Celtics Blog Forums

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Roy H. on January 22, 2013, 09:55:37 PM

Title: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 22, 2013, 09:55:37 PM
Discuss...

Good game for Rondo, but Kyrie was at another level tonight.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ScottHow on January 22, 2013, 09:56:24 PM
I agree, tonight he was better.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: esel1000 on January 22, 2013, 09:57:37 PM
Far higher ceiling than Rondo definitely. I'd still argue Rondo is a better pass first pg, Kyrie is by far a better scorer though.

Cavs picked a good time to get the number 1 pick
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: PhoSita on January 22, 2013, 09:59:08 PM
(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
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Edgar on January 22, 2013, 10:00:59 PM
Soooo..

CROTORNATS Rocks right?


are we good picking players or what?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 22, 2013, 10:02:37 PM
Irving will be one of the greatest shooters this league will have ever seen by the time his career is done. But he is one of these new hybrid scoring PGs that people love.

To me if your a PG you have to make the rest of the team better by running an offense not running just your offense. Irving had a great shooting night. But I still say Rondo is a better point guard.

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.

Irving will be a STAR in this league and probably start most All-Star games once the Cavs start playing winning basketball. But right now, Rondo is a better overall player and PG.

And to this point Rondo has been a winner and Irving not. Yeah a lot of that is the personnel they play with and coaching but if I had to win one game in the playoffs, I want Rondo playing that game over Irving. As of right now that is.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Clench123 on January 22, 2013, 10:03:28 PM
Hyperbole and fluctuations often expressed on this forum is downright laughable.  Kyrie is not on Rondo's level and I'm not even saying that because I'm a Celtic.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: aporel#18 on January 22, 2013, 10:04:41 PM
Yeah, he's better at scoring, but Bradley was doing fine against him. I wonder why Rondo was defending Kyrie in the 4th.

And I hate the fact this kid is allowed to push his defender as if he was Kobe, Karate Hamster or MJ. He's an All Star by this.

Tonight it only feels like overreacting, but Rondo is still a better all around player. Kyrie can be the best PG in the League, though. And then you have Playoff Rondo, who is much better than Rondo. And I hate that.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 22, 2013, 10:04:46 PM
Tonight, sure...I guess.

Neither plays a lick of defense.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Onslaught on January 22, 2013, 10:11:29 PM
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.
I'm fine with Rondo as out PG, I'm not so happy with most of the other guys on the team right now.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: PhoSita on January 22, 2013, 10:12:26 PM

Neither plays a lick of defense.

Very solid point.  That's an area Kyrie has to improve in (along with playmaking for teammates).
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticG1 on January 22, 2013, 10:14:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: PhoSita on January 22, 2013, 10:21:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: SHAQATTACK on January 22, 2013, 10:21:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 22, 2013, 10:24:33 PM
Kyrie is an amazing scorer, this can not be disputed.

As far as I have seen so far, that is all he does though.  No defense, no making teammates better, no running an offense (he is a PG by the way-not a SG).

ESPN has all of you fooled.  Putting the ball in the basket in NOT the only aspect of the game of basketball.

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..  He's more like a more efficient version of Montae Ellis.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticG1 on January 22, 2013, 10:25:53 PM
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.

yeah well it's kind of a vague question to begin with.

If I'm starting a team from scratch I'll take a 20 year old irving.

Playoffs is kind of tricky. I dont think we do as well last year with Irving instead of Rondo but we'll never no.

Part of that is that Irving has played for a 5 win team the past 2 years.You obvioulsy see the incredible talent but the biggest stage he's been on is trying to not get last place in the league
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 22, 2013, 10:28:54 PM
(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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: LarBrd33 on January 22, 2013, 10:30:48 PM
He's only 20... kid is unreal.  I'd say more, but i've already said it dozens of times in other threads.  What he's doing at his age is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 22, 2013, 10:34:55 PM

Rondo is a better passer.

Agreed.

Quote
Rondo 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.

Quote
Rondo 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.

Quote
Rondo is a better rebounder.

Agreed.  He grabs around 20% more rebounds.

Quote
Rondo 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.

Quote
Irving 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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: dark_lord on January 22, 2013, 10:36:27 PM
kyrie for the win
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 22, 2013, 10:40:54 PM
Always been a big fan of Kyrie. Would love him here.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Change on January 22, 2013, 10:42:36 PM
Imagine Kyrie on the Celtics.  :o
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 22, 2013, 10:43:41 PM
Always been a big fan of Kyrie. Would love him here.

I thought Kyrie was going to be a bust.  He quickly proved me wrong.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 22, 2013, 10:49:41 PM
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated

He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: syfy9 on January 22, 2013, 10:52:09 PM
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated

He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.


Well, if Monta Ellis was more efficient, he'd be a superstar.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 22, 2013, 10:55:08 PM
Talk to me when he grabs 13 rebounds and averages more than that dreadful 5.3 assists.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 22, 2013, 10:56:07 PM
Kyrie is WAYYYYYY overrated

He's a more efficient Montae Ellis.


Well, if Monta Ellis was more efficient, he'd be a superstar.

Yeah.  An efficient, team-oriented Monta Ellis would be a monster.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 22, 2013, 10:57:14 PM
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...
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticG1 on January 22, 2013, 10:58:37 PM
(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
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 22, 2013, 11:00:22 PM

Rondo is a better passer.

Agreed.

Quote
Rondo 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.

Quote
Rondo 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.

Quote
Rondo is a better rebounder.

Agreed.  He grabs around 20% more rebounds.

Quote
Rondo 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.

Quote
Irving 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.
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.

For that reason, I feel Rondo runs the better team offense.

Also, as good a dribbler and penetrator as Irving is, Rondo is as good if not better, especially since he will look to include others and not look primarily for his offense, even when in the open court. Rondo is one of the fastest guys in the league and best dribblers. Irving is not at Rondo's level there. And isn't close to seeing the whole court the way Rondo does, who once again has some of the best court vision and passing ability, in both half court and open court opportunities.

Eventually Irving will surpass Rondo as a player. I might want him on my team if we were in a full rebuild, like Cleveland. But for this team, Rondo is much better.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 22, 2013, 11:12:45 PM
Quote
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..

A couple things. Rondo doesn't deserve to be mentioned with the likes of CP3 either.

Rondo may get a lot of assists, but there isn't much evidence that he runs an offense well. Look at the team's efficiency over the last couple years. This year, the C's have the 20th best offense. Last year - 24th. The year before - 18th. There are, of course, other factors: Lack of offensive rebounding and injuries, for example. But everyone assumes that Rondo is one of the best point guards in the league that 'makes teammates better' in a way that Rose, Irving and Deron don't. Meanwhile, there is no real evidence to that.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 22, 2013, 11:13:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 22, 2013, 11:18:59 PM
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.

That's great that Rondo has a high field goal percentage. Irving has a far better TS% and eFG%.

I'm also glad that Rondo takes charges since the rest of his defense has been quite poor this year.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 22, 2013, 11:19:09 PM
(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

That's an enormous stretch. KG, Paul, and Ray were all still all-stars during Rondo's successful playoff runs,  in their "prime" or not.  KG was a candidate for league MVP the year we won the title.  Those three Hall of Famers that I mentioned were All-Stars in the years we contended.  Pretending they were washed up because they weren't in their prime is a pet peeve of mine and a huge underestimation of their skills.  The insinuation that KG, Paul, and Ray have been washed up during Rondo's success is inaccurate.

You think Chris Paul would rather have a 29 year old David West or a 34 year old KG, 34 year old Ray Allen, and 32 year old Paul Pierce?

I know id rather have the latter group.

Let's also not compare Blake Griffin to Kevin Garnett just yet.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: PhoSita on January 22, 2013, 11:20:26 PM


Quote
Rondo 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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 22, 2013, 11:23:18 PM


Quote
Rondo 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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 22, 2013, 11:29:52 PM


Quote
Rondo 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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: PhoSita on January 22, 2013, 11:33:00 PM


Quote
Rondo 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?

Since Varejao went down T.T. has been pretty darn good.  Averaging close to 10 and 10 in 30 minutes or something like that.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 22, 2013, 11:34:33 PM


Quote
Rondo 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.

??

The Cavs rank 22nd in offensive rating, the Celts rank 26th.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 22, 2013, 11:35:36 PM


Quote
Rondo 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.

Purely looking at the stats, their Offensive Rating (points produced per 100 possessions) is slightly higher than Boston's, (and was slightly better last year too), so it's a reasonable statement to make.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 22, 2013, 11:38:19 PM
Offensive efficiency

Boston 100.2
Cleveland 98.9

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats

Boston 20th
Cleveland 27th
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 22, 2013, 11:41:12 PM
Nick, the Celtics offensive efficiency with Rondo on the court: 103.4. The Cavs efficiency with Irving on the court: 107.1.

Actually, and this is interesting, the Celtics offense this year has been BETTER with Rondo OFF the court (105.6). Now, I don't put too much stock in on/off stats because Rondo is on the court for more than 3 quarters of a game, making the sample size of him off the court too small for a truly indicative comparison....but interesting nonetheless. 

http://www.82games.com/1213/12BOS1.HTM#onoff

http://www.82games.com/1213/12CLE1.HTM#onoff
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Eddie20 on January 22, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on January 22, 2013, 11:49:08 PM
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.

This!

I know Kyrie is a superstar, but to me he's just a better scorer with a much better skill set than Rajon. I think Rajon is better at everything else.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 22, 2013, 11:49:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: syfy9 on January 22, 2013, 11:52:58 PM
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...

No? I'm saying that Monta Ellis would be a superstar if he was a more efficient player.

If you take Monta and make him better at scoring/handling the ball/passing, he'd be a Westbrook/Rose kind of player. He's also averaging 5.4 apg this season, you know.




Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: mqtcelticsfan on January 22, 2013, 11:58:20 PM
Kyrie is amazing. I'd take him over Rondo any day of the week, and Rondo is a fantastic player.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 22, 2013, 11:58:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 12:00:52 AM
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.

Yeah, and let's hope the Celtics are there when they do . . .
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 08:36:47 AM
Offensive efficiency

Boston 100.2
Cleveland 98.9

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats

Boston 20th
Cleveland 27th

Boston offensive rating:  102.1 (27th)
Cleveland offensive rating: 103.0 (20th)

That's according to basketball-reference.com.  It comes down to whose formula you prefer, Jimmy Oliver's or Hollinger's.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 23, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
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.
I'm fine with Rondo as out PG, I'm not so happy with most of the other guys on the team right now.
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: scaryjerry on January 23, 2013, 08:44:45 AM
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
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 08:50:01 AM
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

Kyrie is light years ahead of where Rondo was in his second year.  Rondo did play well against CP3 in his second year (although nowhere near as well as Irving played last night.)
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on January 23, 2013, 08:53:00 AM
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.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 23, 2013, 09:04:02 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticsFan9 on January 23, 2013, 09:08:13 AM
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 agree with ssspence.  Kyrie's younger, which means he has the potential to become a better defender, passer, rebounder, and winner.  I'm not saying Rondo can't improve in any of these categories, it's just that he doesn't have as much time as Irving.

Irving also has more potential than Rondo.  That's going to attract a lot, if not all, GMs.

If we could trade Rondo for Irving straight-up, I'd have to think long and hard about it.  Maybe not this year, but next year, absolutely.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 09:12:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 09:14:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on January 23, 2013, 09:16:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on January 23, 2013, 09:22:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on January 23, 2013, 09:23:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: SHAQATTACK on January 23, 2013, 09:26:09 AM
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.

I  TOTALLY AGREE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Rondo has his great nights.  But, Kyrie is as tuff as Rondo , built like a tank and can score ANYTIME his team needs him to , and yet CAN play unselfish. Rondo just can't take over like CP3 , Rose, or Kyrie or even Curry.  Rondo needs stars to bring out his game. Our stars are past their prime.  :'(

Yes we would be probally  6-7 games ABOVE .500 right now with Kyrie playing EVERY GAME  and a healthy AB , we would be asured playoff contenders .

A Celtics team with Cousins and Kyrie would be a good bet to win ANY NIGHT against anybody.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 09:42:52 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 23, 2013, 09:45:45 AM
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.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 09:49:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: StartOrien on January 23, 2013, 09:51:36 AM
Yeesh,

Let it go, Roy. Celticsblog draft is supposed to be a fun activity to pass us through the dog days of Summer.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: StartOrien on January 23, 2013, 09:52:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 09:53:29 AM
Yeesh,

Let it go, Roy. Celticsblog draft is supposed to be a fun activity to pass us through the dog days of Summer.

Haha.  I should probably start biting my tongue a bit more regarding Jeff Green.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 09:55:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 09:57:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 23, 2013, 09:59:04 AM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Fan from VT on January 23, 2013, 09:59:31 AM
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.

Also, Consider that:
-There is no correlation between a team's assist totals and offensive efficiency. Just different styles.
-Not sure about the correlation of a single player with high assists and offensive efficiency, but I'd strongly guess that it is not significant (rather, most players with high assists are superstars, and the superstar part is more important (Nash, Paul) than the assist part.
-In the C's previous pre-KG playoff era, Walker maxed out at 5.0 assists per game and pierce was a 25+ night per game scorer. We were about middle of the pack offensively in those years (like this year/recent years). I would venture to guess that adding a potent all-star scorer with middling (5 apg range) assist numbers to that 01-02 team (Iverson, Cassel, Damon Stoudemire, Carter, Allen, McGrady) would have opened things up just as much as adding Rondo to that team.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Fan from VT on January 23, 2013, 10:01:03 AM
Also, side topic, but i think the term "true" or "Pure" point guard is used to make GMs/Fans feel better about their guy's major flaw at actually getting the ball into the hoop than it is a useful term that describes something that helps win more than another style of play.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celticslove on January 23, 2013, 10:01:21 AM
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.
don't forget the drose injury factor, completely change our path to the ECF.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: wdleehi on January 23, 2013, 10:02:46 AM
Either way you fall on this debate it does make one thing very clear:




If the Celtics aver decide to trade Rondo, the return is likely going to be disappointing because of the depth of PGs in the NBA today. 






And I agree that Kyrie would be an upgrade for this team giving them a true number 1 threat. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: StartOrien on January 23, 2013, 10:05:21 AM
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.
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.

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.

But Nick,

Don't you think that Rondo's deficiencies as a shooter kills this team's offense? I like a pass first point guard myself, but I think the ability to hit an open shot at that position is more important than being a great facilitator.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 10:07:01 AM
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.
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.

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.

Different styles of players can win games and championships.  Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker won titles as score first PGs.  Derek Fisher and Mario Chalmers won titles as role players on great teams.  There really is no magic formula for winning titles as a point guard.

I don't have a type of PG.  I'd gladly take the best player available if I were a GM (or the guy that fit my team best), regardless of whatever label you may want to slap onto him.

Scoring isn't a sin anyway, after all, the team that scores the most points wins every game I've ever seen.  The days of Bob Cousy are long over.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 10:07:13 AM
Discuss...

Good game for Rondo, but Kyrie was at another level tonight.

  Kirie was on another level tonight. But what if he's not on a career night, hits a more typical 11 of 24 and the Cavs lose the game? What if the Celts *can* hit the broad side of a barn, hit their typical percentage of shots, Rondo ends up with a triple double and the Celts win by double digits even with Irving scoring 40? Are you still going to claim that Irving's better? I guess it comes down to how much more you value scoring than every other skill in a point guard.

  For the record, I'm a pretty big Irving fan. I still think he's lacking in some skills but I'd say he's probably the best shooting/scoring pg in the league and he's a fairly elite clutch scorer. But having said that, when he's not scoring (like the 2nd and 3rd quarters last night) he contributes little to a team. Rondo did little to no scoring in those periods either but was still getting rebounds, running the offense, getting assists and the like. Rondo can take over games without scoring, Kirie (from what I've seen) doesn't contribute much when he isn't scoring.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: StartOrien on January 23, 2013, 10:10:11 AM
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.

I'm going off the top of my head here so I might mess his team up a little but I think it was

(Me)

CP3 / Irving
Kobe / Iguodala
Durant
KG / Dirk
D12 / Duncan

(Him)

Westbrook / Curry
Wade / Harden
Melo
Lebron / Love / Z-Bo
Chandler
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 10:13:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: StartOrien on January 23, 2013, 10:15:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 23, 2013, 10:16:10 AM
Irving is a stud no doubt but there is no way in Hades he is better than Rondo.

Irving can flat out score there is no question about it. But he's getting 19 shots per game to Rondos 12 and he is playing on a team that doesnt have many other options to score. Irving can put the ball in the hoop but as far as commanding an offense, there should be no comparison.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 10:16:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 10:18:52 AM
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.

  We might be playing better now, we would probably be playing worse earlier in the season when Rondo was on his assist streak. But I'm not really a big fan of using "who would do more for a crappy team" to pick my point guard.

  And we'd be better off in the playoffs with Rondo.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 10:20:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on January 23, 2013, 10:20:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 10:22:13 AM
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.

co-sign your co-sign.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celticslove on January 23, 2013, 10:26:03 AM
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.

co-sign your co-sign.
count me in
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 10:28:01 AM
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.

  He averaged less than 2 unassisted baskets a game. KG brings a lot to the table, just not elite scoring. I don't see why this is really in dispute.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 10:29:11 AM

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.


  ...mainly because of a lack of offensive rebounding.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: OsirusCeltics on January 23, 2013, 10:31:22 AM
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
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 23, 2013, 10:33:31 AM
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.

You are referencing extremely flimsy, unsourced and unconfirmed rumors as fact here.  I just wanted to clarify that. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 23, 2013, 10:35:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 10:40:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 10:44:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 10:45:31 AM
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.
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.

Sure, Rondo is a great piece, but he's just not well-suited  to be the first piece of a rebuilding team.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: MBunge on January 23, 2013, 10:49:16 AM
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 think there's a lot of criticisms you can make against Rondo, but that's ridiculous.  Rajon Rondo should not be walking the ball up halfcourt and pounding the dribble for 10 to 15 seconds of the shot clock waiting for one of Doc's rigid and complex plays to unfold in order to get someone other than Rondo a shot.  Just about everything about this team's offense and defense is still tailored around KG and Pierce and Rondo's in handcuffs because of it.

And by the way....is Wilcox still hurt?  I can understand Barbosa not playing, but Wilcox has proven that he's one guy who can play with Rondo.

Mike
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 23, 2013, 10:59:07 AM
I'm very impressed with Kyrie Irving.  The kid is a fantastic scorer, and he's only 20 years old. 

Before I anoint him as a surefire All-time great, I'd like to see him play in a playoff series or two first.  He averages about 5.5 assists per game and turns the ball over about as much as Rondo per game.  I appreciate the argument that these numbers are mainly due to the teammates he plays with, but I wonder how he would handle consistent, aggressive traps and double teams by a good defensive playoff team. 

On the other hand, fans love to rant and rail about Rondo's regular season inconsistency, but he has proven over the course of the past four years that he can lead his team deep into the playoffs.  He has proven that he can mix up when he scores and when he passes, depending on how the defense plays him.  His unpredictability and unique style make him built for the playoffs.  He's really hard to game plan against.  Opposing coaches aren't sure what to do with him.  Trapping him aggressively is not a good idea because of his vision and playing him to pass is proving to be a less and less effective strategy against him, particularly in the playoffs. 

I suspect the Celtics will be in the playoffs again this year, and when they do get there, I expect Rondo to be one of the toughest players to deal with in a seven game series situation in the league, as he's proven over and over again to be over the course of the last four years. 

Kyrie Irving is putting up great regular season numbers as a very young player on a very bad team.  Because we've never seen it happen, I think there are many more question marks about how he would perform in a playoff series.  I think it would be wise to at least wait to see how he answers some of those questions before declaring him hands down a more valuable player than one of the best playoff performers of the current NBA era. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: slamtheking on January 23, 2013, 11:02:17 AM
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.
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.

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.

However, if I was starting from the ground up on a rebuilding project, I'd take Irving mostly because he's much younger than Rondo and will be in his prime when the team develops.  On the flip side though, Rondo may be the better player to have to help a young team develop and learn how to win and develop an unselfish team attitude.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 11:12:05 AM
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.

  You seem to be saying 2 things pertinent to the discussion about whether PP is an elite scorer. You're admitting that PP doesn't score like the elite scorers in the league while at the same time claiming that my statement that PP (while playing hurt in the playoffs) wasn't scoring like an elite scorer. Pick a side in the discussion and get back to me.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: slamtheking on January 23, 2013, 11:30:35 AM
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.
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 IMHO
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 11:33:07 AM
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.
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 IMHO
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: wiley on January 23, 2013, 11:36:14 AM
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.
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.

Sure, Rondo is a great piece, but he's just not well-suited  to be the first piece of a rebuilding team.

What qualities must a "first piece" have?  It seems you're saying the first piece must be the best scorer on the team, but I'm sure you'd agree that KG is/was also a great first piece due to his defense and leadership.  And it's easy to think of dominant centers like Dwight or maybe Cousins and Drummond before long as first pieces. 

Seems to me you take your rebuilding pieces in whatever order they happen to fall to you, where prudent taking a player whose skill set meshes well with the other pieces, with a keen eye on best player available of course. 

I ask because I'm not a fan of saying a team should be built this way or that, and each new great team seems to have followed a formula like no other formula before.  If New Orleans grabs Dwight Howard this offseason and they win a title in two years, who would you say was their first piece?  The rookie Anthony Davis?  Howard because he's the biggest star?  Eric Gordon for being there the longest?  Greivis Vasquez? 

If we're left in a year or two with Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sully and Fab, then Rondo is in fact the first piece, and we'll need to add one to two superstar level talents to start moving in the direction of contender. 

I agree with you that at that point if you have to trade a piece to get an even better piece, you do it, but that depends on how close your team is to turning the corner to greatness.  If we could add Lebron and Ibaka, just for example, to the above starting 5, then you don't go and trade Rondo for Wiggins (unless you actually believe it's a present upgrade as well as future).  You sign the two guys and go immediately for a championship.  If there's no one to sign then yeah, turn Rondo into a younger, greener, but potentially greater player.

It all depends, doesn't it?  If what people mean by "first piece" is best player, then it's better to just say best player.  But the logic gets fuzzy and I don't get the part where we're supposed to give up Rondo because we can't win it all with him as our best player-- People seem to be saying it would be impossible to get players better than Rondo to join him.  I don't get that.  Just need cap space, no?



Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 11:39:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: RJ87 on January 23, 2013, 11:47:13 AM
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett

Now that's a discussion.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on January 23, 2013, 11:59:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 23, 2013, 12:01:50 PM
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.

Who gets more assists and rebounds in the fourth quarter?
Who has a better midrange FG%?

I mean that three vs. Philly in Game 7 really showed us his scarediness.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: PhoSita on January 23, 2013, 12:05:04 PM
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.


Yeah, we've seen this with players like Rose and Paul before, too.

All they need to do is keep the game close until the fourth quarter and then they can go 1 on 1 and dominate.

A team led by Rondo needs to win by getting stops, or by getting hot from outside late in the game when opposing defenses really clamp down.  Rondo's defense isn't even all that good lately, so other than passing out to guys for low efficiency mid-range jumpers, what does he do in the 4th quarter?

I'll take Kyrie any day.  Rondo is a very nice player, but having a guy who can win you a game by himself on a consistent basis like that is just more valuable in this league.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: scaryjerry on January 23, 2013, 12:05:27 PM
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett

Now that's a discussion.


hmmmm no that's a fact.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 23, 2013, 12:06:14 PM
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett

Now that's a discussion.


hmmmm no that's a fact.

Debatable still.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: scaryjerry on January 23, 2013, 12:14:05 PM
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett

Now that's a discussion.


hmmmm no that's a fact.

Debatable still.

nope...Duncan had a better career and is currently better kg snuck in about 2 better seasons tops
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 12:28:34 PM
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:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: snively on January 23, 2013, 12:40:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Chris on January 23, 2013, 12:46:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 12:47:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: RyNye on January 23, 2013, 01:00:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 01:05:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: StartOrien on January 23, 2013, 01:08:31 PM
Quote
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.

I'm a big believer in the rhythm of the game, and I think one thing Rondo does better than any other player in the league is to not only hit players in stride, but put the ball in the perfect place for them to catch and shoot/finish.

For a shooter, there's a huge difference between catching the ball at your chest and catching at your stomach.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 01:21:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 23, 2013, 01:34:18 PM
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?

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!
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: wiley on January 23, 2013, 01:35:03 PM
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.

I agree basically, but I'm not ready to prefer Kyrie to Rondo in playoff games, maybe in a couple years. Need evdidence of how he handles a sincere attempt to shut him down by a team like Miami, and evidence that he doesn't have a bit Westbrook playoff syndrome, win a playoff game all by himself lose a playoff game all by himself. 

Despite being drafted #1, Irving was actually vastly underrated at the time of the draft.  No one thought he'd be in the discussion to supplant Paul, Wall, Rose as stud-du-jour.  They thought he'd be a good, solid PG.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 01:40:03 PM
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?

He doesn't average FIVE POINT THREE assists, he averages 5.7 this season, 5.5 over his career. And the main reason for this is that he's had to score a ton of points for his team to even be in the game, since the Cavs roster is chock-full of certified NBA scrubs.

Also, to get an assist the shooter actually has to score a basket, and the Cavaliers are second to last in the NBA in FG%.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 23, 2013, 01:40:56 PM
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.
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?

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 23, 2013, 01:45:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 01:51:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 01:55:27 PM
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:

Quote
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.

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.

  I can't load the spreadsheet either but they had the info summed up in one of the posts:

Total makes by Boston so far this year: 1166 Total Makes: 2564 Total turnovers: 500
Total non-Rondo assisted makes: 1166-231 = 935
Total non-Rondo assisted “opportunities” (attempts + turnovers): 3063 – 413 = 2650
Celts non-Rondo assisted makes/opportunities: 935/2650 = 35.3%
Celts Rondo-assisted makes/opportunities: 231/413 = 55.9%
Difference: 20.6%.
For Wall this number is 9.2%.

  Also:



“Total opportunities: 3244. Wall assisted opportunities: 572. Non-Wall-assisted: 3244 – 572 = 2672.

Total makes: 1178. Wall assisted makes: 251. Non-wall-assisted makes: 1178-251 = 927.

Non-wall-assisted "opportunities" : 927/2672 = 34.7.
Wall-assisted: 251/572 = 43.9%.

Difference: 9.2%."

It’s interesting that the Celtic’s non-Rondo assisted makes figure is 35.3%, only a little bit more than the Wizards non-Wall assisted make % of 34.7.


  So the Celts and the Wizards (no assist attempt from Rondo or Wall) were fairly identical but the Celts had a pretty large jump in efficiency off of passes from Rondo.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on January 23, 2013, 02:01:34 PM
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?


If that player could stretch the floor even remotely, and therefore forced his defender to respect his jumper, I think it would.

The Cs spacing often sucks, leading to awkward passes and stickiness at the end of the shot lock. It's pretty tough to watch. I don't really think its Rondo's fault -- he uses his gift for creativity as best he he can. It just can only take a guy who is not a good shooter so far....
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 23, 2013, 02:09:32 PM
Tim Duncan >Kevin Garnett

Now that's a discussion.

Not really. That is just truth.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 23, 2013, 02:15:43 PM
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.

Huh?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 23, 2013, 02:17:39 PM
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.
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?

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 23, 2013, 02:18:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 23, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 02:30:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 02:37:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 23, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 02:50:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 02:52:07 PM
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.

  While I agree Kirie's the better mid-range shooter, the fact that the margin you came up with is so miniscule is fairly impressive.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 02:53:56 PM
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.

For what it's worth, Irving is averaging 28 points in Cavs wins this season, and 21 points in losses. Rondo is exactly the same guy, statistically, both in wins and in losses. Not sure what this has to do with "impact on the game", anyhow.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 03:06:55 PM
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.

  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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 03:14:48 PM
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.

  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. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 03:19:32 PM
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.

  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.
First, his name is Kyrie.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 03:20:37 PM
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.

  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.

Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 03:21:08 PM
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.

  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.

  Seriously? By that logic leading a 10 win team to 20 wins would be more impactful than leading a 42 win team to an undefeated season.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 03:21:29 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 03:25:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Birdman on January 23, 2013, 03:28:37 PM
good debate going on here
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 03:30:07 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 23, 2013, 03:33:36 PM
Rondo is better, period.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 23, 2013, 03:36:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 03:39:19 PM
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.

Well, the midway point between the basket and the 3PT line is 12.5 feet, so I think 10-to-15 feet falls pretty squarely in the "mid-range" spectrum.

But regardless, that's why I looked at all those jumpers combined, and calculated the overall percentage.  Kyrie is a more frequent shooter, and a better one, although the difference is slighter than a lot of folks might have imagined.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 03:42:54 PM
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.

  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.
First, his name is Kyrie.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 03:47:11 PM
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.

  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.
First, his name is Kyrie.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 03:51:56 PM
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.

  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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 03:55:58 PM
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.

  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.
First, his name is Kyrie.

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.

  Widen the sample size to include the entire league over a number of years. You'll see similar results.

 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
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.

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.

  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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 04:10:53 PM
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.

  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.  How about the other games (95%) in which Rondo doesn't have a triple double?


All this proves is that speculatively, the best 5% of Rondo games are slightly better than the best 30% of Kyrie games.  Which, in essence, proves nothing.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 04:16:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 23, 2013, 04:25:52 PM
I was bored so I ran a quick chi-square test on the Rondo/Irving big game thing.

Basically, the difference in winning % is statistically significant for Rondo's triple-doubles (p=.005) but not for Irving's 25+ point games, though it's close (p=.070).  This is mostly a sample size issue, especially since the effect size for Irving's 25+ pt games is higher than for Rondo's triple-doubles (phi=.199 vs .129).  Both are squarely in the small effect size range.

I hope this has sufficiently clouded the issue further  ;)
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 04:28:29 PM
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.

  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.

  I didn't draw conclusions about the overall quality of two players based on that sample size, I just disputed someone's claim that Rondo's impact is on the stat sheet, not the game. Should I question your reading comprehension as well?

  If you look at last night's game, Irving (arguably the best game of his career) had the better night. One could argue, though, had the Celts had close to an average shooting night and Rondo had another 3-4 assists (and the win) the scales might have tipped the other way.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 04:44:52 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 04:46:21 PM
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 games (based on how frequently both of these have occurred over their careers so far).

So Irving's impact is clearly stronger than Rondo's -- Rondo's triple-doubles will be worth about 1 extra win, and Irving's 25+ games will be worth ~5 wins.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 04:52:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 04:53:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 04:54:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Smokeeye123 on January 23, 2013, 04:56:55 PM
Bradley and Rondo for Kyrie straight up?  ;D
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 04:58:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 05:07:19 PM
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?
I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 05:09:10 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 05:11:21 PM
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?
I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 05:14:44 PM
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?
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.

  Okay, in the interest of basic statistical methods we should probably table the argument until Irving is 30 or so and we can have a larger sample size.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 23, 2013, 05:15:50 PM
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?
I'm sorry, that's not the way impact analysis works.

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.
Not sure what's funny.

If you're going to calculate "additional wins" added by a Rondo triple-double, this impact only occurs when Rondo actually records a triple-double.

If you think that this is a poor measure of impact (with which I agree), then you should pick a different one.

But once you've picked a triple-double as a measure, you can't indiscriminately tack in the "additional wins" to every game, calling them "Rondo's contribution".

Maybe you find this funny. I personally find it kind of sad and disappointing, because I wouldn't pass a person in Intro to Stats if they don't understand where the flaw in your argument is.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 23, 2013, 05:33:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Kane3387 on January 23, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
That was embarrassing last night for Rajon. Kyrie in my opinion just proved he should be starting the All-Star game. He took it to Rondo all night.

Rondo had no business defending him. Bradley should have been all night. That is what he is there for, to defend the best guard.

Bad coaching by Doc.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Vermont Green on January 23, 2013, 06:03:36 PM
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.

Moranis, this is a very sensible post except for the very last thought.  Whether we keep Rondo or not, getting the next Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett is no easy task.

I am not looking to trade Rondo but I would also not hesitate if someone was willing to give up enough. I would not expect Rondo to fetch the next star in return though, unless we get really lucky.

I do agree with you totally though that a team with Rondo as their best player is not going far.  To me, that is becoming painfully apparent this year but for saying so many will respond that you think Rondo sucks.

Rondo is a very good player and can help a team in a lot of ways.  He can handle pressure and perform on the biggest stage but he can't be "the guy", at least not until he learns to shot better.

Irving can't either right now but I feel he is already slightly better than Rondo and has a higher upside.  We will see how much of that promise he actually fulfills.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: D.o.s. on January 23, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
Honestly, I have much higher expectations for a #1 draft pick than someone in the early 20's.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 23, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
In the past, Tim, you have always used on/off stats as evidence to Rondo's having a bigger impact on the game then other top (and much better point guards) in the league, for example CP3 and Deron. What do you make of the numbers this year that show the C's offense is better when Rondo is off the floor according to 82games?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: angryguy77 on January 23, 2013, 06:33:54 PM
Amazing how quickly the mob turns....Makes me wonder if they play in Boston or Springfield
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 23, 2013, 07:40:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 23, 2013, 10:30:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 23, 2013, 10:40:03 PM
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.

Maybe not, but, what exactly does it take to consider an opposing player better, when he CLEARLY is not?

Booze?  8)
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 23, 2013, 10:40:52 PM
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.
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?

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.
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.

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.

Why? It's simple. Williams has a player who has a very good and real inside game. Brooklyn has players with very good offensive rebounding abilities and make a concerted effort to get offensive rebounds. And they have players that make a concerted effort to go to the basket and then get to the foul line.

Give Rondo's those things in Boston, and my guess is Boston's offensive efficiency is much higher and there is not one poster on Celticsblog questioning whether Rondo can run an offense well or whether Irving's ability to run an offense is better than Rondo's
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 10:59:22 PM
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.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 23, 2013, 11:15:42 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 11:20:21 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 23, 2013, 11:38:15 PM
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.

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.
Let me just say I think you are completely wrong and leave it at that.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: lightspeed5 on January 23, 2013, 11:48:20 PM
every statistic,advanced statistic, and metric shows that rondo is a completely different beast in the playoffs
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 23, 2013, 11:49:15 PM
every statistic,advanced statistic, and metric shows that rondo is a completely different beast in the playoffs

Please share all of them with me.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 23, 2013, 11:53:53 PM
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?
 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 23, 2013, 11:56:01 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: soap07 on January 24, 2013, 12:06:53 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 24, 2013, 12:08:19 AM
Quote
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.

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.

Rondo is better. <adds no reasons>
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 24, 2013, 12:18:46 AM
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.

Fair enough.  And some pretty good points here, TP.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 24, 2013, 12:21:04 AM
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".  Having Alonzo Gee in your starting lineup can do its part towards not having efficient shots available.  Kyrie's teammates are memorably awful.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 24, 2013, 12:28:39 AM
Quote
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.

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.
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.

I am not saying Rondo is clearly better than Williams in those areas, in scoring efficiency and ability to facilitate I think they are even. But two years ago there were only two PGs I would have traded Rondo for one on one, Paul and Williams, and that's because Williams was clearly better than Rondo in most ways. Now, Williams is no longer in that discussion because Rondo's game has gotten better and Williams has slipped.

And besides you are obscuring the point. Brooklyn has a very good offensive efficiency. Boston doesn't. is it because Williams is so much better than Rondo at running an offense? No. He no longer runs an offense better than Rondo. But he has all those other things I mentioned that Rondo doesn't and hence, the better offensive efficiency rating for his team.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 12:32:00 AM
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.

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 12:40:49 AM
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".

  Keep telling yourself that. Rondo demands much less attention from a defense than Irving yet he's able to find the "open guy" on the majority of our offensive possessions. With so much of the defense focused on Irving, there's probably an open guy.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Quote
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.

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.

  Turnover percentage is influenced significantly by how many shots you take. Compared to Williams Rondo's had more assists, a higher assist% and a better assist/turnover ratio in each of the last 3 years.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ejk3489 on January 24, 2013, 02:12:16 AM
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.

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.

I think he's pretty clearly a different offensive player in the playoffs. His style of play is much, much more aggressive than it is in the regular season. For example, over the last 4 seasons his scoring, shot attempts, and free throw attempts have usually increased in the playoffs:

(Per 36 minutes)
'09 season: 13PTS - 11FGA - 3.7FTA
playoffs: 14.7PTS - 14FGA - 4.2FTA

'10 season: 13.5PTS - 9.5FGA - 3.4FTA
playoffs: 14PTS - 12FGA - 4.2FTA

'11 season: 10.3PTS - 10.5FGA - 1.9FTA
playoffs: 13.1PTS - 11.2FGA - 4FTA

'12 season: 11.6PTS - 11.5FGA - 3.3FTA
playoffs: 14.6PTS - 13.4FGA - 2.7FTA

You're right that his stats generally stay about the same, give or take a few series (MIA'12, NYK'11, CLE'10, and CHI'09 are stand outs), but is that really a representation of him not stepping up?

I mean, look at our MVP's of the championship season in '08:

Pierce (per 36min):
Regular: 19.7 - 4.5 - 5.1 .529eFG%
Playoffs: 18.6 - 4.3 - 4.5 .499eFG%

KG (per 36min):
Regular: 20.7 - 3.8 - 10.1 .539eFG%
Playoffs: 19.3 - 3.2 - 10 .498eFG%

Both played "worse" by their regular season standards, but can anyone actually argue that they weren't clutch or the reason we won that year?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on January 24, 2013, 08:19:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 08:37:51 AM
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.


  Just to put a point on this, Rondo (who averages 14.5 a game in the postseason) has per36 scoring averages of 12.1 during the regular season and 13.6 in the playoffs. There are a total of 25 active players with more than 50 career playoff games who have more points a game in the playoffs than Rondo. Not a single one of them have a per36 scoring increase as high as Rondo's 1.5 points. All but a few drop a little in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 24, 2013, 08:39:29 AM
Actually I would consider Nash, Paul, Parker and Rose very clutch performers. Parker is an NBA Finals MVP. Can you get more clutch than that award? Paul, Rose, and Nash practically carried their teams in most playoff series. That's pretty clutch for being the smallest guy on their teams in a big man's game.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: relja on January 24, 2013, 08:42:36 AM
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..
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 24, 2013, 08:55:02 AM
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 fact seems to get lost here on Celticsblog. When a Celtic great goes off offensively, few blame the bad defense of the opponent. They say the Celtic had a great game. But when a great player goes off against the Celtics, its invariably the poor defensive job that a Celtic did that is the problem.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 08:58:33 AM
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?

  Compare their per36 numbers. Rondo's got the largest scoring increase, the largest rebounding increase and, while all of them have lower assist levels, Rondo has the smallest dropoff of the group. Whatever you want to say about the "clutch gene" for that group of point guards, by *your* measure they all have less of it than Rondo.

  And if you're so concerned about whether I boast about how clutch other players are, what about you? One would think, if you're a Celts fan and your team's point guard steps up more than any of the point guards you listed, you'd be boasting about that. Instead you claim that Rondo isn't clutch because he only improves a little yet rush to defend the clutchness of players that step up less than him. What gives?

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.

  Haha. Here's what I said earlier in the thread about Irving's "clutch" attribute:

  "For the record, I'm a pretty big Irving fan. I still think he's lacking in some skills but I'd say he's probably the best shooting/scoring pg in the league and he's a fairly elite clutch scorer."
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 09:16:33 AM
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.

But, Kyrie Irving has yet to play in a playoff game.  I realize that he's only 20 years old and he'll surely get his chances, but Rondo, at the tender age of 26, has already played in 92 playoff games for a total of 3,528 minutes.


For some perspective, Chris Paul and Deron Williams have played in a combined 78 playoff games for 3,139 playoff minutes in their respective careers to date.  Rose and Westbrook combined have played 2,828 playoff minutes in 72 games. 

Those are insane numbers for Rondo.  I'm not trying to claim that he's garnered all that playoff experience based solely on his own play, but when I'm assessing players' worth, that mountain of playoff experience at such a young age factors heavily into the equation. 

A lot of players come into the league and manage to put up some impressive numbers during the regular season, but without the opportunity to do it on the big stage, those numbers quickly become fairly hollow. 

Rondo's done it on the big stage when the stakes were at their highest on many occasions so far in his career.  I say, let's give him the opportunity to keep adding to that resume as a member of the Boston Celtics. 

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 09:53:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 10:10:38 AM
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.

  Flash back one year, this same argument was made ad nauseum. Everyone and his brother wanted to unload Rondo as soon as possible because the team's poor start. The team that was "going nowhere with Rondo as it's best player" ended up in game 7 of the ECF. Shocking, I know, but it really happened.

  Pierce, Garnett, and Allen led this team deep into the playoffs in 2008 and 2009, since then not so much. Rondo was clearly our best player in the playoffs in 2010 until he picked up an injury vs Orlando (and the teams's great run immediately began to sputter). Rondo wasn't healthy in 2011 and the team didn't get far. Rondo played great last year an the team had quite a bit of postseason success.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticsFan9 on January 24, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 10:13:14 AM
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? 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 10:32:40 AM
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?

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 10:32:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 10:36:48 AM
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.

  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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 10:39:59 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 10:44:09 AM
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.

  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?
Is that an attempt to be sarcastic?

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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 24, 2013, 10:44:38 AM
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.

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.

Like button. TP.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 10:51:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: angryguy77 on January 24, 2013, 10:57:59 AM
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 wasn't directing that at you Roy, but I see a lot of "Rondo needs to go" or "We're better without him" talk on the site lately. Maybe this wasn't the best thread to say that in.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 10:58:13 AM
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.

  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?
Is that an attempt to be sarcastic?

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 do actually think this team can contend for something some time soon.  If Rajon Rondo can put up one of the transcendent performances that we've seen from him on a number occasions in recent playoffs and Pierce and Garnett can find their legs and their games with some consistency against the Miami Heat in this years playoffs, then I still think we have a good chance to pull the upset.  If we can pull that upset--be it in the first round, the second, or the conference finals--then I think we have a nice shot to be in the NBA finals. 

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticsFan9 on January 24, 2013, 10:58:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 11:00:46 AM
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.

Thanks for the complement. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 11:03:34 AM
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.

  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?
Is that an attempt to be sarcastic?

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?

  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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 11:07:12 AM
Quote from: CelticsFan9

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 tend to agree with this, although I'd claim that Garnett was more instrumental to these runs than any other player on our roster.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 11:09:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 11:14:38 AM
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
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticsFan9 on January 24, 2013, 11:16:27 AM
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.

Eh, I think KG has been more consistent than Rondo.  Defensively, KG is there every night.  It's only offensively where he sometimes struggles in the playoffs.  Rondo puts up great numbers, don't get me wrong, but he'll have games where he shows up for a half, quarter, or not at all.

Here's the best way I can put my opinion: Rondo is our most talented player in the playoffs, but KG is the most important and consistent.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 11:21:59 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 11:23:19 AM
Quote from: CelticsFan9

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 tend to agree with this, although I'd claim that Garnett was more instrumental to these runs than any other player on our roster.

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.

  While I disagree that KG was our best player last year, I can see why the point is arguable. But the argument for KG is on defense and maybe rebounding, it isn't on offense. Teams weren't busy trying to stop KG in the playoffs last year, they generally watch him stand on the perimeter waiting for a pass when he's open. They didn't really load up against a less than healthy PP either. Defenses geared up to stop Rondo more than anyone else. And I agree that Rondo and Howard both have issues on the offensive end and it hasn't stopped Howard from leading a team deep into the playoffs either.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 11:30:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticsFan9 on January 24, 2013, 11:32:43 AM
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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 11:32:49 AM
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.
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.

The most discernible pattern from last season has nothing to do with Rondo: it was that Garnett reverted back to his championship form.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 11:36:21 AM
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.
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.

  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).
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 24, 2013, 11:37:16 AM
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?

  In Rondo's case, in the playoffs, it often is his job to get 10 rebounds.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 24, 2013, 11:52:25 AM
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.
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.

  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).
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.

I'm far from the though of dumping all this squarely on Rondo -- but people who think he'll end up being the best player on a contending team probably have to temper their expectations. Garnett and Pierce may be shells of their Hall of Fame selves, but they're still a pretty darn good supporting cast.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 24, 2013, 12:20:07 PM
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.
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.

When you are the best player on the floor and the other players on the floor with you aren't even close to being at your level, you get a situation like the one that Kyrie Irving is currently in in Cleveland. 

If Danny keeps Rondo and has him play the next 7 or 8 years with subpar talent, I won't be happy and I won't expect success.  I'm sure Cleveland fans feel the same way about their situation with Irving. 

This is not really a good argument for trading Rondo for Irving.  They are both players that you'll want to surround with as much possible talent as you can to achieve team success.  Of course, that can be said for all players. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 24, 2013, 12:53:40 PM
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..

I doubt anybody is basing their assessments of either rondo or irving on one game.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 25, 2013, 10:24:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 25, 2013, 10:40:01 PM
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.

Kyrie has better teammates...seriously
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 26, 2013, 09:47:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFkAP2MNd4

Only 32 tonight.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 26, 2013, 10:17:15 PM
I remember a PG that used to score 30 points a game quite a bit. Whatever did happen to Allen Iverson?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 26, 2013, 10:25:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 26, 2013, 11:00:38 PM
Tim, I think you jinxed Rondo.  Two straight triple-doubles, two straight losses.

  Sadly, I think you're right about this.

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.

  I'm somewhat leery of having a point guard who's main skill is scoring. Also, while Irving's numbers may be better during his hot streak, compare his clutch numbers (per 48 minutes) from 82games to Rondo's:

  Note, for shots I'm using shots + fta * .44

Irving:

 42.5 points, 43.3 shots, 6 assists, 6 rebounds, 11 turnovers

Rondo:

  13.3 points, 15 shots, 17 assists, 10 rebounds, 5 turnovers

  Clearly you get more scoring from Irving but almost all of his turnovers are ball handling or offensive fouls so he's scoring a lot but not as efficient as you'd like. Our clutch offense with Rondo playing is actually better than the Cavs clutch offense with Irving playing.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: get_banners on January 26, 2013, 11:02:52 PM
different style. irving is awesome, mind you. he can score like crazy, and is pretty efficient at it (and is a good leader to boot). rondo's in a funk right now in that he's dribbling the ball into the ground (he didn't do this as much before) and making decisions geared towards assists vs. points. when rondo's right, i'd take him over irving, but with the understanding that he's not going to (probably) light it up with points. but...honestly...given our struggles on offense, doc needs to keep telling rondo to take over more often. rondo's jumper is much-improved, and he can beat anybody to the hole. he should still be a pass-first PG, but he needs to look to take over the game more than he has, because when rondo does that, we get easy baskets. and given the struggles of pierce and others, we really need easy buckets.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 26, 2013, 11:04:15 PM
10 clutch rebounds is impressive too.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 26, 2013, 11:23:27 PM
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.
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.

Kyrie Irving hasn't learned that yet, though I am sure he will. Rondo was born with that in him. He doesn't have to learn it. For that reason, I want Rondo now. Two years from now, I will probably want Irving.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: get_banners on January 26, 2013, 11:38:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticConcourse on January 26, 2013, 11:41:09 PM
One of the best PGs ever to live.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 27, 2013, 05:00:39 PM
Tim, I think you jinxed Rondo.  Two straight triple-doubles, two straight losses.

  If we'd lost again I might have started a website named "nomoretripledoubles.com".
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 27, 2013, 08:34:13 PM
Okay....NOW Kyrie Irving is better than Rondo since Rondo can't play and Irving can.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 17, 2013, 09:37:39 AM
(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)

Love this kid. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CoachBo on February 17, 2013, 09:53:40 AM
Irving is spectacular.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: ssspence on February 17, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 17, 2013, 10:06:01 AM
Kyrie>Bradley too.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 17, 2013, 10:15:31 AM
(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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: CelticsFan9 on February 17, 2013, 10:18:09 AM
(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.

No, it's a nasty step back J.

This kid is going to be so good.  He's on his way to being the best PG in the league in a few years.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 17, 2013, 10:30:07 AM
Imagine LeBron going back to join him in the summer of '14. Ouch.

A Lebron + Kyrie combination would be unstoppable.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: YallahCeltics34 on February 17, 2013, 10:33:34 AM
I was one of the few that thought Derrick Williams from the T-Wolves was gonna be better than him. I didn't think Irving was gonna be a bust I just thought that Williams had a more competitive edge to him and that would make him more successful in the league.


boy was i wrong.....
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on February 17, 2013, 10:55:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 17, 2013, 11:15:55 AM
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.

He could sell that one as a Cinderella story, healing old wounds with his home city.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: moiso on February 17, 2013, 11:31:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 17, 2013, 11:40:24 AM
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.

  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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: moiso on February 17, 2013, 11:43:17 AM
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.

  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.
And Rondo does it EVERY year.  Not one year out of 13 or 14. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 17, 2013, 11:46:56 AM

  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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 17, 2013, 12:05:05 PM

  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.

  It's not nonsense. Those groups of players are a reflection of the kind of players Rondo is and AI was. Tough, defensive players who didn't need the ball in their hands were what worked best with AI, one of the most ball dominant volume shooters we've ever seen. You're giving AI credit for the lack of scoring on a team that was built to complement his style of play. Put better scorers on AI's teams and you wouldn't get the bump in play you seem to expect to see, much like the Heat, which by talent level should be among the most dominant teams in nba history.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on February 17, 2013, 12:08:48 PM
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.

He could sell that one as a Cinderella story, healing old wounds with his home city.
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: gpap on February 17, 2013, 12:34:45 PM
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.

I am not even sure it's close.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 17, 2013, 12:37:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: syfy9 on February 17, 2013, 12:40:54 PM
(http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/SPORTS/2013/02/content/kyrieirvingsickcrossover121513.gif)

Love this kid.

Don't reach, young blood!
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Atzar on February 17, 2013, 01:01:07 PM
(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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Chelm on February 17, 2013, 01:19:37 PM
(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.
Looks like he was already in the air when he picked up his dribble.  Just landed, launched.  No travel in this gif.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: action781 on February 17, 2013, 01:26:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 17, 2013, 02:08:13 PM
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)
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Moranis on February 17, 2013, 08:35:05 PM
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)
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: action781 on February 18, 2013, 09:21:04 PM
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)

I think Varejao would be that player now... but we're talking in two years from now when Lebron hypothetically goes to Cleveland.  And you want a player who is not only at that level two years from now, but can sustain it for a few years beginning at that time. 

I think Faried will be that player because of his ability to create extra possessions.  That paired with the incredible efficiency of Kyrie and Lebron would be deadly.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: The One on February 21, 2013, 09:05:47 AM
35 pts with 20 coming in the fourth quarter!  :o

That kid is nasty!!

Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Eddie20 on February 21, 2013, 09:13:21 AM
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...
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on February 21, 2013, 09:35:30 AM
Kyrie is turning into a pretty stellar player. I watched the last part of the Hornets game last night and he killed it. He is going to a sueprstar in this league in couple years, hes already on the border of being one.

I would still take Rondo to run the point position however.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 21, 2013, 09:56:29 AM
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).
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 10:08:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: scaryjerry on February 21, 2013, 10:14:28 AM
He can dribble and score

If the cavs miss the playoffs again next year then I couldnt care less....Until then its a cute story
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 10:15:06 AM
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 a lot that goes into trade value though.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 10:19:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 10:30:37 AM
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.

  Too funny. You could interview for the job by breaking down the Raef/Theo trade again, after the owners stopped laughing you could hope they were amused enough to give you a job. Like cleaning up the office I left for and getting it ready it's next occupant.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Eddie20 on February 21, 2013, 10:33:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on February 21, 2013, 10:34:06 AM
Stop the bickering and personal jabs now, please.  Totally unacceptable by all involved.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 10:51:05 AM
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 6 and Game 7 against the Lakers are key example, games 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 games, on his way to collecting 11 and 15 rebounds.  It's pretty rare to see someone guarding a point guard out on the perimeter and still get 26 rebounds over a two game stretch.  That mught have hurt our chances to win the NBA Finals. 

And of course opposing coaches gameplan to try to limit Rondo, they'd do the same against Kyrie or any other top-level point guard.  That should be obvious.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on February 21, 2013, 10:51:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 10:52:58 AM
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.

I second this post.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:01:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on February 21, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
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.

I would actually say that both of your statements are true to a large extent.  As has been pointed out many times, Rondo hits his mid range jumpers at a higher rate than a vast majority of NBA point guards. 

And, no, defenders don't really play free safety defense against him.  They may go under picks and back off him, playing him more as a driver than a shooter, but they aren't generally not guarding him. 
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:09:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:11:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:18:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:25:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:30:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:33:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:35:44 AM
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.  Unless you're the Wizards, of course.  This is all not to mention LeBron's impending departure and the possibility that he wasn't at his best for that reason.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: jgod213 on February 21, 2013, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: BballTim
  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.

No it's certainly not a sure thing, but then again you're allowing the idea that a rookie PG might have eclipsed what a 6 year veteran in his prime was doing in the playoffs against the best team in the NBA.

To me it's just a matter of time before everyone recognizes Irving as a top 5 player in the NBA.  Might take another year or two, but if I'm starting a team (even if my goal is to win now) I'm taking Irving over Rondo 10/10.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:42:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:44:16 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 11:47:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 11:57:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on February 21, 2013, 12:05:26 PM


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?
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: celtsfan84 on February 21, 2013, 12:09:09 PM


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.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
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.

  I could probably get you the info later today, I don't know how hard it is to find compared to a couple of years ago. Same with info on Rondo's assists. Let me know if you want it (because it might take a while) but I suspect your leaving the conversation is your way of admitting you don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Kyrie > Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 21, 2013, 12:31:55 PM


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.

  I think my answer (they had the best player and the best record, but feel free to disagree) was sufficient. If you want to see examples of top teams with certain roster profiles you should check yourself, maybe you'll gain some insight for future discussions.