs are completely incompetent.Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Opinions tend to be personal. As for unfounded... do you think I'm incorrect? It's conceivable 1 or 2 would deviate, but they'd likely be one of the lower half of NBA GMs (King, Smith, Petrie, etc), and they'd be making a mistake.
Yes, I think you are incorrect.
Sure, Rondo is a great piece, but he's just not well-suited to be the first piece of a rebuilding team.
I wouldn't call a GM incompetent for taking Rondo over Irving. Irving seems to have trouble staying healthy. what good is a top PG if he can't play. Rondo's proven to be very durable.He's missed 26 out of 109 total team games over the last two seasons. He's 20 years old. Not sure that makes him injury prone quite yet.
Tonight Kyrie for sure.
If you are picking a PG for the playoffs I'd take Rondo.
Irving is pretty amazing and scary though.
He can pretty much do anything on the court and is never fazed or rushed on anything. He was playing against Bradley for a decent amount of possessions and just took his time and made plays.
I'd take Kyrie over Rondo in the playoffs pretty much no question unless I had multiple elite scoring options for Rondo to pass to.
All Rondo needs is a few players that can score in transition and players that can hit open jumpers. We didn't have elite scoring options in the playoffs last year and we made it to the ECF.
KG averaged 19 a game, shooting 50% in last year's playoffs. Paul also averaged 19 a game.
KG looked pretty elite to me in last year's playoffs.
The bulk of KG's baskets were open jumpers and an extremely high percentage of his shots were off of assists from Rondo. Not to rag on Paul (who was playing through an injury) but he shot under 40% for the playoffs. I love those two players, but people who are calling them elite scorers haven't updated their scouting reports in the last few years.
I'd say your imaginary scouting reports are pretty poor. Maybe they only have player ages and ignore their contributions?
As others have noted, you are greatly underestimating KG's contributions last year. And Paul shot a poor percentage in last year's playoffs, but mitigated that by getting to the line (6 times a game, more than Westbrook and 1 less than Durant). The only players to get to the line more in the playoffs than Paul were Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, and Wade. I'd call those players elite scorers.
Getting to the line is a valuable skill for an elite player. You might want to update that fact on your Rajon Rondo scouting report.
Obviously if you're trying to claim that PP scores like Kobe, LeBron, Durant, Carmelo, and Wade because he gets to the line a lot I'm not the one with the outdated scouting report.
Not claiming he scores like them. Merely claiming his ability to get to the line in last year's playoffs was still at a high level. Obviously if you're claiming I said that he scores like LeBron, maybe you are just having trouble comprehending your imaginary scouting reports. Please carefully read my post again and read what is actually there instead of putting words in my mouth. But then again, why let facts get in the way of smug one-liners.
Your scouting reports aren't outdated, they're just wrong.
perhaps but how many games has Rondo missed in the years he's played (barring suspensions naturally)? Irving's health is something that has to be taken into account IMHOI wouldn't call a GM incompetent for taking Rondo over Irving. Irving seems to have trouble staying healthy. what good is a top PG if he can't play. Rondo's proven to be very durable.He's missed 26 out of 109 total team games over the last two seasons. He's 20 years old. Not sure that makes him injury prone quite yet.
Why should we be "barring suspensions". How is being unable to stay on the floor because you're being a punk any better than unable to stay on the floor because you're injured?perhaps but how many games has Rondo missed in the years he's played (barring suspensions naturally)? Irving's health is something that has to be taken into account IMHOI wouldn't call a GM incompetent for taking Rondo over Irving. Irving seems to have trouble staying healthy. what good is a top PG if he can't play. Rondo's proven to be very durable.He's missed 26 out of 109 total team games over the last two seasons. He's 20 years old. Not sure that makes him injury prone quite yet.
I agree. I'm sure more than half of NBA GMs will take Rondo, mostly because I firmly believe more than half of NBA GMs are completely incompetent.Haven't read through the thread, but as for the title... not really news.
30 out of 30 NBA GMs would take Irving over Rondo if they were building a team from the ground up.
Thanks for your personal, completely unfounded, opinion.
Opinions tend to be personal. As for unfounded... do you think I'm incorrect? It's conceivable 1 or 2 would deviate, but they'd likely be one of the lower half of NBA GMs (King, Smith, Petrie, etc), and they'd be making a mistake.
Yes, I think you are incorrect.
Sure, Rondo is a great piece, but he's just not well-suited to be the first piece of a rebuilding team.
Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
This, though I don't think this is new.
The reason Rondo is not more valuable (and IMO why Ainge would like to trade him), is that he struggles to win games in the 4th Q. He can't carry a team from a scoring perspective, and he's a liability at the FT line. This why we're subjected to that PP step-back for every last shot. It's arguably why we miss Ray Allen the most.
Magic Johnson has said this about Rondo many times. To take the next step, to be the franchise player and carry the team, to be a true MVP candidate, he needs to be able to score. Easier said than done...
Irving has that. An NBA team would take that ability over a few assists any day.
I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
This, though I don't think this is new.
The reason Rondo is not more valuable (and IMO why Ainge would like to trade him), is that he struggles to win games in the 4th Q. He can't carry a team from a scoring perspective, and he's a liability at the FT line. This why we're subjected to that PP step-back for every last shot. It's arguably why we miss Ray Allen the most.
Magic Johnson has said this about Rondo many times. To take the next step, to be the franchise player and carry the team, to be a true MVP candidate, he needs to be able to score. Easier said than done...
Irving has that. An NBA team would take that ability over a few assists any day.
For those arguing Rondo would be the choice over Irving, please see the above again. Rondo avoids scoring opportunities in the 4th Q because he's scared of the FT line, and doesn't have the ability to make an impact from long range. It's a problem for a franchise player.
This season, Rondo's averaging 42% of the Q4 points Irving' scoring. Because as we saw last night, Irving can go to the basket and win a game.
I get the sense that the league is moving in the direction of guys who can create their own offense.
This, though I don't think this is new.
The reason Rondo is not more valuable (and IMO why Ainge would like to trade him), is that he struggles to win games in the 4th Q. He can't carry a team from a scoring perspective, and he's a liability at the FT line. This why we're subjected to that PP step-back for every last shot. It's arguably why we miss Ray Allen the most.
Magic Johnson has said this about Rondo many times. To take the next step, to be the franchise player and carry the team, to be a true MVP candidate, he needs to be able to score. Easier said than done...
Irving has that. An NBA team would take that ability over a few assists any day.
For those arguing Rondo would be the choice over Irving, please see the above again. Rondo avoids scoring opportunities in the 4th Q because he's scared of the FT line, and doesn't have the ability to make an impact from long range. It's a problem for a franchise player.
This season, Rondo's averaging 42% of the Q4 points Irving' scoring. Because as we saw last night, Irving can go to the basket and win a game.
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett
Now that's a discussion.
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett
Now that's a discussion.
hmmmm no that's a fact.
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett
Now that's a discussion.
hmmmm no that's a fact.
Debatable still.
Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
And I'd say it's underrated by people who think we don't need it because we won a title with 3 primary scoring options (all in their primes) in the starting lineup in 2008.
Don't know if you saw this or not, but last spring someone was trying to show that John Wall lost a lot of assists because his teammates couldn't shoot. He looked at all the Wizards "scoring opportunities" from Wall passes and compared that to all the other scoring opportunities. He found that Wall's passes led to scores about 9% more often than all other opportunities. For comparison, he did the same with Rondo and saw that the jump in scoring from Rondo's passes was over twice as much, just over 20%.
http://www.bulletsforever.com/2012/3/2/2838291/rajon-rondo-missed-assist-tracker-john-wall
Considering the amount of assists Rondo gets that's a very significant difference in efficiency.
Rondo's missed assists per game number is 7.6, which is far lower than Wall's 9.8 by a wide margin. If you add Rondo's assists with his missed assists (9.6 + 7.6 = 17.2) it's almost exactly the same number of assist opportunities as John Wall (7.6 + 9.8 = 17.4). Rondo's Boston teammates convert 55.9 percent of his assist chances into actual assists, while Wall's Wizards convert only 43.9 percent of his chances.
Roy, you are always so easily smitten with the scoring PGs. I remember you were ready to trade Rondo for Jennings after the 55 point game.
Irving is still a poor defender, mediocre playmaker. Just an electric scorer.
Kyrie Irving was a bad defender last year. This year, he's been well above-average, which is consistent with his reputation coming into the league.
Kyrie Irving was a bad defender last year. This year, he's been well above-average, which is consistent with his reputation coming into the league.
Well above average? What are you talking about? His defense has improved, but he has not been nearly above average. The Cavs are a pretty terrible defensive team as a whole, but they are even worse when Kyrie is on the court.
That part of his game has yet to dramatically improve. Still very sub-par.
That data can be read in two ways:
1. Wall's teammates suck compared to Rondo's; or
2. Rondo gets his guys in better position to convert shots
The answer is probably somewhere in between. However, a study that shows that in a perfect world, John Wall would have more assists than Rajon Rondo doesn't strike me as all that meaningful, or particularly complimentary of Rondo.
If Rondo is such a great defender, and Irving is so poor (given that this is a Rondo vs Irving thread), how come Irving completely torched Rondo, and not the other way around?Kyrie Irving was a bad defender last year. This year, he's been well above-average, which is consistent with his reputation coming into the league.
Well above average? What are you talking about? His defense has improved, but he has not been nearly above average. The Cavs are a pretty terrible defensive team as a whole, but they are even worse when Kyrie is on the court.
That part of his game has yet to dramatically improve. Still very sub-par.
He ranks 95th in the league in points allowed per possession. That puts him somewhere between the 20th and 25th percentile of all NBA players.
On isolation plays, he ranks 40th.
Despite his terrible teammates, Irving's defense has been good this year. Again, this is consistent with his pre-draft reputation.
If Rondo is such a great defender, and Irving is so poor (given that this is a Rondo vs Irving thread), how come Irving completely torched Rondo, and not the other way around?Kyrie Irving was a bad defender last year. This year, he's been well above-average, which is consistent with his reputation coming into the league.
Well above average? What are you talking about? His defense has improved, but he has not been nearly above average. The Cavs are a pretty terrible defensive team as a whole, but they are even worse when Kyrie is on the court.
That part of his game has yet to dramatically improve. Still very sub-par.
He ranks 95th in the league in points allowed per possession. That puts him somewhere between the 20th and 25th percentile of all NBA players.
On isolation plays, he ranks 40th.
Despite his terrible teammates, Irving's defense has been good this year. Again, this is consistent with his pre-draft reputation.
I absolutely think Kyrie is better than Rondo. He wasn't the #1 pick after missing nearly the entire season of his freshman year for nothing. He is an absolute stud.
And I think if you give him someone to pass to, he would be much more than just a scorer. He has excellent instincts, and Chris Paulesque skills.
With that said, he has also been pretty brittle so far in his career, so while he is a superstar in the making, there is also a level of treading carefully.
Because he didn't! How come I don't see Irving grabbing 13 rebounds? How come he averages just FIVE POINT THREE ASSISTS PER GAME? That's TERRIBLE for a POINT GUARD. He might be a better SCORER, but not a better PLAYER. Basketball is so much more than just scoring points!He didn't what? Did you miss the part where Irving was scoring at will in the 4th and practically single-handedly won the game for Cleveland?
So what you are saying , that everyone is co-signing to, is if Rondo was traded for a PG that couldn't pass as well, somehow, the ball movement would be better?Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
And I'd say it's underrated by people who think we don't need it because we won a title with 3 primary scoring options (all in their primes) in the starting lineup in 2008.
Don't know if you saw this or not, but last spring someone was trying to show that John Wall lost a lot of assists because his teammates couldn't shoot. He looked at all the Wizards "scoring opportunities" from Wall passes and compared that to all the other scoring opportunities. He found that Wall's passes led to scores about 9% more often than all other opportunities. For comparison, he did the same with Rondo and saw that the jump in scoring from Rondo's passes was over twice as much, just over 20%.
http://www.bulletsforever.com/2012/3/2/2838291/rajon-rondo-missed-assist-tracker-john-wall
Considering the amount of assists Rondo gets that's a very significant difference in efficiency.
I'm not seeing the conclusions you are. Maybe it's in the spreadsheet that isn't loading for me?
Here's the conclusion I'm reading:QuoteRondo's missed assists per game number is 7.6, which is far lower than Wall's 9.8 by a wide margin. If you add Rondo's assists with his missed assists (9.6 + 7.6 = 17.2) it's almost exactly the same number of assist opportunities as John Wall (7.6 + 9.8 = 17.4). Rondo's Boston teammates convert 55.9 percent of his assist chances into actual assists, while Wall's Wizards convert only 43.9 percent of his chances.
That data can be read in two ways:
1. Wall's teammates suck compared to Rondo's; or
2. Rondo gets his guys in better position to convert shots
The answer is probably somewhere in between. However, a study that shows that in a perfect world, John Wall would have more assists than Rajon Rondo doesn't strike me as all that meaningful, or particularly complimentary of Rondo.
So what you are saying , that everyone is co-signing to, is if Rondo was traded for a PG that couldn't pass as well, somehow, the ball movement would be better?
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett
Now that's a discussion.
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
So what you are saying , that everyone is co-signing to, is if Rondo was traded for a PG that couldn't pass as well, somehow, the ball movement would be better?Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
Perhaps the reason for the offensive efficiency going downhill over the past few years has more to do with the players around Rondo not passing as well or being new to the system? let's face it this isn't KG and Pierce from 10 years ago. Neither pass as well or as much as they used to. Say what you want about Ray Allen but he's twice the passer that Bradley or Lee are. And bass has been a black hole his whole career. He isn't exactly known for passing the ball.
Also, as Pierce and Ray and KG got older, they stopped going to the basket. The additions to this team have been outside shooters. Over the years, more and more, Danny has strapped Doc with players that want to shoot outside jumpers. This team has one rookie that goes inside and that's it. Offensive efficiency isn't going to get better as you depend more and more on outside mid range shooters.
Blaming those things on Rondo is just not right in my book.
I also saw where people are saying Rondo can't shoot from outside. Rondo's mid range shot has improved vastly. He doesn't have three point range but he does have an outside shot.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
First, his name is Kyrie.Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?I'm not sure this is a very good metric for "impact" altogether, but in any case a Rondo triple-double is a much, much rarer appearance than an Irving 25+ point game.
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
You can't really treat percentage increases the way Roy is trying to spin them.So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.
Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
You can't really treat percentage increases the way Roy is trying to spin them.So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.
Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
First, his name is Kyrie.Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.
First, his name is Kyrie.Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.
No, those were numbers chosen arbitrarily to come up with a similar sample size (25). I had to choose a number that Irving hit about 4-5 times as often as Rondo gets triple doubles or I'd have ended up looking at 4-5 high scoring games for Kyrie.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.
First, his name is Kyrie.Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.
No, those were numbers chosen arbitrarily to come up with a similar sample size (25). I had to choose a number that Irving hit about 4-5 times as often as Rondo gets triple doubles or I'd have ended up looking at 4-5 high scoring games for Kyrie.
25 is an incredibly small sample size to draw any definitive conclusions, regardless of how misguided they may be. Even a high school stats class would encourage you to draw no conclusions from that data.
You can't really treat percentage increases the way Roy is trying to spin them.So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.
Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
It's no less legitimate than using the winning percentages in the first place.
Kyrie has a much lesser cast of players around him. However, Kyrie's high-scoring games are able to elevate this really poor team. If Kyrie goes for 25+ points, it almost doubles his team's chances of winning.
Why ignore the baseline -- like Tim is -- and disregard the fact that the Celtics have a much better team? If Rajon Rondo was on the Cavs, I'm pretty skeptical that they'd be winning 88% of their games when Rondo drops a triple-double.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.
You're uncertain because 1) you don't have any idea about whether my claim holds true for larger sample sizes, 2) that you don't understand math well enough to see why I'd disagree with Roy, and 3) fail to understand that if I want similar sample sizes out of unequal amounts of total games I need to choose a sample that happens more often for the player with fewer games. If I chose a different (arbitrary) number that Irving hit as often as Rondo had triple doubles his sample size would be 4-5 times as small.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.
Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.
I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?
If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.
You're uncertain because 1) you don't have any idea about whether my claim holds true for larger sample sizes, 2) that you don't understand math well enough to see why I'd disagree with Roy, and 3) fail to understand that if I want similar sample sizes out of unequal amounts of total games I need to choose a sample that happens more often for the player with fewer games. If I chose a different (arbitrary) number that Irving hit as often as Rondo had triple doubles his sample size would be 4-5 times as small.
I find it hilarious that you, of all people, question my understanding of math. This is all while you try to draw conclusions about the overall quality of two players while using 5% of the games of one of those players as the sample.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?
It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.
Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots. I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.
Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading.
Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?
It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.
Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots. I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.
Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.
Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.
I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
It has nothing to do with the sample. It has everything to do with basic statistical methods, because you clearly lack a fundamental understanding of how they work.Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.
In a vacuum, yes, but how does "widen the sample as much as you want, triple doubles lead to wins more often than high scoring games" affect your statement?
I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
If you're calculating outcome differences caused by a certain event, then you you can only make inferences based on the occurrence/lack thereof of the event in question.
The fact that you picked poor indicators to describe "impact" (because categorical division of continuous variables is meaningless when arbitrary) is a different issue whatsoever.
It has nothing to do with the sample. It has everything to do with basic statistical methods, because you clearly lack a fundamental understanding of how they work.Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
Your sample has no predictive or conclusive value and is essentially worthless.
In a vacuum, yes, but how does "widen the sample as much as you want, triple doubles lead to wins more often than high scoring games" affect your statement?
Not sure what's funny.I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.Obviously I didn't ignore the baselines. I didn't compare the 88% to the 44% of games the Cavs won, I compared the increase (61% to 88% compared to 25% to 44%). Rondo's increase was about 50% higher than Irving's. Over an entire season, Irving's scoring is worth about 15 extra win, Rondo's triple doubles would be worth about 22 wins.No, I'm sorry, this is patently misleading. Over the course of a season, Rondo will have ~4 triple-doubles, and Irving will have ~25 25+ point game. So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's.
No, your statement would only hold true if 25 points from Irving impacts a game but 24 points doesn't, or that a triple double from Rondo impacts a game but a double double with 9 rebounds doesn't. You (hopefully) read in at least one of my posts that I wanted similar sample sizes (which I got, 25 to 26). You clearly noticed that Rondo's played 4-5 times as many games as Irving. How hard is it to see, with a 4x game differential, that the only way to get similar sample sizes was to choose a point total that Kyrie hit 4-5 times as often as Rondo had triple doubles?
If you're calculating outcome differences caused by a certain event, then you you can only make inferences based on the occurrence/lack thereof of the event in question.
The fact that you picked poor indicators to describe "impact" (because categorical division of continuous variables is meaningless when arbitrary) is a different issue whatsoever.
That's pretty funny.
No matter his position, a teams best player must be able to consistently put the ball in the hoops at a high percentage if that team is going to have any real success. He does not need to be the team's leading scorer, but he must be able to score the ball consistently when needed. Rondo is not that type of player as is being proven this year. With Pierce and Garnett slipping and a silky shooter like Allen gone, Boston's offense has been horrible on the whole and it is because of Rondo's inability to score as clearly Boston's best player. Rondo can't be that guy and as such, is not a player to build around. Rondo can be a fine complementary piece as the 2nd or 3rd best player on a team, but he can't be a team's best player for that team to be a true contender. And sadly Boston has very limited means with which to obtain said player as long as Rondo is on the team, so he needs to go.
Amazing how quickly the mob turns....Makes me wonder if they play in Boston or Springfield
Amazing how quickly the mob turns....Makes me wonder if they play in Boston or Springfield
I'm not sure it takes a mob mentality to consider an opposing player better than one of ours.
I don't think anyone is directly blaming Rondo solely for the drop in offensive efficiency with this team since 2009, but let's face it, there's people intimating it and trying to correlate the team's dropping offensive efficiency solely with Rondo's ability to run an offense.So what you are saying , that everyone is co-signing to, is if Rondo was traded for a PG that couldn't pass as well, somehow, the ball movement would be better?Are you still going to claim that Irving's better?
Yep.
I think Rondo's ability to "run an offense" has become vastly over-rated. I wonder how much better our team would be if we had more people moving the ball.
Perhaps the reason for the offensive efficiency going downhill over the past few years has more to do with the players around Rondo not passing as well or being new to the system? let's face it this isn't KG and Pierce from 10 years ago. Neither pass as well or as much as they used to. Say what you want about Ray Allen but he's twice the passer that Bradley or Lee are. And bass has been a black hole his whole career. He isn't exactly known for passing the ball.
Also, as Pierce and Ray and KG got older, they stopped going to the basket. The additions to this team have been outside shooters. Over the years, more and more, Danny has strapped Doc with players that want to shoot outside jumpers. This team has one rookie that goes inside and that's it. Offensive efficiency isn't going to get better as you depend more and more on outside mid range shooters.
Blaming those things on Rondo is just not right in my book.
I also saw where people are saying Rondo can't shoot from outside. Rondo's mid range shot has improved vastly. He doesn't have three point range but he does have an outside shot.
Who is blaming those things on Rondo? No one is solely blaming Rondo for the offensive inefficiencies. I think the point is there is an argument that Rondo's "ability to run an offense" doesn't have any real evidence behind it though. Yes, there are other factors....but Rondo's inability to score efficiently is among them.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
Looking strictly at per minute stats for playoffs and regular season when talking about Rondo's clutchness in the playoffs is unfair. In the playoffs you play against only the best teams, play against that team's shortened rotation and best players, play at a completely different intensity level, and on a much larger stage. Some of Rondo's biggest games in terms of stats and his impact on the results of the game have come during the playoffs.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason. Kyrie's 20 years old. I'm pretty certain he can handle more minutes if he is given some extra nights off and no back-to-backs (a playoff schedule).
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
Looking strictly at per minute stats for playoffs and regular season when talking about Rondo's clutchness in the playoffs is unfair. In the playoffs you play against only the best teams, play against that team's shortened rotation and best players, play at a completely different intensity level, and on a much larger stage. Some of Rondo's biggest games in terms of stats and his impact on the results of the game have come during the playoffs.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason. Kyrie's 20 years old. I'm pretty certain he can handle more minutes if he is given some extra nights off and no back-to-backs (a playoff schedule).
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
I find Rondo to be very clutch in the playoffs because even though he coasts at points during the regular season and slacks on defense during the regular season, in the playoffs, Rondo doesn't do this and he can effect a game in an elite manner in so many ways both offensively and defensively.
Rondo's game has some real holes in it, including his decision making, effort and immaturity, areas you would have hoped wouldn't be a problem at this point in his career. But saying he doesn't come up clutch in the playoffs doesn't pass the eye or smell test to me.
Let me just say I think you are completely wrong and leave it at that.Looking strictly at per minute stats for playoffs and regular season when talking about Rondo's clutchness in the playoffs is unfair. In the playoffs you play against only the best teams, play against that team's shortened rotation and best players, play at a completely different intensity level, and on a much larger stage. Some of Rondo's biggest games in terms of stats and his impact on the results of the game have come during the playoffs.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason. Kyrie's 20 years old. I'm pretty certain he can handle more minutes if he is given some extra nights off and no back-to-backs (a playoff schedule).
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
I find Rondo to be very clutch in the playoffs because even though he coasts at points during the regular season and slacks on defense during the regular season, in the playoffs, Rondo doesn't do this and he can effect a game in an elite manner in so many ways both offensively and defensively.
Rondo's game has some real holes in it, including his decision making, effort and immaturity, areas you would have hoped wouldn't be a problem at this point in his career. But saying he doesn't come up clutch in the playoffs doesn't pass the eye or smell test to me.
He's the same guy as he is in the regular season. You just remember the games more. He has some impressive stat lines in some regular season games too.
every statistic,advanced statistic, and metric shows that rondo is a completely different beast in the playoffs
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?
It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.
Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots. I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.
Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.
Worth note, to help you understand basketball a bit more, when you are playing with poor teammates, your shot selection is hindered. Kyrie takes more contested shots than Rondo because he has to. So Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
I think Boston's dropping offensive inefficiency has less to do with Rondo and more to do with the way Doc wants the offense run and the players surrounding Rondo.
Look at Brooklyn. Is Williams really a better passer, a better facilitator or a more efficient scorer as Rondo? No. But the Nets have a much higher offensive efficiency than Boston.
QuoteI think Boston's dropping offensive inefficiency has less to do with Rondo and more to do with the way Doc wants the offense run and the players surrounding Rondo.
Look at Brooklyn. Is Williams really a better passer, a better facilitator or a more efficient scorer as Rondo? No. But the Nets have a much higher offensive efficiency than Boston.
Uh, yes is the answer to all of your questions. Deron is certainly a more efficient scorer. His career turnover percentage is less than Rondo's. Heck, even his career assist percentage is higher than Rondo's if you are into that. Deron has been a much better point guard than Rondo in pretty much every year since Rondo has been in the league, save for last year when he was surrounded by garbage teammates.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
I'd certainly say that Rondo was our best player on the team that reached the finals in 2010.
You are right, though, that overall it wasn't his best statistical post season. As a matter of fact, it was probably his second worst since the Championship year, behind the one where he was playing on one arm at the end of the Miami series in 2011.
What really impressed me about 2010, though was his performance in the Cleveland series that year. If you'll remember, that Cavs team had won 61 games, and led by James and Shaq was supposed to wipe the floor with the over the hill Celtics. Rondo, however, was our dominant force in that series. He averaged 20.7 ppg, 11.8 apg, 6.3 rpg, while shooting 54% from the field with a 3.2 A/TO ratio for the series. If you want that in per 36 form, it's roughly; 17.7points per 36, 10.1 assists per 36, and 5.4 rebounds per 36. It wasn't just the numbers, though, although they don't lie. He controlled that series and picked the Cavs apart, frustrating the great Lebron James along the way, and effectively running him out of his hometown.
After that, his individual performance was a bit anti-climactic for the rest of the playoffs. The team basically rode off the emotional crest of the Rondo-led Cavs upset all the way to game seven of the finals.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?
It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.
Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots. I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.
Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.
Worth note, to help you understand basketball a bit more, when you are playing with poor teammates, your shot selection is hindered. Kyrie takes more contested shots than Rondo because he has to. So Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is.
Okay, since you know that when you are playing with poor teammates your shot selection is hindered, I many have slightly underestimated your understanding of basketball. Maybe not so much that it might occur to you that Irving might not need to take quite so many contested shots if he'd find the open guy instead of taking all those contested shots, but it's a start.
Seriously, though, when you say "Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is", exactly how impressive did I say it was?
I am talking now, this year. And the answer to all those questions this year is no. Statistically and by sight. This year, Williams is not a better shooter except from three, a more efficient a scorer, a better passer or a better facilitator than Rondo. Williams game has fallen off rather a bunch since arriving in NJ and he really has only been marginally better with a much better surrounding team this year.QuoteI think Boston's dropping offensive inefficiency has less to do with Rondo and more to do with the way Doc wants the offense run and the players surrounding Rondo.
Look at Brooklyn. Is Williams really a better passer, a better facilitator or a more efficient scorer as Rondo? No. But the Nets have a much higher offensive efficiency than Boston.
Uh, yes is the answer to all of your questions. Deron is certainly a more efficient scorer. His career turnover percentage is less than Rondo's. Heck, even his career assist percentage is higher than Rondo's if you are into that. Deron has been a much better point guard than Rondo in pretty much every year since Rondo has been in the league, save for last year when he was surrounded by garbage teammates.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:
Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds
And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.
Kyrie might be better in:
3PFG%
Points
Clutch
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?
I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.
Kyrie Irving:
10-to-15 feet: 48%
16-to-23 feet: 49.2%
Combined: 48.7% on 220 attempts
Rajon Rondo:
10-to-15 feet: 30.8%
16-to-23 feet: 50.8%
Combined: 47.2% on 148 attempts
Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them. My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too. Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.
So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.
What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting? How many guards actually take many shots from this range? Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?
I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.
Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.
And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting. At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.
Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots. Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low. All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.
Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.
Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not. I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft. That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.
Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?
It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.
Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots. I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.
Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.
Worth note, to help you understand basketball a bit more, when you are playing with poor teammates, your shot selection is hindered. Kyrie takes more contested shots than Rondo because he has to. So Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is.
Okay, since you know that when you are playing with poor teammates your shot selection is hindered, I many have slightly underestimated your understanding of basketball. Maybe not so much that it might occur to you that Irving might not need to take quite so many contested shots if he'd find the open guy instead of taking all those contested shots, but it's a start.
Seriously, though, when you say "Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is", exactly how impressive did I say it was?
There isn't always an "open guy".
QuoteI think Boston's dropping offensive inefficiency has less to do with Rondo and more to do with the way Doc wants the offense run and the players surrounding Rondo.
Look at Brooklyn. Is Williams really a better passer, a better facilitator or a more efficient scorer as Rondo? No. But the Nets have a much higher offensive efficiency than Boston.
Uh, yes is the answer to all of your questions. Deron is certainly a more efficient scorer. His career turnover percentage is less than Rondo's. Heck, even his career assist percentage is higher than Rondo's if you are into that. Deron has been a much better point guard than Rondo in pretty much every year since Rondo has been in the league, save for last year when he was surrounded by garbage teammates.
Looking strictly at per minute stats for playoffs and regular season when talking about Rondo's clutchness in the playoffs is unfair. In the playoffs you play against only the best teams, play against that team's shortened rotation and best players, play at a completely different intensity level, and on a much larger stage. Some of Rondo's biggest games in terms of stats and his impact on the results of the game have come during the playoffs.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason. Kyrie's 20 years old. I'm pretty certain he can handle more minutes if he is given some extra nights off and no back-to-backs (a playoff schedule).
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
I find Rondo to be very clutch in the playoffs because even though he coasts at points during the regular season and slacks on defense during the regular season, in the playoffs, Rondo doesn't do this and he can effect a game in an elite manner in so many ways both offensively and defensively.
Rondo's game has some real holes in it, including his decision making, effort and immaturity, areas you would have hoped wouldn't be a problem at this point in his career. But saying he doesn't come up clutch in the playoffs doesn't pass the eye or smell test to me.
He's the same guy as he is in the regular season. You just remember the games more. He has some impressive stat lines in some regular season games too.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?
Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?
As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.
Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).
As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.
Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
Celtics fans when a player has a good game against us: OMG HES SO GOOD, LETS TRADE FOR HIM.. RONDO SUCKS, HOW CAN HE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OFF GAME?? WE DONT EVEN CARE WHEN HE HAS A GOOD GAME, WE SHOULD TAKE HIM FOR GRANTED..Funny thing is Rondo had a bad defensive game but had a 17/13/8 game which most PGs would kill to have. Also, when great players have one of their great nights and can go off, sometimes it doesn't matter who is guarding them.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?
Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?
As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.
Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).
As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.
Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.
In that case, after a quick look at their playoff performances, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, and Derrick Rose among many others all have the "clutch" gene. Each of those players has performed roughly the same in the pressure cooker of the playoffs as they did in the regular season.
Chris Paul's playoff performances over his career are roughly the same as his regular season performances over his career, yet you never boast about how clutch he is. Same for Nash, Parker, Rose. Why is that, Tim?
Given the fact that every point guard of the modern era has the "clutch" attribute, as you measure it, is there any reason to conclude that Kyrie doesn't have it? What you are calling the best game of Kyrie's career came against the #7 defense in basketball and the best point guard in the history of civilization (in your mind). By your small sample size conclusions, he'd be a killer in the playoffs. He just torched a top-level defense.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals.
He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs. Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo. To me, this is a distinct positive. I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is. When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better. He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game. The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo.
To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs. He hasn't been there. Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level. That's worth a lot to me. I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.
A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.
And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all. He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.
Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.
His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.
His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.
So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse. He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently. This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.
There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse. Overall, it's pretty much a draw. Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth. He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.
To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?
Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?
As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.
Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).
As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.
Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.
In that case, after a quick look at their playoff performances, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, and Derrick Rose among many others all have the "clutch" gene. Each of those players has performed roughly the same in the pressure cooker of the playoffs as they did in the regular season.
Chris Paul's playoff performances over his career are roughly the same as his regular season performances over his career, yet you never boast about how clutch he is. Same for Nash, Parker, Rose. Why is that, Tim?
Given the fact that every point guard of the modern era has the "clutch" attribute, as you measure it, is there any reason to conclude that Kyrie doesn't have it? What you are calling the best game of Kyrie's career came against the #7 defense in basketball and the best point guard in the history of civilization (in your mind). By your small sample size conclusions, he'd be a killer in the playoffs. He just torched a top-level defense.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This.
Paul and KG led our title run.
Paul, Ray, and Rondo in '09.
Paul and Rondo in '10.
The Big 4 were all ok in '11.
KG and Rondo last year.
As you can see, Rondo has never been the focal point of a playoff run. He's always needed one or more of the vets to take on a load.
This year, I have concerns that we are relying too much on Pierce and KG.
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
Is that an attempt to be sarcastic?I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
I don't think that what you bolded is any clearer than "Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs". Did you leave Rondo's name out of the sentence by accident?
I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
Fine. Thanks anyway for your contributions. If you just want to be obstinate, vague, contradictory, and snappy, without feeling the need to explain or expand on your somewhat inconsistent posts, that's cool.
By the way, you misspelled contending.
By the way, you misspelled contending.I'm sure I did. Glad to be talking to smart people who are able to understand what I mean regardless.
Amazing how quickly the mob turns....Makes me wonder if they play in Boston or Springfield
I'm not sure it takes a mob mentality to consider an opposing player better than one of ours.
Is that an attempt to be sarcastic?I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
I don't think that what you bolded is any clearer than "Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs". Did you leave Rondo's name out of the sentence by accident?
The post I am trying to reply to claim that people who think Rondo cannot be the best player ignore how he "led our last four deep playoff runs".
It's pretty simple: nobody is ignoring it, because Rondo was never the best or the most important player on those playoff runs. Kevin Garnett was. At different points of those four years, Pierce, Allen and Rondo have alternated in the second banana spot, but even for that I'd give the nod to Pierce before anyone else.
Now that Garnett and Pierce have clearly lost a step and can no longer do what they did a couple of years ago, Rondo is the undisputed best player on the team. You see this team contending for anything any time soon?
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This.
Paul and KG led our title run.
Paul, Ray, and Rondo in '09.
Paul and Rondo in '10.
The Big 4 were all ok in '11.
KG and Rondo last year.
As you can see, Rondo has never been the focal point of a playoff run. He's always needed one or more of the vets to take on a load.
This year, I have concerns that we are relying too much on Pierce and KG.
First of all he's claiming that the big three and not Rondo led the playoff runs, so you're disagreeing with the post you're agreeing with when you claim it was, for instance, Rondo and KG and not the big 3 in 2012. Secondly, how many players lead teams to deep playoff runs when nobody else on the team takes on a load? Certainly not players like PP, KG, RA, KD, Shaq, Kobe, Wade or Dirk. LeBron maybe?
By the way, you misspelled contending.I'm sure I did. Glad to be talking to smart people who are able to understand what I mean regardless.
Is that an attempt to be sarcastic?I think it's pretty clear what I'm saying. I've bolded it for you.This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Are you trying to say that Rondo was no more than our fourth most important player in either 2010 or last year, or are you trying to say that neither of those seasons count as deep playoff runs?
I don't think that what you bolded is any clearer than "Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs". Did you leave Rondo's name out of the sentence by accident?
The post I am trying to reply to claim that people who think Rondo cannot be the best player ignore how he "led our last four deep playoff runs".
It's pretty simple: nobody is ignoring it, because Rondo was never the best or the most important player on those playoff runs. Kevin Garnett was. At different points of those four years, Pierce, Allen and Rondo have alternated in the second banana spot, but even for that I'd give the nod to Pierce before anyone else.
Now that Garnett and Pierce have clearly lost a step and can no longer do what they did a couple of years ago, Rondo is the undisputed best player on the team. You see this team contending for anything any time soon?
I tend to agree with this, although I'd claim that Garnett was more instrumental to these runs than any other player on our roster.
All me to clarify:
Of all our playoff runs, we haven't had a single player be the main reason we got to where we were. When I hear posters say, "Rondo led us deep into the playoffs," I find that to be absurd. It takes more than one guy for this team to succeed. By that I mean, it takes more than one player to perform well consistently in the playoffs. The list I made above is pretty accurate, to me.
Look, I get that Rondo plays a key part, but I'd be lying if I said, "Rondo's the main reason we made those runs." That's selling the Big 3 VERY short.
So when I say I agree with kozlodev I mean I agree that Rondo wasn't the focal point of our recent playoff success. Rather, it was a mixture of Rondo and the vets. And like I said, we are relying on Pierce and KG WAY too much this year.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This.
Paul and KG led our title run.
Paul, Ray, and Rondo in '09.
Paul and Rondo in '10.
The Big 4 were all ok in '11.
KG and Rondo last year.
As you can see, Rondo has never been the focal point of a playoff run. He's always needed one or more of the vets to take on a load.
This year, I have concerns that we are relying too much on Pierce and KG.
First of all he's claiming that the big three and not Rondo led the playoff runs, so you're disagreeing with the post you're agreeing with when you claim it was, for instance, Rondo and KG and not the big 3 in 2012. Secondly, how many players lead teams to deep playoff runs when nobody else on the team takes on a load? Certainly not players like PP, KG, RA, KD, Shaq, Kobe, Wade or Dirk. LeBron maybe?
All me to clarify:
Of all our playoff runs, we haven't had a single player be the main reason we got to where we were. When I hear posters say, "Rondo led us deep into the playoffs," I find that to be absurd. It takes more than one guy for this team to succeed. By that I mean, it takes more than one player to perform well consistently in the playoffs. The list I made above is pretty accurate, to me.
Look, I get that Rondo plays a key part, but I'd be lying if I said, "Rondo's the main reason we made those runs." That's selling the Big 3 VERY short.
So when I say I agree with kozlodev I mean I agree that Rondo wasn't the focal point of our recent playoff success. Rather, it was a mixture of Rondo and the vets. And like I said, we are relying on Pierce and KG WAY too much this year.
Rondo wasn't second banana last year and he wasn't in 2010. KG and PP didn't just lose a step right now, this year, for KG it happened when he blew out his knee, for Pierce it's been gradual over the last few years.Our decline into being a pedestrian team has been gradual over the last few years, too. Though for the record, Pierce has been pretty much the same guy in the playoffs over the last 5 years.
This has been an interesting debate. I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.
Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
This.
Paul and KG led our title run.
Paul, Ray, and Rondo in '09.
Paul and Rondo in '10.
The Big 4 were all ok in '11.
KG and Rondo last year.
As you can see, Rondo has never been the focal point of a playoff run. He's always needed one or more of the vets to take on a load.
This year, I have concerns that we are relying too much on Pierce and KG.
First of all he's claiming that the big three and not Rondo led the playoff runs, so you're disagreeing with the post you're agreeing with when you claim it was, for instance, Rondo and KG and not the big 3 in 2012. Secondly, how many players lead teams to deep playoff runs when nobody else on the team takes on a load? Certainly not players like PP, KG, RA, KD, Shaq, Kobe, Wade or Dirk. LeBron maybe?
All me to clarify:
Of all our playoff runs, we haven't had a single player be the main reason we got to where we were. When I hear posters say, "Rondo led us deep into the playoffs," I find that to be absurd. It takes more than one guy for this team to succeed. By that I mean, it takes more than one player to perform well consistently in the playoffs. The list I made above is pretty accurate, to me.
Look, I get that Rondo plays a key part, but I'd be lying if I said, "Rondo's the main reason we made those runs." That's selling the Big 3 VERY short.
So when I say I agree with kozlodev I mean I agree that Rondo wasn't the focal point of our recent playoff success. Rather, it was a mixture of Rondo and the vets. And like I said, we are relying on Pierce and KG WAY too much this year.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I used the term "led," I wasn't trying to imply that Rondo did it on his own, or that Pierce and Garnett haven't been major factors in our recent playoff runs.
I do think, though, that ever since our championship season, Rondo has been our most consistent playoff performer.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I used the term "led," I wasn't trying to imply that Rondo did it on his own, or that Pierce and Garnett haven't been major factors in our recent playoff runs.I have no arguments against his contribution, or against the consistency of his performance. But the difference between the space you have to operate with three HoFers in the tail end of their prime, and when you're the best player on the floor is quite evident. And I while I'm sure Rondo can flourish in the former situation, I'm not sure he has the tools to consistently tackle the latter.
I do think, though, that ever since our championship season, Rondo has been our most consistent playoff performer.
Quote from: CelticsFan9I tend to agree with this, although I'd claim that Garnett was more instrumental to these runs than any other player on our roster.
All me to clarify:
Of all our playoff runs, we haven't had a single player be the main reason we got to where we were. When I hear posters say, "Rondo led us deep into the playoffs," I find that to be absurd. It takes more than one guy for this team to succeed. By that I mean, it takes more than one player to perform well consistently in the playoffs. The list I made above is pretty accurate, to me.
Look, I get that Rondo plays a key part, but I'd be lying if I said, "Rondo's the main reason we made those runs." That's selling the Big 3 VERY short.
So when I say I agree with kozlodev I mean I agree that Rondo wasn't the focal point of our recent playoff success. Rather, it was a mixture of Rondo and the vets. And like I said, we are relying on Pierce and KG WAY too much this year.
I think Rondo is a great player. I think he'll be an amazing second best player, who can absolutely kill you while you're busy stopping the team's best player. But he's patently unfit to be a top dog pretty much for the same reason for which Dwight Howard is: isn't a great scorer, isn't a great shooter, and can't make his free throws.
You can harp all you want about his overall contribution to the game (which is undeniable), but the pattern that has emerged from the decline of Pierce and Garnett as primary offensive options is hard to argue with.
Rondo wasn't second banana last year and he wasn't in 2010. KG and PP didn't just lose a step right now, this year, for KG it happened when he blew out his knee, for Pierce it's been gradual over the last few years.Our decline into being a pedestrian team has been gradual over the last few years, too. Though for the record, Pierce has been pretty much the same guy in the playoffs over the last 5 years.
And I have a hard time taking seriously your argument that Rondo wasn't a second banana last year, when Garnett averaged 19 and 10 on .500 shooting
Rondo wasn't second banana last year and he wasn't in 2010. KG and PP didn't just lose a step right now, this year, for KG it happened when he blew out his knee, for Pierce it's been gradual over the last few years.Our decline into being a pedestrian team has been gradual over the last few years, too. Though for the record, Pierce has been pretty much the same guy in the playoffs over the last 5 years.
And I have a hard time taking seriously your argument that Rondo wasn't a second banana last year, when Garnett averaged 19 and 10 on .500 shooting
2 less points, 3 less rebounds, *10* more assists a game. You generally couldn't give the ball to KG and expect him to create anything for himself and others. That job was mainly in Rondo's hands. Take the argument seriously or not, but it's an easy one to make. And Pierce hasn't really been the same guy late in games when you really needed a bucket, which was his bread and butter for years.
I'm not sure where you saw this pattern. Rondo was pretty much the same guy in the playoffs last year that he was in 08-09 and 09-10.You can harp all you want about his overall contribution to the game (which is undeniable), but the pattern that has emerged from the decline of Pierce and Garnett as primary offensive options is hard to argue with.
The pattern we saw last year was Rondo having a larger load on the offensive end and a trip to the ECF.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I used the term "led," I wasn't trying to imply that Rondo did it on his own, or that Pierce and Garnett haven't been major factors in our recent playoff runs.I have no arguments against his contribution, or against the consistency of his performance. But the difference between the space you have to operate with three HoFers in the tail end of their prime, and when you're the best player on the floor is quite evident. And I while I'm sure Rondo can flourish in the former situation, I'm not sure he has the tools to consistently tackle the latter.
I do think, though, that ever since our championship season, Rondo has been our most consistent playoff performer.
Rondo wasn't second banana last year and he wasn't in 2010. KG and PP didn't just lose a step right now, this year, for KG it happened when he blew out his knee, for Pierce it's been gradual over the last few years.Our decline into being a pedestrian team has been gradual over the last few years, too. Though for the record, Pierce has been pretty much the same guy in the playoffs over the last 5 years.
And I have a hard time taking seriously your argument that Rondo wasn't a second banana last year, when Garnett averaged 19 and 10 on .500 shooting
2 less points, 3 less rebounds, *10* more assists a game. You generally couldn't give the ball to KG and expect him to create anything for himself and others. That job was mainly in Rondo's hands. Take the argument seriously or not, but it's an easy one to make. And Pierce hasn't really been the same guy late in games when you really needed a bucket, which was his bread and butter for years.
I'm not a fan of comparing a C/PF's stats to a PG's stats. Is it really KG's job to get 10 assists? Is it really Rondo's job to get 10 rebounds?
Well, he hasn't wowed me. Sure, he's pounded the ball a lot, and he's gotten his stat line (which is pretty much a given, based on the extended minutes he plays). But he hasn't closed many games, and playing with the lesser versions of Pierce and Garnett and Pierce has made us a .500 team.Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I used the term "led," I wasn't trying to imply that Rondo did it on his own, or that Pierce and Garnett haven't been major factors in our recent playoff runs.I have no arguments against his contribution, or against the consistency of his performance. But the difference between the space you have to operate with three HoFers in the tail end of their prime, and when you're the best player on the floor is quite evident. And I while I'm sure Rondo can flourish in the former situation, I'm not sure he has the tools to consistently tackle the latter.
I do think, though, that ever since our championship season, Rondo has been our most consistent playoff performer.
We're past the prime on PP and KG and Ray's on South Beach. Rondo hasn't exactly wilted this year (or last year for that matter).
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I used the term "led," I wasn't trying to imply that Rondo did it on his own, or that Pierce and Garnett haven't been major factors in our recent playoff runs.I have no arguments against his contribution, or against the consistency of his performance. But the difference between the space you have to operate with three HoFers in the tail end of their prime, and when you're the best player on the floor is quite evident. And I while I'm sure Rondo can flourish in the former situation, I'm not sure he has the tools to consistently tackle the latter.
I do think, though, that ever since our championship season, Rondo has been our most consistent playoff performer.
Celtics fans when a player has a good game against us: OMG HES SO GOOD, LETS TRADE FOR HIM.. RONDO SUCKS, HOW CAN HE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OFF GAME?? WE DONT EVEN CARE WHEN HE HAS A GOOD GAME, WE SHOULD TAKE HIM FOR GRANTED..
Tim, I think you jinxed Rondo. Two straight triple-doubles, two straight losses.
The last two losses have been a great example of why I'd prefer a guy like Kyrie, though. We just don't have a guy who can consistently dominate the fourth quarter. Rondo, as great as his all-around contributions are, hasn't really been able to do that with any consistency.
Meanwhile, Kyrie dropped 35 tonight in a Cavs win.
I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
Tim, I think you jinxed Rondo. Two straight triple-doubles, two straight losses.
The last two losses have been a great example of why I'd prefer a guy like Kyrie, though. We just don't have a guy who can consistently dominate the fourth quarter. Rondo, as great as his all-around contributions are, hasn't really been able to do that with any consistency.
Don't get me wrong. I love Irving and don't need to be sold on him as a player. I just think, unlike Iverson, he will see that a PG that wants to lead his team to a title and be truly transcendental at the PG position has to make his team mates better by making sure he gets the whole team involved since a PG has the ball in his hands so much.I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
He won an MVP, carried an extremely weak supporting cast to the NBA Finals, and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame?
Iverson was a great player. Imagine a less selfish, extremely efficient version who happened to be a model citizen? That's who Kyrie can be.
For this team, I'd be tempted to take prime Iverson over Rondo, too. At least we'd have a chance at a title with Iverson.
People forget how good AI was. I still have no idea how that Philly team (which was also dealing with crazy injuries) got to the Finals, and scared LA to death (every game was very close). It speaks volumes about him. He was an unbelievable player...at times completely unstoppable, which is unreal considering how small he was.I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
He won an MVP, carried an extremely weak supporting cast to the NBA Finals, and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame?
Iverson was a great player. Imagine a less selfish, extremely efficient version who happened to be a model citizen? That's who Kyrie can be.
For this team, I'd be tempted to take prime Iverson over Rondo, too. At least we'd have a chance at a title with Iverson.
Tim, I think you jinxed Rondo. Two straight triple-doubles, two straight losses.
(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)
Love this kid.
(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)
Love this kid.
Isn't that a travel?
He is quite a scorer though.
Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
Ah, Lebron, ever the front-runner.Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
Ah, Lebron, ever the front-runner.Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
Remembering the time Iverson went to the finals is like remembering the time Ben Wallace made a free throw. Both are flukes. If we had Iverson and Pierce both in their primes at the same time, Pierce would not be the Pierce that we know now.I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
He won an MVP, carried an extremely weak supporting cast to the NBA Finals, and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame?
Iverson was a great player. Imagine a less selfish, extremely efficient version who happened to be a model citizen? That's who Kyrie can be.
For this team, I'd be tempted to take prime Iverson over Rondo, too. At least we'd have a chance at a title with Iverson.
Remembering the time Iverson went to the finals is like remembering the time Ben Wallace made a free throw. Both are flukes. If we had Iverson and Pierce both in their primes at the same time, Pierce would not be the Pierce that we know now.I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
He won an MVP, carried an extremely weak supporting cast to the NBA Finals, and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame?
Iverson was a great player. Imagine a less selfish, extremely efficient version who happened to be a model citizen? That's who Kyrie can be.
For this team, I'd be tempted to take prime Iverson over Rondo, too. At least we'd have a chance at a title with Iverson.
And Rondo does it EVERY year. Not one year out of 13 or 14.Remembering the time Iverson went to the finals is like remembering the time Ben Wallace made a free throw. Both are flukes. If we had Iverson and Pierce both in their primes at the same time, Pierce would not be the Pierce that we know now.I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
He won an MVP, carried an extremely weak supporting cast to the NBA Finals, and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame?
Iverson was a great player. Imagine a less selfish, extremely efficient version who happened to be a model citizen? That's who Kyrie can be.
For this team, I'd be tempted to take prime Iverson over Rondo, too. At least we'd have a chance at a title with Iverson.
Rondo's also taken teams roughly as far as AI ever did as well, and done it at a younger age. I don't think that really adds up to having a chance at a title with Iverson and not with Rondo.
Rondo's also taken teams roughly as far as AI ever did as well, and done it at a younger age. I don't think that really adds up to having a chance at a title with Iverson and not with Rondo.
Rondo's also taken teams roughly as far as AI ever did as well, and done it at a younger age. I don't think that really adds up to having a chance at a title with Iverson and not with Rondo.
That's nonsense.
Iverson's fellow starters were George Lynch, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow, and Theo Ratliff (and later in the year, Dikembe). In the playoffs, Jumaine Jones started 2/3 of Philly's games.
Rondo's were Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kendrick Perkins.
I think there's a question about who "carried" Rondo's team to the Finals. There's no question with Iverson's.
Oh, he's the king of packaging stuff for the masses. But the truth is that with Wade breaking down, and Bosh being utterly replaceable, he really won't have anything to go back to in Miami.Ah, Lebron, ever the front-runner.Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
He could sell that one as a Cinderella story, healing old wounds with his home city.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)
Love this kid.
(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)
Love this kid.
Isn't that a travel?
He is quite a scorer though.
Looks like he was already in the air when he picked up his dribble. Just landed, launched. No travel in this gif.(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)
Love this kid.
Isn't that a travel?
He is quite a scorer though.
Looked like a travel to me too. Still made for a fun show though.
Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
I was thinking about that and they would need one more frontcourt player I think to really make them incredible/unstoppable...
Kenneth Faried.
Any chance they could trade away Thompson, Zeller, and a future 1st for Faried?
I'm thinking no, but what if they also trade away Varejao to a contender with that team sending back another prospect to Denver? I think Varejao could fetch a prospect of high enough level to make that deal get done.
Thompson looks like he is going to be a pretty darn good player. Zeller has potential as well. Heck even Speights might still be there. With Lebron and Irving, that is probably enough.Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
I was thinking about that and they would need one more frontcourt player I think to really make them incredible/unstoppable...
Kenneth Faried.
Any chance they could trade away Thompson, Zeller, and a future 1st for Faried?
I'm thinking no, but what if they also trade away Varejao to a contender with that team sending back another prospect to Denver? I think Varejao could fetch a prospect of high enough level to make that deal get done.
I think a healthy Varejao would be enough. Whether you can count on a healthy Varejao is another story.
But a Lebron + Irving + Varejao core is definitely championship worthy. Just add in some defensive role players and you're all set.Link (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=59465.msg1296524#msg1296524)
Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
I was thinking about that and they would need one more frontcourt player I think to really make them incredible/unstoppable...
Kenneth Faried.
Any chance they could trade away Thompson, Zeller, and a future 1st for Faried?
I'm thinking no, but what if they also trade away Varejao to a contender with that team sending back another prospect to Denver? I think Varejao could fetch a prospect of high enough level to make that deal get done.
I think a healthy Varejao would be enough. Whether you can count on a healthy Varejao is another story.
But a Lebron + Irving + Varejao core is definitely championship worthy. Just add in some defensive role players and you're all set.Link (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=59465.msg1296524#msg1296524)
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
Yeah, regardless of how we feel as fans, it's probably fair to say that Kyrie has substantially more value around the league than Rondo (even prior to the injury).
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I wouldn't picture you lasting long enough in charge of a team (or even a lunch order) to be perennial anything, so maybe you would make a better GM than the consensus opinion. It would give your replacement a head start on fixing your mess. So we're in agreement, TP.
And as an added bonus, Ricky Davis (whom you defended as a worthwhile gamble) and Mark Blount (whose signing you excused as defensible because we didn't have a franchise big man) are both available! Rondo, Ricky Davis, and Blount, the BBallTim Dream Team, are all within reach.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.
The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited. Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points. Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.
So? Was anyone disputing those things?The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited. Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points. Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds.
The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.
However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.
So? Was anyone disputing those things?The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited. Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points. Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds.
The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.
Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post. I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing. Geez, calm down a bit, chief.
And yes, that is why the strategy was effective. Nobody is disputing that either. If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.
However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.
There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).
Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open. Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.
You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average. Care to guess why? Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.
So? Was anyone disputing those things?The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited. Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points. Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds.
The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.
Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post. I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing. Geez, calm down a bit, chief.
And yes, that is why the strategy was effective. Nobody is disputing that either. If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.
And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.
And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.
However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.
There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).
Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open. Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.
You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average. Care to guess why? Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.
I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.
So? Was anyone disputing those things?The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited. Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points. Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds.
The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.
Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post. I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing. Geez, calm down a bit, chief.
And yes, that is why the strategy was effective. Nobody is disputing that either. If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.
And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.
I wouldn't call Cleveland the best team in the league. I'd call them LeBron James and a very limited supporting cast.
It's funny that you often proclaim that the playoffs are the only games that truly matter and use that to criticize other elite point guards and then call a team that never won a Finals game the "best team in the league".
Cleveland is exactly the type of team that always fades in the playoffs. They were a one dimensional team that had no other options once you were able to control and gameplan for that single dimension over a 7 game series.
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.
I am not even sure it's close.
Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.
How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...
OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.
I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.
Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.
So? Was anyone disputing those things?The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited. Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points. Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds.
The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.
Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post. I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing. Geez, calm down a bit, chief.
And yes, that is why the strategy was effective. Nobody is disputing that either. If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.
And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.
I wouldn't call Cleveland the best team in the league. I'd call them LeBron James and a very limited supporting cast.
It's funny that you often proclaim that the playoffs are the only games that truly matter and use that to criticize other elite point guards and then call a team that never won a Finals game the "best team in the league".
Cleveland is exactly the type of team that always fades in the playoffs. They were a one dimensional team that had no other options once you were able to control and gameplan for that single dimension over a 7 game series.
They had the best player in the league and the best record in the league. If you want to claim that they weren't the best team because "teams like that always fall apart in the playoffs" (in spite of the fact that they'd gone to the finals and the ecf in recent years) go for it.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.
However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.
There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).
Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open. Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.
You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average. Care to guess why? Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.
I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.
However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.
There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).
Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open. Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.
You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average. Care to guess why? Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.
I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
I'd have to look for the info, but it's not a large enough difference to knock Rondo's shooting in that range out of the "above average" category. I don't know off the top of my head, but I have a general idea of what the difference is. You apparently don't.
They weren't the best team in the league. Regular season record means very little. BBallTim has often told me so. You can ask him.
The Lakers were the best team in the league. They won the championship, after all. The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.
A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league. Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.
They weren't the best team in the league. Regular season record means very little. BBallTim has often told me so. You can ask him.
The Lakers were the best team in the league. They won the championship, after all. The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.
A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league. Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.
Yup, the Celtics were better than the Cavs in 2010, even though few observers thought that was the case going into their Eastern Conference Semifinals series. I submit that a major reason that the Celtics ended up being better than the Cavs was that we had Rajon Rondo.
Would you dispute the statement that we would have had very little chance to win that series without him?
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.
Sorry, can't agree with you there.
No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.
So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".
The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.
However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts. Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie. No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability. Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.
Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.
There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).
Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open. Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.
You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average. Care to guess why? Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.
I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.
I'd have to look for the info, but it's not a large enough difference to knock Rondo's shooting in that range out of the "above average" category. I don't know off the top of my head, but I have a general idea of what the difference is. You apparently don't.
An open shot is always a higher percentage than a covered shot. Aren't you always boasting about how Rondo gets his teammates open shots? If the difference were as minimal as you claim, then Rondo's greatest attribute would be severely diminised. I'd suggest that you have not the slightest idea about how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered. My guess is that your "general idea" is an immense exaggeration.
You should stop slamming Rondo. His ability to get us open shots is very important, because open shots are higher percentage than covered shots.
Anyway, this thread has turned into the usual He Said, BBallTym said about Rondo so I will make my exit. I'm sure the other posters are awaiting your reply with baited breath but I'll pass. I've already learned so much about the juggernaut 2010 Cavs, the best team in the league who lost in Round 2 to the team that lost in the Finals (and also lost the year prior to the team that lost in the ECF). But the 2010 Cavs were definitely better than the Celtics, Lakers, and Magic because they had a better reular season record.
They weren't the best team in the league. Regular season record means very little. BBallTim has often told me so. You can ask him.
The Lakers were the best team in the league. They won the championship, after all. The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.
A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league. Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.
Yup, the Celtics were better than the Cavs in 2010, even though few observers thought that was the case going into their Eastern Conference Semifinals series. I submit that a major reason that the Celtics ended up being better than the Cavs was that we had Rajon Rondo.
Would you dispute the statement that we would have had very little chance to win that series without him?
The media pundits are often wrong and I agree that the 2010 Celtics were better than the 2010 Cavs.
I don't dispute that Rondo was part of the reason why and I don't dispute that our chances to win the series without him would've been severely diminished.
I will say that the 2010 Cavs had the best player in the league, as BBallTym noted, but of the 5 best players in the series, Boston had 4. I'd like to know how many times the "best team in the league" only had 1 of the 5 best players in a given series. Please ask BBallTym to cite examples of the "best team in the league" having 1 of the top 5 players in any series (in some order, LeBron, KG, Pierce, Ray, Rondo). He has a long stretch of NBA history to work with. My guess is he has no sensible answer to that one, maybe a sarcastic, forgettable answer.