CelticsStrong

Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: BleedGreen1989 on March 04, 2013, 08:51:01 AM

Title: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BleedGreen1989 on March 04, 2013, 08:51:01 AM
Quote
6. Rajon Rondo, Celtics

Stats: 13.7 PPG, 11.1 APG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 SPG, 3.9 TO, 48.4 FG%, 24.0 3P%, 18.3 PER, 37.4 MPG


It’s an unwritten rule on the Internet that you must use the word “enigma” to describe Rondo, so I’ll get it out of the way early. He’s an enigma. Look no further than Lee Jenkins’ recent story on him in Sports Illustrated — in which the 27-year-old explains why he feels the need to dominate children at Connect Four — to immerse yourself in his weirdness. We’re past the point of expecting Rondo to bend to our collective desires, which include developing a reliable jump shot, being more selfish in looking to score in certain situations, and adopting a friendlier approach to referees who draw his ire.

Before his season-ending knee injury, Rondo was leading the NBA in assists per game for the second straight season and he’s usually among the league leaders in steals, due to his quick hands and willingness to gamble when he’s off the ball. Blessed with great vision and a preternatural feel for timing, spacing and opponent tendencies, Rondo is an artist when it comes to plays with a high degree of difficulty.

His habit of rising to the moment in big games and playing well on national television is well established and was never made clearer than in the 2012 Eastern Conference finals when he outdueled LeBron James at times and put up a whopping 44 points in Game 2. Rondo, unlike all but one other point guard on this list, owns a championship ring, but he will return from his injury with the aging Celtics facing a transition period (or having already undergone one). He will also face a simple question: Is he the right type of player to lead a rebuilding/reloading effort or does his skill set require greatness — or at the very least proven veterans — around him?

http://nba.si.com/2013/03/02/top-ten-point-guards-chris-paul-tony-parker-russell-westbrook-kyrie-irving-derrick-rose/?sct=uk_t12_a1
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 04, 2013, 08:56:54 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 09:16:27 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: D.o.s. on March 04, 2013, 09:18:49 AM
I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment, both of Rondo's game and the top PG's in the league right now. I can see the arguement for Kyrie over Rondo (even though I'm obviously predisposed to swap the two), and I might have even slid D Rose down to number 5/4 depending on what kind of Rondo we're getting on any given night.

Westbrook, Parker, and Paul are definitely the best PG's playing this season right now, though.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 04, 2013, 09:21:47 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: D.o.s. on March 04, 2013, 09:25:26 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.

That was my first thought, but he's still only 24--which is absolutely mind boggling.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 04, 2013, 09:28:55 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.

I know your song and dance by this point, thanks though.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BleedGreen1989 on March 04, 2013, 09:29:37 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.

That was my first thought, but he's still only 24--which is absolutely mind boggling.

yeah I forget how young he is. Pretty scary
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 04, 2013, 09:49:38 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.

A liability in the 4th?

Thats pretty strong. Maybe at times in certain possessions but overall he is certainly an assett in the 4th. He's had plenty of big 4th quarter games.

Yes when our offense gets stagnant at times he struggles but he has some of the best handle in the game and can place the ball perfectly in a shooters hands
. He's generated at least a handful of game winning assists and buckets just off the top of my head
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 09:56:18 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.

  He's not that poor a fg shooter and he's not a liability in the 4th. The other guys probably outscore him but he's generally at the top of the league in clutch time assists and he probably out rebounds most if not all of them late in games. He also scores more late in games than he used to.

Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wdleehi on March 04, 2013, 10:00:47 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.


Shouldn't Rondo then get the same asterisk?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wdleehi on March 04, 2013, 10:02:51 AM
PG has become one of the strongest positions in the NBA (thanks a lot in part to rules changes)



You can argue Ronde higher and lower on this list depending on the season.  (same with most of the PG save Paul)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 04, 2013, 10:04:44 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.

  He's not that poor a fg shooter and he's not a liability in the 4th. The other guys probably outscore him but he's generally at the top of the league in clutch time assists and he probably out rebounds most if not all of them late in games. He also scores more late in games than he used to.

Yeah, that midrange jumper has helped him become much more effective during crunch time.  It's opened up lanes to drive that weren't there before.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: KCattheStripe on March 04, 2013, 10:07:50 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: get_banners on March 04, 2013, 10:09:59 AM
the poor FG thing is not real, though. doesn't rondo have one of the highest FG percentages for PGs? doesn't he also shoot a better % on jumpers than most PGs (at least in the past season or two)? hasn't he completely taken over key games in the 4th quarter and OT, particularly in the playoffs? i get the criticism re: his FT %, but the 4th quarter and FG % issue are completely wrong. also, yeah, i think we really need to define what we want from a PG. b/c westbrook and irving, for instance, are phenomenal scorers, but do not control the game and are not playmakers in the same way cp3 and rondo are.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: beklog on March 04, 2013, 10:18:41 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.

That was my first thought, but he's still only 24--which is absolutely mind boggling.

yeah I forget how young he is. Pretty scary

Yeah pretty scary on the num of injuries he had at a young age.. unfortunatelly promising PGs are following his path.. Irvin, Rubio, Wall, Holiday...
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: xmuscularghandix on March 04, 2013, 10:21:00 AM
You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Roy H. on March 04, 2013, 10:22:54 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.

That was my first thought, but he's still only 24--which is absolutely mind boggling.

yeah I forget how young he is. Pretty scary

Yeah pretty scary on the num of injuries he had at a young age.. unfortunatelly promising PGs are following his path.. Irvin, Rubio, Wall, Holiday...

Rose has only had one serious injury, hasn't he?

What major injuries has Jrue Holiday had?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BleedGreen1989 on March 04, 2013, 10:25:34 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.

That was my first thought, but he's still only 24--which is absolutely mind boggling.

yeah I forget how young he is. Pretty scary

Yeah pretty scary on the num of injuries he had at a young age.. unfortunatelly promising PGs are following his path.. Irvin, Rubio, Wall, Holiday...

Rose has only had one serious injury, hasn't he?

What major injuries has Jrue Holiday had?

yeah I believe it's only been the ACL with Rose
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Moranis on March 04, 2013, 10:32:16 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: nostar on March 04, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
You know I'll concede that Paul, Parker, Rose and Irving might be better than Rondo. Westbrook at #3 irks me.

Westbrook is an incredibly talented, incredibly stupid player. I don't mean he's bad, although many times that is the translation. He makes stupid basketball plays about as frequently as he makes smart ones. His stats are really great but I'm not buying that he's better than Rose, Rondo and Irving. As a GM I'm definitely taking Irving or Rose over Westbrook to build around and I personally would take Rondo over Westbrook, though that is tougher to justify. In complete honesty I might take Curry over him too.

Westbrook has a bad attitude and low basketball IQ. He relies on his athleticism to make him great and I know what those players look like after 5-6 years of abuse. The way he plays is begging for an injury and I'm not sure he's the guy I want leading my team from the PG spot.

I also think 9/10 don't really belong on the list yet. I'd put Lillard on before I put either. They are all in the Lowry/Bledsoe/Holiday category. Lillard has a chance to be better and to a lesser extent Holiday and Bledsoe too. Lawson is as good now as he'll ever be and same goes for Lowry. They are passable PGs on good teams and good point guards on bad teams.

I'd make this list differently. If it's statistics-based then Irving and Westbrook probably are 1 and 2. If it's intangibles then Rondo is top 3. If it's leadership then Paul and Parker are probably at the top. If it's about style then Westbrook doesn't even crack the top 100. I think the SI metric is very record dependent. When the C's were on a tear last post-season Rondo was hailed by many as the best PG in the game. Now he's 6?

Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.
Shouldn't Rondo then get the same asterisk?

Rondo isn't missing an entire season (plus) like Rose is. Rose only played 60% of his games last season and he hasn't played yet this year. If he comes back this week he will have been out the equivalent of 1 season. If we have Rondo back by October he'll only have missed about half of 1 season.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wdleehi on March 04, 2013, 11:09:37 AM
You know I'll concede that Paul, Parker, Rose and Irving might be better than Rondo. Westbrook at #3 irks me.

Westbrook is an incredibly talented, incredibly stupid player. I don't mean he's bad, although many times that is the translation. He makes stupid basketball plays about as frequently as he makes smart ones. His stats are really great but I'm not buying that he's better than Rose, Rondo and Irving. As a GM I'm definitely taking Irving or Rose over Westbrook to build around and I personally would take Rondo over Westbrook, though that is tougher to justify. In complete honesty I might take Curry over him too.

Westbrook has a bad attitude and low basketball IQ. He relies on his athleticism to make him great and I know what those players look like after 5-6 years of abuse. The way he plays is begging for an injury and I'm not sure he's the guy I want leading my team from the PG spot.

I also think 9/10 don't really belong on the list yet. I'd put Lillard on before I put either. They are all in the Lowry/Bledsoe/Holiday category. Lillard has a chance to be better and to a lesser extent Holiday and Bledsoe too. Lawson is as good now as he'll ever be and same goes for Lowry. They are passable PGs on good teams and good point guards on bad teams.

I'd make this list differently. If it's statistics-based then Irving and Westbrook probably are 1 and 2. If it's intangibles then Rondo is top 3. If it's leadership then Paul and Parker are probably at the top. If it's about style then Westbrook doesn't even crack the top 100. I think the SI metric is very record dependent. When the C's were on a tear last post-season Rondo was hailed by many as the best PG in the game. Now he's 6?

Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.
Shouldn't Rondo then get the same asterisk?

Rondo isn't missing an entire season (plus) like Rose is. Rose only played 60% of his games last season and he hasn't played yet this year. If he comes back this week he will have been out the equivalent of 1 season. If we have Rondo back by October he'll only have missed about half of 1 season.



We do not know when Rondo will be back. 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 11:25:41 AM
You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.

  There's no guarantee that Irving or CP3 will take you farther than Rondo will. But beyond that we aren't going to be able to trade for either of them, just like we're unlikely to be able to trade for players like James or Durant. We do have Rondo who plays like a star in the playoffs, we don't need to trade him unless we're getting the same postseason performance.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: beklog on March 04, 2013, 11:28:25 AM
Derrick Rose needs a huge asterisk, but considering he's a former MVP, don't care about it.

That was my first thought, but he's still only 24--which is absolutely mind boggling.

yeah I forget how young he is. Pretty scary

Yeah pretty scary on the num of injuries he had at a young age.. unfortunatelly promising PGs are following his path.. Irvin, Rubio, Wall, Holiday...

Rose has only had one serious injury, hasn't he?

What major injuries has Jrue Holiday had?

yeah I believe it's only been the ACL with Rose

As far as I remember he was in and out of Bulls lineup before the ACL... could be hip cant find details but got something during from wiki:
"He was selected to the U.S. Select Team to scrimmage against and prepare the National Team for the Olympics in Beijing. In mid-July, he played two games in the Orlando Pro Summer League until forced out by tendinitis in his right knee, ending his summer"
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 04, 2013, 11:36:21 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: KGs Knee on March 04, 2013, 11:57:35 AM
The writer lost all credibility with me, putting Westbrook at #3.

You know who Westbrook would be if he didn't play with Durant?  Monta Ellis.  That's right, I said Monta Ellis.  An unconscionable chucker, who brings little else to the game.

CP3 and Parker, I'll concede are, at this very moment, a slight notch above Rondo.  They are close enough in playmaking ability, that their obviously better ability to score, gives them the edge.  Irving probably will be better shortly, but isn't at moment.  Rose, I'd put on par with Rondo.  Rose is immensely better as a scorer, Rondo is immensely better as a play maker.

Ultimately, the writer seems to place higher value on scoring ability (as do many).  From the PG position, I do not.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 04, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
The writer lost all credibility with me, putting Westbrook at #3.

You know who Westbrook would be if he didn't play with Durant?  Monta Ellis.  That's right, I said Monta Ellis.  An unconscionable chucker, who brings little else to the game.

CP3 and Parker, I'll concede are, at this very moment, a slight notch above Rondo.  They are close enough in playmaking ability, that their obviously better ability to score, gives them the edge.  Irving probably will be better shortly, but isn't at moment.  Rose, I'd put on par with Rondo.  Rose is immensely better as a scorer, Rondo is immensely better as a play maker.

Ultimately, the writer seems to place higher value on scoring ability (as do many).  From the PG position, I do not.

Don't see a problem with Monta Ellis, but you can add defense + superior rebounding, and in the end, better passer too.

CP3 and Parker are more than a slight notch above Rondo at the moment. I'd say Irving is definitely better than Rondo at the moment. And Rose once again quite better than Rondo, but asterisk right now because of the ACL.

Don't see the problem with putting high value on scoring ability, and Rondo needs to do a lot more and better of the other things if he wants to be considered above any of the other players. He just isn't, in particular on how he's played this year, and the inconsistent effort he brought this year, and his deteriorated defense, which wasn't good as far as I'm concerned anyways.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Vermont Green on March 04, 2013, 12:25:06 PM
My first point is that I don't think Rondo is any more of liability in the 4th quarter than in any other part of the game.

My second point, anyone who watches the games and thinks that Rondo is a shooter on par with the other top PGs is seeing something that I certianly am not.  And yes, the stats are misleading.  Obaka was a good example (56%) and Ben Wallace, one of the worst shooters in the history of the game managed a FG% around 50%.

Third, I think SI has Rondo about right, 6th in the league at his position.  I know that is far lower than some feel but still pretty good.  Deron Williams could get healthy and be better and Curry is really coming on too so even if you don't buy Westbrook or Irving, Rondo still ends up at about 6-8.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 12:39:59 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.

Certainly not ridiculous. Rondo's effect on team offense in the 4th is a relevant comparison issue. But I think you're right to avoid statistic spin -- let's use real world situations to add color to the point.

If Paul, Curry, Irving, Parker, etc were on the Cs, do you think the only Cs play we'd see for their last shot (almost literally) is the Pierce iso fadeaway? Considering Doc's reputation for designing situational plays -- and how easy this one is for opposing teams to predict and defend -- I doubt it.

And if any of those same players were Celtics, do you think 9 times out of 10 they would be the inbounder out of 4th Q time outs? Not likely, because they're threats from further than 10 feet, and therefore require defensive attention on the perimeter, opening up subsequent options for themselves and other players. Rondo doesn't (and fears foul shooting), so he tends to draw that job. 

Rondo's offensive deficiencies should be considered objectively in the overall pluses and minuses of his game, not ignored. And these elements became harder to disguise without a lethal catch-and-shoot motion guy like Ray Allen on the team.

I think 6th is pretty good for a guy who shoots less than 25% from 3, and less than 65% from the FT line.

 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Banner18now! on March 04, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Liablity in the 4th?? Was he a liablity in the 4th quarter last year in game 7 against Philly?? Without him they don't go to the second round? How about game 2 in Miami last year in the 4th??
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Banner18now! on March 04, 2013, 12:55:53 PM
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: pearljammer10 on March 04, 2013, 01:00:32 PM
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.

This is my argument as well. Are Westbrook and maybe Irving more talented than Rondo? Sure. Is Rondo a better point guard? absolutely.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 04, 2013, 01:05:20 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.

Certainly not ridiculous. Rondo's effect on team offense in the 4th is a relevant comparison issue. But I think you're right to avoid statistic spin -- let's use real world situations to add color to the point.

If Paul, Curry, Irving, Parker, etc were on the Cs, do you think the only Cs play we'd see for their last shot (almost literally) is the Pierce iso fadeaway? Considering Doc's reputation for designing situational plays -- and how easy this one is for opposing teams to predict and defend -- I doubt it.

And if any of those same players were Celtics, do you think 9 times out of 10 they would be the inbounder out of 4th Q time outs? Not likely, because they're threats from further than 10 feet, and therefore require defensive attention on the perimeter, opening up subsequent options for themselves and other players. Rondo doesn't (and fears foul shooting), so he tends to draw that job. 

Rondo's offensive deficiencies should be considered objectively in the overall pluses and minuses of his game, not ignored. And these elements became harder to disguise without a lethal catch-and-shoot motion guy like Ray Allen on the team.

I think 6th is pretty good for a guy who shoots less than 25% from 3, and less than 65% from the FT line.

I didnt say he was a world beater and clutch player in the 4th. Your the one that is going to the extreme stating that he is a liability in the 4th.

But now you arent even talking about the 4th you are talking about the last 10 seconds of the 4th and not only that you are talking about him taking a last second shot.

Just stick to one arguement. Do I want him taking a last second shot? No. Do I think other pgs are better than him with 10 seconds left? Yeah some. Doesnt mean hes a liability in the 4th though.

Just say hes a poor ft and 3 pointer shooter. Hes not even bad at the mid range game if you go by the numbers. I mean I can even make a better argument for him being a liability in the 4th than you are
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 01:09:38 PM
The writer lost all credibility with me, putting Westbrook at #3.

You know who Westbrook would be if he didn't play with Durant?  Monta Ellis.  That's right, I said Monta Ellis.  An unconscionable chucker, who brings little else to the game.

CP3 and Parker, I'll concede are, at this very moment, a slight notch above Rondo.  They are close enough in playmaking ability, that their obviously better ability to score, gives them the edge.  Irving probably will be better shortly, but isn't at moment.  Rose, I'd put on par with Rondo.  Rose is immensely better as a scorer, Rondo is immensely better as a play maker.

Ultimately, the writer seems to place higher value on scoring ability (as do many).  From the PG position, I do not.

Don't see a problem with Monta Ellis, but you can add defense + superior rebounding, and in the end, better passer too.

CP3 and Parker are more than a slight notch above Rondo at the moment. I'd say Irving is definitely better than Rondo at the moment. And Rose once again quite better than Rondo, but asterisk right now because of the ACL.

Don't see the problem with putting high value on scoring ability, and Rondo needs to do a lot more and better of the other things if he wants to be considered above any of the other players. He just isn't, in particular on how he's played this year, and the inconsistent effort he brought this year, and his deteriorated defense, which wasn't good as far as I'm concerned anyways.

  Rondo does a lot more things a lot better than most of the other players on the list. Did you watch Curry play against the Celts the other night? I'm not talking about his poor shooting night, but the fact that when he's not scoring he does little if anything to help the team. Same with players like Westbrook. Rose isn't as bad but it's a similar situation. Same for Irving.

  If those guys didn't shoot any more often than Rondo and gave you 8 or so fewer points a game they'd all be below average point guards. If they shot as often as Rondo and weren't better shooters or ft shooters than Rondo they'd be lucky to be starters. The difference between Rondo and those point guards in non-scoring skills is the difference between a top point guard and a below average player. It's that significant.

  The writer puts Irving, who's the one of the best scoring point guards and best clutch scorers around pretty much neck and neck with Rondo. Figure out the difference in impact that you think Irving's scoring has versus Rondo's "being a liability". That's the magnitude of difference in Rondo's favor in the other aspects of their games.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 04, 2013, 01:15:51 PM
Kinda funny looking at Ray Allens stats.

Hes shooting worse this year in over all and 3 point percentage than the last two years. This while taking less shots which apparently according to the Rondo rule the less shots you take the higher your percentage will be.

This while everyone was talking about all the open looks hed get

Seems like he was better and more efficient with Rondo even while shooting more shots and playing a whopping 10-12 more minutes
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: D.o.s. on March 04, 2013, 01:31:33 PM
The writer lost all credibility with me, putting Westbrook at #3.

You know who Westbrook would be if he didn't play with Durant?  Monta Ellis.  That's right, I said Monta Ellis.  An unconscionable chucker, who brings little else to the game.

CP3 and Parker, I'll concede are, at this very moment, a slight notch above Rondo.  They are close enough in playmaking ability, that their obviously better ability to score, gives them the edge.  Irving probably will be better shortly, but isn't at moment.  Rose, I'd put on par with Rondo.  Rose is immensely better as a scorer, Rondo is immensely better as a play maker.

Ultimately, the writer seems to place higher value on scoring ability (as do many).  From the PG position, I do not.

Don't see a problem with Monta Ellis, but you can add defense + superior rebounding, and in the end, better passer too.

CP3 and Parker are more than a slight notch above Rondo at the moment. I'd say Irving is definitely better than Rondo at the moment. And Rose once again quite better than Rondo, but asterisk right now because of the ACL.

Don't see the problem with putting high value on scoring ability, and Rondo needs to do a lot more and better of the other things if he wants to be considered above any of the other players. He just isn't, in particular on how he's played this year, and the inconsistent effort he brought this year, and his deteriorated defense, which wasn't good as far as I'm concerned anyways.

  Rondo does a lot more things a lot better than most of the other players on the list. Did you watch Curry play against the Celts the other night? I'm not talking about his poor shooting night, but the fact that when he's not scoring he does little if anything to help the team. Same with players like Westbrook. Rose isn't as bad but it's a similar situation. Same for Irving.

  If those guys didn't shoot any more often than Rondo and gave you 8 or so fewer points a game they'd all be below average point guards. If they shot as often as Rondo and weren't better shooters or ft shooters than Rondo they'd be lucky to be starters. The difference between Rondo and those point guards in non-scoring skills is the difference between a top point guard and a below average player. It's that significant.

  The writer puts Irving, who's the one of the best scoring point guards and best clutch scorers around pretty much neck and neck with Rondo. Figure out the difference in impact that you think Irving's scoring has versus Rondo's "being a liability". That's the magnitude of difference in Rondo's favor in the other aspects of their games.

As far as walking triple-double threat, it's Rondo and Westbrook far ahead of the rest, but I'd probably give the edge to Westbrook since, like Rose before the ACL, he's still a few years away from his prime--whereas I believe that, at this point, we've seen Rondo's ceiling (a performance like Game 2 of the ECF).
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: lightspeed5 on March 04, 2013, 01:41:04 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.

Certainly not ridiculous. Rondo's effect on team offense in the 4th is a relevant comparison issue. But I think you're right to avoid statistic spin -- let's use real world situations to add color to the point.

If Paul, Curry, Irving, Parker, etc were on the Cs, do you think the only Cs play we'd see for their last shot (almost literally) is the Pierce iso fadeaway? Considering Doc's reputation for designing situational plays -- and how easy this one is for opposing teams to predict and defend -- I doubt it.

And if any of those same players were Celtics, do you think 9 times out of 10 they would be the inbounder out of 4th Q time outs? Not likely, because they're threats from further than 10 feet, and therefore require defensive attention on the perimeter, opening up subsequent options for themselves and other players. Rondo doesn't (and fears foul shooting), so he tends to draw that job. 

Rondo's offensive deficiencies should be considered objectively in the overall pluses and minuses of his game, not ignored. And these elements became harder to disguise without a lethal catch-and-shoot motion guy like Ray Allen on the team.

I think 6th is pretty good for a guy who shoots less than 25% from 3, and less than 65% from the FT line.

I didnt say he was a world beater and clutch player in the 4th. Your the one that is going to the extreme stating that he is a liability in the 4th.

But now you arent even talking about the 4th you are talking about the last 10 seconds of the 4th and not only that you are talking about him taking a last second shot.

Just stick to one arguement. Do I want him taking a last second shot? No. Do I think other pgs are better than him with 10 seconds left? Yeah some. Doesnt mean hes a liability in the 4th though.

Just say hes a poor ft and 3 pointer shooter. Hes not even bad at the mid range game if you go by the numbers. I mean I can even make a better argument for him being a liability in the 4th than you are

Rondo's a tremendous player, and a competitor (when he feels like it). The point is he's not a guy you can go to as a consistent scorer, nor one with the game on the line. That's what prevents him from being ranked higher against these other guys considering his many strengths.

Don't believe me -- trust these guys. See the first minute (Magic Johnson), minute 3 (Bill Simmons), and minute 4 (both of them):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kPQH2PPI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kPQH2PPI)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:01:30 PM
The writer lost all credibility with me, putting Westbrook at #3.

You know who Westbrook would be if he didn't play with Durant?  Monta Ellis.  That's right, I said Monta Ellis.  An unconscionable chucker, who brings little else to the game.

CP3 and Parker, I'll concede are, at this very moment, a slight notch above Rondo.  They are close enough in playmaking ability, that their obviously better ability to score, gives them the edge.  Irving probably will be better shortly, but isn't at moment.  Rose, I'd put on par with Rondo.  Rose is immensely better as a scorer, Rondo is immensely better as a play maker.

Ultimately, the writer seems to place higher value on scoring ability (as do many).  From the PG position, I do not.

Don't see a problem with Monta Ellis, but you can add defense + superior rebounding, and in the end, better passer too.

CP3 and Parker are more than a slight notch above Rondo at the moment. I'd say Irving is definitely better than Rondo at the moment. And Rose once again quite better than Rondo, but asterisk right now because of the ACL.

Don't see the problem with putting high value on scoring ability, and Rondo needs to do a lot more and better of the other things if he wants to be considered above any of the other players. He just isn't, in particular on how he's played this year, and the inconsistent effort he brought this year, and his deteriorated defense, which wasn't good as far as I'm concerned anyways.

  Rondo does a lot more things a lot better than most of the other players on the list. Did you watch Curry play against the Celts the other night? I'm not talking about his poor shooting night, but the fact that when he's not scoring he does little if anything to help the team. Same with players like Westbrook. Rose isn't as bad but it's a similar situation. Same for Irving.

  If those guys didn't shoot any more often than Rondo and gave you 8 or so fewer points a game they'd all be below average point guards. If they shot as often as Rondo and weren't better shooters or ft shooters than Rondo they'd be lucky to be starters. The difference between Rondo and those point guards in non-scoring skills is the difference between a top point guard and a below average player. It's that significant.

  The writer puts Irving, who's the one of the best scoring point guards and best clutch scorers around pretty much neck and neck with Rondo. Figure out the difference in impact that you think Irving's scoring has versus Rondo's "being a liability". That's the magnitude of difference in Rondo's favor in the other aspects of their games.

As far as walking triple-double threat, it's Rondo and Westbrook far ahead of the rest, but I'd probably give the edge to Westbrook since, like Rose before the ACL, he's still a few years away from his prime--whereas I believe that, at this point, we've seen Rondo's ceiling (a performance like Game 2 of the ECF).

  I don't like Westbrook at all. A point guard who takes more shots than Durant in spite of being a much less efficient scorer than KD just doesn't do it for me. You could easily claim he's a better individual performer than Rondo but I don't think he's better for your team.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 04, 2013, 02:08:39 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.

Certainly not ridiculous. Rondo's effect on team offense in the 4th is a relevant comparison issue. But I think you're right to avoid statistic spin -- let's use real world situations to add color to the point.

If Paul, Curry, Irving, Parker, etc were on the Cs, do you think the only Cs play we'd see for their last shot (almost literally) is the Pierce iso fadeaway? Considering Doc's reputation for designing situational plays -- and how easy this one is for opposing teams to predict and defend -- I doubt it.

And if any of those same players were Celtics, do you think 9 times out of 10 they would be the inbounder out of 4th Q time outs? Not likely, because they're threats from further than 10 feet, and therefore require defensive attention on the perimeter, opening up subsequent options for themselves and other players. Rondo doesn't (and fears foul shooting), so he tends to draw that job. 

Rondo's offensive deficiencies should be considered objectively in the overall pluses and minuses of his game, not ignored. And these elements became harder to disguise without a lethal catch-and-shoot motion guy like Ray Allen on the team.

I think 6th is pretty good for a guy who shoots less than 25% from 3, and less than 65% from the FT line.

I didnt say he was a world beater and clutch player in the 4th. Your the one that is going to the extreme stating that he is a liability in the 4th.

But now you arent even talking about the 4th you are talking about the last 10 seconds of the 4th and not only that you are talking about him taking a last second shot.

Just stick to one arguement. Do I want him taking a last second shot? No. Do I think other pgs are better than him with 10 seconds left? Yeah some. Doesnt mean hes a liability in the 4th though.

Just say hes a poor ft and 3 pointer shooter. Hes not even bad at the mid range game if you go by the numbers. I mean I can even make a better argument for him being a liability in the 4th than you are

Rondo's a tremendous player, and a competitor (when he feels like it). The point is he's not a guy you can go to as a consistent scorer, nor one with the game on the line. That's what prevents him from being ranked higher against these other guys considering his many strengths.

Don't believe me -- trust these guys. See the first minute (Magic Johnson), minute 3 (Bill Simmons), and minute 4 (both of them):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kPQH2PPI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kPQH2PPI)

Im just confused you said he was a liability in the 4th quarter and now you are just changing your arguement basically softening your stance.

Ill pass on bill simmons and crew. If you want I can dig up some Tommy quotes comparing Greg Stiemsma and Bill Russell.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:09:06 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.

Certainly not ridiculous. Rondo's effect on team offense in the 4th is a relevant comparison issue. But I think you're right to avoid statistic spin -- let's use real world situations to add color to the point.

If Paul, Curry, Irving, Parker, etc were on the Cs, do you think the only Cs play we'd see for their last shot (almost literally) is the Pierce iso fadeaway? Considering Doc's reputation for designing situational plays -- and how easy this one is for opposing teams to predict and defend -- I doubt it.

And if any of those same players were Celtics, do you think 9 times out of 10 they would be the inbounder out of 4th Q time outs? Not likely, because they're threats from further than 10 feet, and therefore require defensive attention on the perimeter, opening up subsequent options for themselves and other players. Rondo doesn't (and fears foul shooting), so he tends to draw that job. 

Rondo's offensive deficiencies should be considered objectively in the overall pluses and minuses of his game, not ignored. And these elements became harder to disguise without a lethal catch-and-shoot motion guy like Ray Allen on the team.

I think 6th is pretty good for a guy who shoots less than 25% from 3, and less than 65% from the FT line.

I didnt say he was a world beater and clutch player in the 4th. Your the one that is going to the extreme stating that he is a liability in the 4th.

But now you arent even talking about the 4th you are talking about the last 10 seconds of the 4th and not only that you are talking about him taking a last second shot.

Just stick to one arguement. Do I want him taking a last second shot? No. Do I think other pgs are better than him with 10 seconds left? Yeah some. Doesnt mean hes a liability in the 4th though.

Just say hes a poor ft and 3 pointer shooter. Hes not even bad at the mid range game if you go by the numbers. I mean I can even make a better argument for him being a liability in the 4th than you are

Rondo's a tremendous player, and a competitor (when he feels like it). The point is he's not a guy you can go to as a consistent scorer, nor one with the game on the line. That's what prevents him from being ranked higher against these other guys considering his many strengths.

Don't believe me -- trust these guys. See the first minute (Magic Johnson), minute 3 (Bill Simmons), and minute 4 (both of them):

  I think going into the finals Rondo had made more shots in the playoffs late in close games than anyone else in the league. He's definitely been more willing to take late shots this year than he was in the past as well.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wdleehi on March 04, 2013, 02:11:25 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:13:35 PM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.
Sure but if you look at Points Per Shot, Rondo is way down that list (this year)

Rondo 1.12
Westbrook 1.25
Irving 1.27
Parker 1.35
Paul 1.37

Those guys all shoot more shots than Rondo, which negatively affects a percentage.  They are also their teams #1 or #2 scoring option, which means they don't get nearly as many open looks and often have forced time expiring type shots that Rondo doesn't get. 

I mean Serge Ibaka shoots 56%.  Would anyone call him a better shooter than Kevin Durant who shoots 51%?

I think its more that its just been exaggerated a bit. Plus the numbers, you can look at stats in so many ways to fit your arguement. There are always counters to everything.

Its ridiculous to think that Rondo is a liability in the 4th q tho. Hes one of the only guys in the game that can dominate a 4th quarter with scoring, rebounds, passing and or defense. Ive seen him.

Its not all the time but generally in big games he can piece together at least 2 of those attributes when most players only have a couple of those attributes to begin with.

Certainly not ridiculous. Rondo's effect on team offense in the 4th is a relevant comparison issue. But I think you're right to avoid statistic spin -- let's use real world situations to add color to the point.

If Paul, Curry, Irving, Parker, etc were on the Cs, do you think the only Cs play we'd see for their last shot (almost literally) is the Pierce iso fadeaway? Considering Doc's reputation for designing situational plays -- and how easy this one is for opposing teams to predict and defend -- I doubt it.

And if any of those same players were Celtics, do you think 9 times out of 10 they would be the inbounder out of 4th Q time outs? Not likely, because they're threats from further than 10 feet, and therefore require defensive attention on the perimeter, opening up subsequent options for themselves and other players. Rondo doesn't (and fears foul shooting), so he tends to draw that job. 

Rondo's offensive deficiencies should be considered objectively in the overall pluses and minuses of his game, not ignored. And these elements became harder to disguise without a lethal catch-and-shoot motion guy like Ray Allen on the team.

I think 6th is pretty good for a guy who shoots less than 25% from 3, and less than 65% from the FT line.

I didnt say he was a world beater and clutch player in the 4th. Your the one that is going to the extreme stating that he is a liability in the 4th.

But now you arent even talking about the 4th you are talking about the last 10 seconds of the 4th and not only that you are talking about him taking a last second shot.

Just stick to one arguement. Do I want him taking a last second shot? No. Do I think other pgs are better than him with 10 seconds left? Yeah some. Doesnt mean hes a liability in the 4th though.

Just say hes a poor ft and 3 pointer shooter. Hes not even bad at the mid range game if you go by the numbers. I mean I can even make a better argument for him being a liability in the 4th than you are

Rondo's a tremendous player, and a competitor (when he feels like it). The point is he's not a guy you can go to as a consistent scorer, nor one with the game on the line. That's what prevents him from being ranked higher against these other guys considering his many strengths.

Don't believe me -- trust these guys. See the first minute (Magic Johnson), minute 3 (Bill Simmons), and minute 4 (both of them):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kPQH2PPI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kPQH2PPI)

  Since you trust those guys so much I might be able to hunt up some quotes from Magic about Rondo being the best pg in the league.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: timobusa on March 04, 2013, 02:16:36 PM
You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.

Those are the only 2 point guards I'd consider trading for Rondo, but I doubt their teams would let them go.

In the same regard, Rondo has more playoff experience than those 2 point guards, or any other point guards in the list, in exception of Parker.
So I'd rather have Rondo than anybody else.
Plus Rondo is so much more interesting to watch than those 2.
Lol
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:21:05 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wdleehi on March 04, 2013, 02:23:00 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.


He was part of the MVP conversation last year.



He has won a Final MVP.



So I would say he has had a strong career that can more then match up to Rondo's
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 02:28:08 PM
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.

This is my argument as well. Are Westbrook and maybe Irving more talented than Rondo? Sure. Is Rondo a better point guard? absolutely.

Top PGs are scorers.

Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Boris Badenov on March 04, 2013, 02:29:20 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.


He was part of the MVP conversation last year.



He has won a Final MVP.



So I would say he has had a strong career that can more then match up to Rondo's

Agreed.

If Rondo played All-NBA defense all the time, I would rank him closer to Parker. But he doesn't, at least any more.

Parker is a stellar offensive player and is so much more consistent.

I think he flies under the radar in terms of numbers because he only plays 31-33 mpg.

Per-36 he averages 23/8 this year, with TS% of 60%.

Right now in a 7-game series I think you have to take Parker over anyone except Paul.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:29:49 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.


He was part of the MVP conversation last year.



He has won a Final MVP.



So I would say he has had a strong career that can more then match up to Rondo's

  Give Rondo another 5 or so years and you probably won't be able to make that claim.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Moranis on March 04, 2013, 02:33:41 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.
Tony Parker finished 5th in MVP voting last year.  He actually had more first place votes than Kobe did who finished 4th.  Chris Paul was third, with Durant second, and of course James winning.

In 2010-11, Parker finished 12th in MVP voting.  Aside from last years 5th place, he has two other years where he finished in the top ten: in 08-09 he was 8th and in 05-06 he was 9th.  He also finished 15th in 06-07. 

That is the entire league not just PG's.  I think you haven't been paying attention to Mr. Parker.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 02:34:03 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

Bold statement. What 5 would you take above him in any one of those years (much less all of 'em)?

Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 04, 2013, 02:47:54 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

I know you like Rondo, but Parker has been an MVP candidate the past two years, and plays consistently great for the past 4 or 5.
 
This year, Parker was far better than Rondo (before he went down).
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:55:03 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

Bold statement. What 5 would you take above him in any one of those years (much less all of 'em)?

  Paul, Deron, Rose, Rondo, Nash, possibly even Westbrook.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

I know you like Rondo, but Parker has been an MVP candidate the past two years, and plays consistently great for the past 4 or 5.
 
This year, Parker was far better than Rondo (before he went down).

  I thought that Parker was somewhat overrated last year and far from great the previous two.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 03:02:21 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.
Tony Parker finished 5th in MVP voting last year.  He actually had more first place votes than Kobe did who finished 4th.  Chris Paul was third, with Durant second, and of course James winning.

In 2010-11, Parker finished 12th in MVP voting.  Aside from last years 5th place, he has two other years where he finished in the top ten: in 08-09 he was 8th and in 05-06 he was 9th.  He also finished 15th in 06-07. 

That is the entire league not just PG's.  I think you haven't been paying attention to Mr. Parker.

   I probably should have said 3 years and not 3-4, but the fact that he was a better player from 05-07 than he was from 09-11 doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention to him, although it might mean that you haven't. I suppose he had a better year than Rose or Nash last year, I suppose I'd say he was top 3-4 considering the health of players.

Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 03:18:53 PM
me thinks this parker discussion is losing course.

parker's a terrific player getting a little more attention in the last week because his extremely well respected coach went public and pointed out that he's one of the best players on the planet right now.

guy's an awesome triple threat, but more importantly a smart team player who has rounded his game over the years, and maximizes his effectiveness and that of his teammates, resulting in leading one of the most efficient offenses in the NBA.

he deserves that credit, and calling rondo 'better' is stretching it.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 03:21:27 PM
Parker can be considered a legitimate top-3 player in this league, to be honest. Behind KD/LB, there's a mish-mash of other players who can be the third-best.

Tony Parker is one of them.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: LarBrd33 on March 04, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 03:38:53 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

   I should clarify this remark somewhat. What I meant was I wouldn't have considered him to be a top 5 point guard over the last 3 or so seasons. That doesn't mean that he wasn't having one of the 5 best seasons for a point guard. For instance Rondo was better when healthy in 10-11 but he wasn't always healthy, or I'd have said Rose was a better pg last year even though he wasn't playing better than Parker when he wasn't healthy.
 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 03:50:11 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: KGs Knee on March 04, 2013, 03:51:46 PM
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.

This is my argument as well. Are Westbrook and maybe Irving more talented than Rondo? Sure. Is Rondo a better point guard? absolutely.

Top PGs are scorers.

And that's the crux of my view.  PG's aren't really supposed to be your leading scorer.  It very rarely leads to titles.  PG's are supposed to facilitate the offense, or in certain circumstance, be an off-the-ball perimeter threat and secondary ball-handler.

These "new-wave" PG's aren't likely to win much of anything meaningful as "lead-dogs".
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Boris Badenov on March 04, 2013, 03:58:57 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: lightspeed5 on March 04, 2013, 04:01:56 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?
how is it fair to exclude rebounding from the comparison when that is one of rondos strengths?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 04, 2013, 04:03:10 PM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?

  That's one year though, I don't think he's really been top 5 or so in any of the previous 3-4 years.

I know you like Rondo, but Parker has been an MVP candidate the past two years, and plays consistently great for the past 4 or 5.
 
This year, Parker was far better than Rondo (before he went down).

  I thought that Parker was somewhat overrated last year and far from great the previous two.

If anything, Parker is UNDERRATED.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: PhoSita on March 04, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
1a. Tony Parker
1b. Chris Paul
3. Russell Westbrook
4. Derrick Rose, whenever he gets back
5a. Kyrie Irving
5b. Stephen Curry
7. Rondo, whenever he gets back
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 04:04:37 PM
me thinks this parker discussion is losing course.

parker's a terrific player getting a little more attention in the last week because his extremely well respected coach went public and pointed out that he's one of the best players on the planet right now.

guy's an awesome triple threat, but more importantly a smart team player who has rounded his game over the years, and maximizes his effectiveness and that of his teammates, resulting in leading one of the most efficient offenses in the NBA.

  If you look at Parker and the way he's rounded his game over the years and improved as a player I think it's a good reason to think it's unlikely that Rondo's reached his peak. I'd say that Rondo's been more confident when he shoots and more willing to shoot this year and there's no reason to think that it won't continue going forward.



 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: alajet on March 04, 2013, 04:11:22 PM
Well, a list that has Deron at 8th, Rondo at 6th and Westbrook at 3rd is pretty much criminal, in my opinion.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 04:12:00 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

  The Celts offense has done fine with Rondo running it over the years. It was in something of a slump after getting off to a very good start this year. We played bad for similarly long stretches in each of the last 3-4 years and it hasn't led to the ball being taken out of Rondo's hands. I think Doc might tweak the offense somewhat next year when Rondo comes back but I think there's a pretty big disconnect between what people here think and what Doc and Danny think.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: LarBrd33 on March 04, 2013, 04:21:16 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
We're playing better without ROndo in part, because of the revelation that allowing our creators to create is a good thing.  We don't need Rondo holding the ball 99% of the time.  It's alright to let Jeff Green do his thing once in a while.   Having the ball flow through our elite scorer, Paul Pierce, is a good thing (shocker).  So I find it hard to believe a system will again bend to the whims of a Rondo-centric assist-inflated system.  It didn't work as well.

There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop?  It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills.  I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Moranis on March 04, 2013, 04:24:00 PM
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.

This is my argument as well. Are Westbrook and maybe Irving more talented than Rondo? Sure. Is Rondo a better point guard? absolutely.

Top PGs are scorers.

And that's the crux of my view.  PG's aren't really supposed to be your leading scorer.  It very rarely leads to titles.  PG's are supposed to facilitate the offense, or in certain circumstance, be an off-the-ball perimeter threat and secondary ball-handler.

These "new-wave" PG's aren't likely to win much of anything meaningful as "lead-dogs".
Except the two all time great PG's that won championships as their teams best player were Magic and Isiah who happened to be two of the better scoring PG's in league history.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Boris Badenov on March 04, 2013, 04:49:53 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

  The Celts offense has done fine with Rondo running it over the years. It was in something of a slump after getting off to a very good start this year. We played bad for similarly long stretches in each of the last 3-4 years and it hasn't led to the ball being taken out of Rondo's hands. I think Doc might tweak the offense somewhat next year when Rondo comes back but I think there's a pretty big disconnect between what people here think and what Doc and Danny think.

This might be true. As my father-in-law is fond of saying, "A leopard don't change its spots."
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 04, 2013, 04:51:25 PM
LOL!

SI's been bought out by ESPN.

Number 6 my BIG TOE ;D.

So..according to NBA fans everywhere..he should be number 2, based off of the ASG.

Mind you - I haven't read the entire thread yet, nor read the article....just reacting (or over-reacting), based off of what I see in the threads.

EDIT: Ok, not over-reacting...SI's HAS been bought out...one of the last (I thought) bastions of true sports journalism has sided with the Empire.

No way that Rajon Rondo is "Just" number 6...no way......
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 04, 2013, 04:59:15 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

  The Celts offense has done fine with Rondo running it over the years. It was in something of a slump after getting off to a very good start this year. We played bad for similarly long stretches in each of the last 3-4 years and it hasn't led to the ball being taken out of Rondo's hands. I think Doc might tweak the offense somewhat next year when Rondo comes back but I think there's a pretty big disconnect between what people here think and what Doc and Danny think.

Clearly Danny and Doc are just trying to boost his trade value and dont really beleive what they are saying  ;)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 05:00:25 PM
I might as well try to rate them myself.

1. Rondo
2. Parker
3. Westbrook
4. Paul
5. Rose
6. Irving

[those 6 are all crazy-freaks and cases could be made for each of the first 5, as best PG]

7. Curry
8. Jrue
9. Williams

[still on the amazing players spectrum here, DWill having bad year but I don't like him really]

10. Lillard
11. Conley
13. Lawson
14. Calderon
15. Vasquez

[to be honest, these five are still considered AMAZING players, it's crazy how many good PGs there are out there]

16. Dragic
17. Hill
18. Andre Miller
19. Lin
20. Nash
21. Rubio
22. Teague
23. Isaiah Thomas
24. John Wall

[not in order, tbh]

I can't believe it. I'd take any of these 24 point guards as a starter (they all are starters, I suppose. LOL) But seriously, I see all of these as amazing players. I guess why the PG position is so stacked is because there's way more 6'1" people than 7'1" people. But come on, these are all amazing players.

When you have 24 above average PGs in the NBA, then what is average? Is John Wall an AVERAGE player? If John Wall, a first-pick who is fulfilling expectations, is an average PG, then the PG position is absurd. This is crazy, every team has a good PG (except Detroit) o_o

I can't even say that was my list now. That was so inaccurate. I could move any of those players up or down 10 spots depending on how I feel... :|
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 04, 2013, 05:00:26 PM
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2XnVsD4lJIV2HEjSiEHaZ7i0QfhPlZZ4ZowInU6hTOnvG5rvLNQ)

There...rant ended. ;D
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 04, 2013, 05:02:10 PM
So when Chris Paul's team is sitting home EARLY this post-season (again), I wonder how high he will rank, then.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 05:06:47 PM
So when Chris Paul's team is sitting home EARLY this post-season (again), I wonder how high he will rank, then.

3rd probably.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: celtsfan84 on March 04, 2013, 05:09:45 PM
So when Chris Paul's team is sitting home EARLY this post-season (again), I wonder how high he will rank, then.

Maybe Mario Chalmers should be 1st on the list, as defending NBA champion and having a high chance of repeating.  Derek Fisher second, perhaps?  Tony Parker third?

Or maybe basketball isn't an individual sport?  How high would you have ranked KG amongst power forwards before he joined Boston?  I guess you would've ranked him below Rasheed?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 04, 2013, 05:20:46 PM
Just a bunch of mess.

Sports Journalism is becoming just as dysfunctional as...

......better not say it.

If I get political, that opens up a whole other can of worms.

If you are going to draft an article like this, you should quantify it....break it down...."Bill Simmons" it....


At the end of the day, Rajon Rondo and CP3 are neck and neck...ok, give CP3 some advantage...I do love his game...he can shoot......Rondo has become a better shooter, though.


...But our Rajon Rondo is NOT "just" the 6th best PG in the league...no way.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 04, 2013, 05:27:56 PM
So when Chris Paul's team is sitting home EARLY this post-season (again), I wonder how high he will rank, then.

Maybe Mario Chalmers should be 1st on the list, as defending NBA champion and having a high chance of repeating.  Derek Fisher second, perhaps?  Tony Parker third?

Or maybe basketball isn't an individual sport?  How high would you have ranked KG amongst power forwards before he joined Boston?  I guess you would've ranked him below Rasheed?

You ask some very interesting questions...

I guess KG was just a dream to me before he joined BOS...I was shocked to see on the news way back in Summer of 2007 that BOS had acquired him.

Some players you just admire from afar...not knowing how good they "Really" are.

If I'm reading you correctly, then perhaps SI doesn't appreciate Rondo like we do?

Or do we "over-value" him?....to answer that question, I guess several million NBA fans who voted for Rondo to start in the East are dumb, too....

...and we know that is not the case.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Meadowlark_Scal on March 04, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
IF Rondo got the calls derrick rose did....rondo gets beaten everytime he goes in for a layup..no calls....is westbrook a pg...not really..he is more of a 2 guard..he never passes....
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: celtsfan84 on March 04, 2013, 05:39:41 PM
Or do we "over-value" him?....to answer that question, I guess several million NBA fans who voted for Rondo to start in the East are dumb, too....

...and we know that is not the case.

I wouldn't really use All-Star voting to judge an NBA player's relative skill.

With that said, Chris Paul received more votes than Rondo this year and double last year.  Derrick Rose received almost triple Rondo's votes last year and wasn't eligible this year.

So by that flawed metric, he'd be third, which is around where I'd rank him actually.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 04, 2013, 05:40:44 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: celtsfan84 on March 04, 2013, 05:41:53 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)

I'm pretty much in agreement with your list.  I'd flip Parker for Westbrook and I haven't seen enough of Lillard to make a judgment.  Otherwise, well played, Sir.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ejk3489 on March 04, 2013, 05:44:29 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 05:52:06 PM
IF Rondo got the calls derrick rose did....rondo gets beaten everytime he goes in for a layup..no calls....is westbrook a pg...not really..he is more of a 2 guard..he never passes....

Rose never gets the calls. Compare to Parker or Paul. Rose doesn't get the calls.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: kozlodoev on March 04, 2013, 05:54:04 PM
IF Rondo got the calls derrick rose did....rondo gets beaten everytime he goes in for a layup..no calls....is westbrook a pg...not really..he is more of a 2 guard..he never passes....
Don't know whether he gets "beaten everytime", but he has most certainly mastered the art of making it look like his head gets taken off every time there's contact on a layup. Complete with the dramatic delay in getting up.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 04, 2013, 05:54:12 PM
I'd even rank Rondo above DRose.

I love DRose' game, too - but he hasn't displayed to me the ability to just elevate his team like Rondo does....it's not like he hasn't had the talent.

Joakim Noah has ALWAYS been one of my favorite Bigs...Boozer has been one of the better PFs out there...Deng's been an All-Star the last few yrs, and certainly a top SF.

Injuries aside, I just haven't seen DRose (or CP3, for that matter) elevate their teams on their talent alone....and it's not like both of those teams are not stacked - because they ARE.

Rondo has done that...oh boy has he.....with this older team, too.

If SI wants to knock Rondo based off of how the team has played without him, that's not fair. It's ok to say that Rondo perhaps needs to adjust his game a bit once he returns.

But to arbitrarily rank him so low? Just a hot mess.

Man was compared to Larry Bird as far as making plays (by none other than Mark Jackson (09-10 playoffs).
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 06:10:05 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)

I agree. That's the first-tier of PGs in this league.
The scariest part? The second tier.

Conley - panning out lottery pick, totally a top second-tier player
Lawson - same as Conley. really good player as well, who is a top second-tier PG
Calderon - might have gotten a little worse, but one of the purest shooters out there (50-40-90), can get 15-15 games easily, as well as 3Ds
Vasquez - MIP candidate, he's led his team in assists for all 60 games this season. All sixty.
Dragic - was supposed to come out this year, with Nash gone, but idk what happened
Hill - a solid starting PG for Pacers, not bad.
Lin - has been playing well, now that he's out of the spotlight
Nash - could be better I suppose, but not bad either
Rubio - up-and-coming PG in this league, but his team sucks
Teague - also a great player on the Hawks, Jeff is good at what he does, a good third-option
Thomas - Isaiah could be better too if he weren't stuck in SAC, let's see where he is in a few years
Wall - amazing player, deserved first pick, starting to pan out more now: good player to build around, great leader for Wiz w/Beal
(and maybe Miller - idk really)
Could Chalmers be argued? sure, why not

Those are still great players.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 04, 2013, 06:13:14 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)

I agree. That's the first-tier of PGs in this league.
The scariest part? The second tier.

Conley - panning out lottery pick, totally a top second-tier player
Lawson - same as Conley. really good player as well, who is a top second-tier PG
Calderon - might have gotten a little worse, but one of the purest shooters out there (50-40-90), can get 15-15 games easily, as well as 3Ds
Vasquez - MIP candidate, he's led his team in assists for all 60 games this season. All sixty.
Dragic - was supposed to come out this year, with Nash gone, but idk what happened
Hill - a solid starting PG for Pacers, not bad.
Lin - has been playing well, now that he's out of the spotlight
Nash - could be better I suppose, but not bad either
Rubio - up-and-coming PG in this league, but his team sucks
Teague - also a great player on the Hawks, Jeff is good at what he does, a good third-option
Thomas - Isaiah could be better too if he weren't stuck in SAC, let's see where he is in a few years
Wall - amazing player, deserved first pick, starting to pan out more now: good player to build around, great leader for Wiz w/Beal
(and maybe Miller - idk really)
Could Chalmers be argued? sure, why not

Those are still great players.

The PG position, without question, is the most talent-filled spot in the league right now.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 06:14:28 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.

  Yeah, the league's chock full of scoring point guards who haven't had more success than Rondo. Not to mention we've had too much success in the postseason with him running the team for these "he's the wrong kind of pg to win with" claims to gain much traction.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 06:16:16 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)

I agree. That's the first-tier of PGs in this league.
The scariest part? The second tier.

Conley - panning out lottery pick, totally a top second-tier player
Lawson - same as Conley. really good player as well, who is a top second-tier PG
Calderon - might have gotten a little worse, but one of the purest shooters out there (50-40-90), can get 15-15 games easily, as well as 3Ds
Vasquez - MIP candidate, he's led his team in assists for all 60 games this season. All sixty.
Dragic - was supposed to come out this year, with Nash gone, but idk what happened
Hill - a solid starting PG for Pacers, not bad.
Lin - has been playing well, now that he's out of the spotlight
Nash - could be better I suppose, but not bad either
Rubio - up-and-coming PG in this league, but his team sucks
Teague - also a great player on the Hawks, Jeff is good at what he does, a good third-option
Thomas - Isaiah could be better too if he weren't stuck in SAC, let's see where he is in a few years
Wall - amazing player, deserved first pick, starting to pan out more now: good player to build around, great leader for Wiz w/Beal
(and maybe Miller - idk really)
Could Chalmers be argued? sure, why not

Those are still great players.

The PG position, without question, is the most talent-filled spot in the league right now.

And that's because PG is the shortest position. The taller the height, the less people with that height. More people = more potential for talent.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: celtsfan84 on March 04, 2013, 06:47:01 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)

I agree. That's the first-tier of PGs in this league.
The scariest part? The second tier.

Conley - panning out lottery pick, totally a top second-tier player
Lawson - same as Conley. really good player as well, who is a top second-tier PG
Calderon - might have gotten a little worse, but one of the purest shooters out there (50-40-90), can get 15-15 games easily, as well as 3Ds
Vasquez - MIP candidate, he's led his team in assists for all 60 games this season. All sixty.
Dragic - was supposed to come out this year, with Nash gone, but idk what happened
Hill - a solid starting PG for Pacers, not bad.
Lin - has been playing well, now that he's out of the spotlight
Nash - could be better I suppose, but not bad either
Rubio - up-and-coming PG in this league, but his team sucks
Teague - also a great player on the Hawks, Jeff is good at what he does, a good third-option
Thomas - Isaiah could be better too if he weren't stuck in SAC, let's see where he is in a few years
Wall - amazing player, deserved first pick, starting to pan out more now: good player to build around, great leader for Wiz w/Beal
(and maybe Miller - idk really)
Could Chalmers be argued? sure, why not

Those are still great players.

The PG position, without question, is the most talent-filled spot in the league right now.

And that's because PG is the shortest position. The taller the height, the less people with that height. More people = more potential for talent.

Off topic, but there was a time, fairly recently, when power forward was far and away the most talented position in the league, IMO.

Look at the landscape of power forwards one decade ago in 2002-2003.

Duncan, KG, and Dirk were in their primes and establishing themselves as all-time greats.

Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Webber, Antawn Jamison, Karl Malone, and Antoine Walker all averaged 20+ PPG.  Add in Rasheed Wallace, Pau Gasol, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Kenyon Martin, Juwan Howard, P.J. Brown, Kurt Thomas, Troy Murphy, Brian Grant, Shawn Marion (or Amar'e if you consider Marion a SF playing out of position), and an emerging Carlos Boozer.

That's a pretty impressive list, with arguably 3 of the top 5 players of that era (alongside Kobe and Shaq).
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 06:51:48 PM
My list goes like this:

Paul (head and shoulders above all)
Rose (when healthy - not sure what he'll look like post-injury)
Rondo (again, when healthy - if he spends his rehab working on that jumper, he could possibly move up)
Westbrook (I hate this guy a lot, but I cannot deny his elite scoring prowess; just a freak of nature)
Parker (the MVP this year;  San Antonio is going to struggle with him out for a month)
Curry (just keeps improving; one of the main reasons for Golden State's emergence)
Irving (just an incredible talent; hopefully he can get some help in Cleveland)
Holiday (love this guy's game; unfortunate Bynum is out, because I thought those two would be great)
Lillard (has taken the league by storm with his brilliance and maturity beyond his years)
Williams (has really disappointed me this year, but is still capable of being a force)

I agree. That's the first-tier of PGs in this league.
The scariest part? The second tier.

Conley - panning out lottery pick, totally a top second-tier player
Lawson - same as Conley. really good player as well, who is a top second-tier PG
Calderon - might have gotten a little worse, but one of the purest shooters out there (50-40-90), can get 15-15 games easily, as well as 3Ds
Vasquez - MIP candidate, he's led his team in assists for all 60 games this season. All sixty.
Dragic - was supposed to come out this year, with Nash gone, but idk what happened
Hill - a solid starting PG for Pacers, not bad.
Lin - has been playing well, now that he's out of the spotlight
Nash - could be better I suppose, but not bad either
Rubio - up-and-coming PG in this league, but his team sucks
Teague - also a great player on the Hawks, Jeff is good at what he does, a good third-option
Thomas - Isaiah could be better too if he weren't stuck in SAC, let's see where he is in a few years
Wall - amazing player, deserved first pick, starting to pan out more now: good player to build around, great leader for Wiz w/Beal
(and maybe Miller - idk really)
Could Chalmers be argued? sure, why not

Those are still great players.

The PG position, without question, is the most talent-filled spot in the league right now.

And that's because PG is the shortest position. The taller the height, the less people with that height. More people = more potential for talent.

Off topic, but there was a time, fairly recently, when power forward was far and away the most talented position in the league, IMO.

Look at the landscape of power forwards one decade ago in 2002-2003.

Duncan, KG, and Dirk were in their primes and establishing themselves as all-time greats.

Jermaine O'Neal, Chris Webber, Antawn Jamison, Karl Malone, and Antoine Walker all averaged 20+ PPG.  Add in Rasheed Wallace, Pau Gasol, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Kenyon Martin, Juwan Howard, P.J. Brown, Kurt Thomas, Troy Murphy, Brian Grant, Shawn Marion (or Amar'e if you consider Marion a SF playing out of position), and an emerging Carlos Boozer.

That's a pretty impressive list, with arguably 3 of the top 5 players of that era (alongside Kobe and Shaq).

SF is the position in this era where the greats are at, but it's not deep.

LeBron
Durant
Carmelo
Pierce
-------
Granger
Kirilenko
Batum
Green
George
Gay
Gallinari

Maybe.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 06:56:17 PM
And the previous era, SGs were where it was at, I believe.

Kobe
Allen
TMac
Carter
Miller
[I don't know the rest, hey! I'm young!]
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 04, 2013, 07:00:24 PM
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.

This is my argument as well. Are Westbrook and maybe Irving more talented than Rondo? Sure. Is Rondo a better point guard? absolutely.

Top PGs are scorers.

And that's the crux of my view.  PG's aren't really supposed to be your leading scorer.  It very rarely leads to titles.  PG's are supposed to facilitate the offense, or in certain circumstance, be an off-the-ball perimeter threat and secondary ball-handler.

These "new-wave" PG's aren't likely to win much of anything meaningful as "lead-dogs".
Except the two all time great PG's that won championships as their teams best player were Magic and Isiah who happened to be two of the better scoring PG's in league history.

Yeah KGsKnee, I think you misunderstood my point.

The notion of 'true' PGs is IMO a waste of breath. The only teams that have truly been led by PGs to titles featured PGs who were terrific scorers (Magic and Isiah were the two that came to mind), while Stocktons, Mark Jacksons, etc never won, and overall most championship teams don't feature a high volume 'pass first' PG, or really one at all. They're typically built around a big and / or a great wing scorer, and feature solid guards... not PGs, not SGs, just guards...

 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Roy H. on March 04, 2013, 07:22:39 PM
Quote
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.

I think this widely-held basketball wisdom is silly.  Bob Cousy was probably the first "prototypical point guard" and "floor general". 

However, Cousy finished in the top-ten in FGAs 10 times, including once leading the league.  He finished in the top-ten in points eight times, as well. 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a point guard who scores, and nothing suggests that a guy can't both score *and* pass.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 04, 2013, 07:23:32 PM
Quote
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.

I think this widely-held basketball wisdom is silly.  Bob Cousy was probably the first "prototypical point guard" and "floor general". 

However, Cousy finished in the top-ten in FGAs 10 times, including once leading the league.  He finished in the top-ten in points eight times, as well. 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a point guard who scores, and nothing suggests that a guy can't both score *and* pass.

When you're good at scoring *and* passing, I think that makes you a superstar ;)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Greenback on March 04, 2013, 07:46:21 PM
Assists leader? 

As Derrick Coleman once said, "Whoop-de-[dang]-do"

Where is Greivis Vasquez on that list?  He is active assist leader neck and neck with Chris Paul.  But the New Orleans Hornets have a terrible win loss record.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: LarBrd33 on March 04, 2013, 07:55:40 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense. 

Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Celtics18 on March 04, 2013, 08:14:52 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

Edit:  Too snarky. 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 04, 2013, 08:21:27 PM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

  People talk about the "formula" for winning titles, but don't seem to realize that it pretty much starts and ends with individual performers. Whatever OKC's formula is has a chance of working with Durant, no formula that they could come up with would work on that team without him. Same for the Spurs with Duncan, who had different types of teams around him when the Spurs won. Acquiring players based on the "formula" without that superstar talent is like building a car without an engine. Building a team with the supporting cast for a superstar when you don't have a way of getting one quickly is just plain silly.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: LarBrd33 on March 05, 2013, 12:19:53 AM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

  People talk about the "formula" for winning titles, but don't seem to realize that it pretty much starts and ends with individual performers. Whatever OKC's formula is has a chance of working with Durant, no formula that they could come up with would work on that team without him. Same for the Spurs with Duncan, who had different types of teams around him when the Spurs won. Acquiring players based on the "formula" without that superstar talent is like building a car without an engine. Building a team with the supporting cast for a superstar when you don't have a way of getting one quickly is just plain silly.
See now we are on the same page.  KG was a superstar talent and that's why we won a title in 2008.  Pierce in his prime was an elite scorer, but a notch below superstardom.  Rondo is at most an allstar.  So the idea is to shop Rondo around for a high lotto pick or young assets that could possibly pan out to superstardom.  At this point, we're best off just letting Bradley stick around as our default starting PG and try to get the most trade value out of the "allstar" Rondo.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: guava_wrench on March 05, 2013, 12:24:48 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.
Didn't Andre Miller lead the league in assists when he wasn't even top 6?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wayupnorth on March 05, 2013, 12:31:41 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: guava_wrench on March 05, 2013, 12:43:02 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
They both play the 1, and he thinks that Westbrook is better than Rondo. Seems simple to me. We can disagree and believe that Rondo is better than Westbrook, but the reality remains -- they both play PG.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Celtics18 on March 05, 2013, 12:44:27 AM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

  People talk about the "formula" for winning titles, but don't seem to realize that it pretty much starts and ends with individual performers. Whatever OKC's formula is has a chance of working with Durant, no formula that they could come up with would work on that team without him. Same for the Spurs with Duncan, who had different types of teams around him when the Spurs won. Acquiring players based on the "formula" without that superstar talent is like building a car without an engine. Building a team with the supporting cast for a superstar when you don't have a way of getting one quickly is just plain silly.
See now we are on the same page.  KG was a superstar talent and that's why we won a title in 2008.  Pierce in his prime was an elite scorer, but a notch below superstardom.  Rondo is at most an allstar.  So the idea is to shop Rondo around for a high lotto pick or young assets that could possibly pan out to superstardom.  At this point, we're best off just letting Bradley stick around as our default starting PG and try to get the most trade value out of the "allstar" Rondo.

Which "young assets" do you have in mind that are potential candidates for "superstardom"?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: LarBrd33 on March 05, 2013, 12:50:14 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
who is a better basketball player?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ejk3489 on March 05, 2013, 12:52:43 AM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

But as pointed out by yourself numerous times before, Rondo has "little to no trade value", so what exactly are you hoping to cash in on? Why give away an elite talent like Rondo just so you can slot in a defensive role player at the PG position?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 01:11:33 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.

Lol, now this is hilarious to me. We all know rondo is not a better shooter than most of the guys on that list. Most of the shots he hits he hits because the defense doesn't respect his shot and hes wide open.

Hes getting better no doubt but if anybody tries to tell me rondo is a better shooter than chris paul or kyrie, don't take it the wrong way if I laugh hysterically in your face.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 01:14:20 AM
Not sure where Id place rondo as far as best PGs in the league. All I can say for sure is Id definitely not put him at number one. Hes probably the best passer tho.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wayupnorth on March 05, 2013, 01:21:04 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
who is a better basketball player?

Ahhhh this guy.

I like Rondo better, personally, but I recognize that that is not the conventional wisdom, so if this list were "top 10 players that play point guard" I would not have commented.

That seems like a heck of a silly thing to say, but I believe that PG's who pass well are better than PG's who score well (just as I feel the opposite is true of SG's(though, as stated later in this thread, having both is obviously the most prime choice)). I feel the Thunder, in particular, would have been WAY better had they kept and paid harden, and moved Westbrook for a more traditional point and picks or such.

I know you think Rondo is massively overate around here, and while as a C fan I do not get how you think that, I can respect it.

This season, Chris Paul and Kyrie Irving have shown me that they are better than Rondo (or in the case of Kyrie, will be in very short order, if not now). Tony Parker is very crafty, and due to his lengthy experience, could be argued is a better PG this season, but I think Rondo at that point in his career would be easily better than Parker. I think Derrick Rose and Westbrook are HUGELY overrated, and would take Rondo over either of them every time.

I feel that Rondo has that "it", that you don't think he has. I think Rondo can be the #1 player on a championship team. I do not feel that way about Russell Westbrook.


EDIT: Just to be clear, I was speaking to the writer of the article. I didn't mean to imply the same for posters in this thread, even if it seemed like it!
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wayupnorth on March 05, 2013, 01:26:21 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
They both play the 1, and he thinks that Westbrook is better than Rondo. Seems simple to me. We can disagree and believe that Rondo is better than Westbrook, but the reality remains -- they both play PG.

You are right, and I should have included an IMO in there, because it is just that.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: guava_wrench on March 05, 2013, 02:02:52 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
who is a better basketball player?

Ahhhh this guy.

I like Rondo better, personally, but I recognize that that is not the conventional wisdom, so if this list were "top 10 players that play point guard" I would not have commented.
A point guard is someone who plays point guard. To me, the differentiation you are making seems to me like just a way to exalt Rondo over other guys who play his position. Find what Rondo does well and make that the significant characteristic.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wayupnorth on March 05, 2013, 02:15:18 AM
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.
who is a better basketball player?

Ahhhh this guy.

I like Rondo better, personally, but I recognize that that is not the conventional wisdom, so if this list were "top 10 players that play point guard" I would not have commented.
A point guard is someone who plays point guard. To me, the differentiation you are making seems to me like just a way to exalt Rondo over other guys who play his position. Find what Rondo does well and make that the significant characteristic.

I am very big on roles. I like a traditional point, and thus value them much more, than points like AI and Rose. I understand that most people do not, and value scoring as the #1 attribute. I disagree.

I feel Rondo has "it", that point guard sense of feeding the right guys at the right time, that really can get a team red hot.

I do not think Russell Westbrook is a good point guard, but I think he is a good player. I do not think that the skill he is best at, are the most useful skills for a point guard to have. I think heavy scoring point guards ruin the flow of a teams offense, and thus are not as "good" when one considers them in the whole of the offense, and not just looking at their numbers in a vacuum.

So, I think Westbrook would beat Rondo in a game of one on one, thus earning him the better player title, but in a game of five on five, I think Rondo is the better play to put at the one spot.


Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ianboyextreme on March 05, 2013, 03:16:14 AM
Rondo has been getting dissed in these point guard rankings for years.

How can you expect any writer to recognize how good he is, if he cant even notice that he has developed one of the most reliable mid range Js in the game.

Lazy journalism and daft awareness of the game.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ianboyextreme on March 05, 2013, 03:18:45 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.


Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.
I have yet to see Rondo miss a free throw in crunch time that has cost us a game.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ianboyextreme on March 05, 2013, 03:21:08 AM
You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.
hah, and i think youre crazy for the opposite.

Yall say the same thing every regular season and then when the playoffs come around, hes everybody's favorite. Broken records. Hes gonna be sitting pretty when he hoists that Larry Obrien in the coming years.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wayupnorth on March 05, 2013, 03:37:36 AM
You can say that you think Rondo is the best. But if you wouldn't trade Rondo for Irving or CP3 you're crazy.
hah, and i think youre crazy for the opposite.

Yall say the same thing every regular season and then when the playoffs come around, hes everybody's favorite. Broken records. Hes gonna be sitting pretty when he hoists that Larry Obrien in the coming years.

I gotta say I hear you...

He can't score...well, where did those 44 come from? We weren't going to take that series past the sixers without him, let alone take the heat to seven.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: jdz101 on March 05, 2013, 06:03:48 AM
I think that list is about right.

If it were top 10 playoff point guards I would have rondo higher though, if not at the top.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Greenback on March 05, 2013, 06:48:21 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 07:21:15 AM
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

Also, I have a hard time believing Rondo will ever average 11+ assists again... not now that it's been pretty much proven the stats were inflated in an offensive system that didn't really work.

   Not only has it not been proven that Rondo's stats were inflated, it hasn't been shown that the offensive system didn't work. Nash and Magic and Stockton each had 5-7 11+ assist seasons when they were older than Rondo so it probably isn't as unlikely as you think. And, for the record, those guys were playing in offensive systems that led to high assist totals for them.

I think the point of the comment was that since the Celtics offense hasn't suffered with him out, and that there's more ball-sharing, that the expectation is that Doc will take the ball out of his hands more often once he returns.

It's possible on the other hand that the Jazz offense was much better with Stockton handling the ball 100% of the time, than it would have been with more sharing.

The comment about "offensive system" is more a thought about Rondo's future role specifically with this team than about whether it's possible for Rondo to again average 11+ assists in the same system, or whether having someone else average 11+ is a good/bad thing.
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.  This just made sense with conventional basketball logic.  WHat's interesting, though... is that you have to go all the way back to Isiah Thomas and the Bad Boy Pistons to find a team that won a championship with a point guard who averaged over 8 assists... and in that instance, Isiah was also the team's best offensive weapon.   Are we really sure that this conventional wisdom is still relevant?  What evidence do we have that a team needs a ball-dominating poor-offensive passer?   This isn't football where you need a great passer to lead an offense.  This is the NBA.  In the NBA, big men and dominant scorers win championships.  And at the moment, it actually seems like this league has evolved into a system where elite point-guard sized scorers (your IRvings, your Curry's, your Westbrooks, your ROse's, etc) are able to flourish due to rule changes.  So it's possible for teams to exploit this by having elite scoring point guards.   Right now... isn't the point guard skill of "passing" secondary to putting the ball in the hoop? It makes sense why ROndo is only 6th on that list... you'd take a scoring point guard with mediocre passing over a passing point guard with weak offensive skills. I'm starting to think that the idea of a "pure" point guard isn't really relevant anymore... in the same way that the definition of the center position has changed in today's NBA.

Wait, first the knock on Rondo was that he can't lead your team to a championship because past evidence has shown that PG's don't win you titles. Now the logic is, we don't need Rondo because scoring PG's are more important in the NBA right now.

And suddenly having a PG who can score but has mediocre point guard skills is better than one who has elite skills but can't score (which BTW, isn't true for Rondo). That's absurd.

It's also highly unlikely that a guy like Curry, Irving, or even Rose will lead their team to a title any faster than Rondo will.
So then the obvious consensus is that we are perfectly fine with a defensive roleplayer like Bradley slotted in as permanent starting point guard... and then cash in Rondo to the highest bidder.   Bradley will slow down these elite scoring point guard pests... and there's no reason we need an elite passer.  Our chips are best spent on more important attributes like scoring, rebounding and interior defense.

  People talk about the "formula" for winning titles, but don't seem to realize that it pretty much starts and ends with individual performers. Whatever OKC's formula is has a chance of working with Durant, no formula that they could come up with would work on that team without him. Same for the Spurs with Duncan, who had different types of teams around him when the Spurs won. Acquiring players based on the "formula" without that superstar talent is like building a car without an engine. Building a team with the supporting cast for a superstar when you don't have a way of getting one quickly is just plain silly.
See now we are on the same page.  KG was a superstar talent and that's why we won a title in 2008.  Pierce in his prime was an elite scorer, but a notch below superstardom.  Rondo is at most an allstar.

  This is where you're clearly wrong. Rondo isn't at most an all-star. That's his floor. He's at most someone who can play like a superstar in the playoffs, dominate games (and series) and lead a team to deep playoff runs. You want to trade Rondo for a spin at the wheel that has a slight chance of netting a player better than Rondo and a much larger chance of adding a worse player. That's not smart.

  You're right that we won in 2008 with KG as a superstar and Ray/PP as elite scorers. In 2010 that wasn't the case. Paul and Ray weren't the same level of scorers they were in 2008, that's why we couldn't close out the LA series. KG was hobbling around on 1 leg, nowhere near superstar level. Our best scorer was tied for 20th in playoff scoring, our best rebounder was tied for 20th in rebounds.

  Rondo was arguably the best performer in the playoffs until he picked up a leg injury vs Orlando but there was little doubt (to me) we'd have won the title up to that point. Also look at last year. KG was playing very good but we didn't really have an elite scorer. We had an injured PP, generally poor play at the sg and pf positions and fairly dismal backups and still made it to game 7 of the ECF behind Rondo's great play. While we haven't won a title with Rondo he's shown that he can take teams that don't meet your formula on deep playoff runs. That's not the kind of player you throw away for a spin on the wheel.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: bfrombleacher on March 05, 2013, 07:24:17 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 05, 2013, 07:25:18 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Because it isn't.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 07:49:15 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.

Lol, now this is hilarious to me. We all know rondo is not a better shooter than most of the guys on that list. Most of the shots he hits he hits because the defense doesn't respect his shot and hes wide open.

Hes getting better no doubt but if anybody tries to tell me rondo is a better shooter than chris paul or kyrie, don't take it the wrong way if I laugh hysterically in your face.

  Obviously Rondo isn't a better shooter than CP or Kyrie, but there's a lot of range between that level and a poor shooter. I don't think Rondo was a poor shooter this year, I'd say that on his long 2 point jumpers he was a little above average.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 08:26:57 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.

Poor FG shooter,, shaq-like FT shooter. He's a liability in the 4th, where the others are assets.


Rondo Career fg%: 48%

Chris Paul: 47%

Westbrook: 43%

Kyrie Irving: 475

Rose: 46%

Tony Parker : 49%


Seems like his FG% is on par with these guys.

Lol, now this is hilarious to me. We all know rondo is not a better shooter than most of the guys on that list. Most of the shots he hits he hits because the defense doesn't respect his shot and hes wide open.

Hes getting better no doubt but if anybody tries to tell me rondo is a better shooter than chris paul or kyrie, don't take it the wrong way if I laugh hysterically in your face.

  Obviously Rondo isn't a better shooter than CP or Kyrie, but there's a lot of range between that level and a poor shooter. I don't think Rondo was a poor shooter this year, I'd say that on his long 2 point jumpers he was a little above average.

Fair enough
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 05, 2013, 08:31:01 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 08:50:18 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 05, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 09:01:12 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

  By the same token it's indicative of the kind of game Rondo's capable of. If Rondo hadn't had the game he had we'd probably have been blown out. While that amount of positive impact wasn't able to bring home the win in that particular game it would be in other cases. And, while basketball is a team sport, it's still worthwhile to recognize individual greatness. Look at the way KG played all those years in Minny, I don't think "none of what he did mattered because it didn't lead to enough wins" is a great summation of his time there.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Moranis on March 05, 2013, 09:02:23 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*
Mario Chalmers also had by far his best game in that series in that game. 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Moranis on March 05, 2013, 09:03:36 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

  By the same token it's indicative of the kind of game Rondo's capable of. If Rondo hadn't had the game he had we'd probably have been blown out. While that amount of positive impact wasn't able to bring home the win in that particular game it would be in other cases. And, while basketball is a team sport, it's still worthwhile to recognize individual greatness. Look at the way KG played all those years in Minny, I don't think "none of what he did mattered because it didn't lead to enough wins" is a great summation of his time there.
well considering 12 of Rondo's points were in OT, that does skew the total a bit.  Though I will give you he was the only Celtic that appeared to show up for the OT as he scored every single Celtic point in that frame.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 09:07:14 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*
Mario Chalmers also had by far his best game in that series in that game.

  Rondo spent quite a bit of time guarding Wade that series. The hot Heat guard in that series was generally whoever Ray was guarding.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:07:46 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?

I ranked kyrie over rondo as far as scoring, that's it. Winning is everything but there's some common sense that goes with that.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ChainSmokingLikeDino on March 05, 2013, 09:08:21 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement. 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: wdleehi on March 05, 2013, 09:10:09 AM
i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.


Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

.82 FT % getting to the line almost 5 times a game. 


And leads the team with the best record in the NBA.




What is there not to like?
how is it fair to exclude rebounding from the comparison when that is one of rondos strengths?


OK.

3.1 rebounds a game.


Don't see that as a big issue. 


He still has the numbers, the success and the hardware that he can easily be argued number 2 in terms of PGs and better then Rondo. 
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 05, 2013, 09:12:42 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?

I ranked kyrie over rondo as far as scoring, that's it. Winning is everything but there's some common sense that goes with that.

There's also some common sense to saying Rondo's 40 point game was ridiculously impressive despite the fact that his team lost.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 05, 2013, 09:14:14 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

Great post.  TP
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:18:51 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 09:19:23 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?

I ranked kyrie over rondo as far as scoring, that's it. Winning is everything but there's some common sense that goes with that.

  So you'd never rank someone like CP over Rondo or Parker until Paul was on a sufficiently good team? You wouldn't have found his achievements on the Hornets to be significantly impressive?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:21:04 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?

I ranked kyrie over rondo as far as scoring, that's it. Winning is everything but there's some common sense that goes with that.

There's also some common sense to saying Rondo's 40 point game was ridiculously impressive despite the fact that his team lost.

Rondo had a good game statistical wise but at the end of the day nobody cared.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:24:19 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?

I ranked kyrie over rondo as far as scoring, that's it. Winning is everything but there's some common sense that goes with that.

  So you'd never rank someone like CP over Rondo or Parker until Paul was on a sufficiently good team? You wouldn't have found his achievements on the Hornets to be significantly impressive?

Honestly, I acknowledged paul was one of the best point guards in the league but his team wasn't going anywhere so at the end of the day that doesn't mean much.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 05, 2013, 09:24:47 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

lol but you still would rank Kyrie Irving above Rondo with your winning is everything mentality?

I ranked kyrie over rondo as far as scoring, that's it. Winning is everything but there's some common sense that goes with that.

There's also some common sense to saying Rondo's 40 point game was ridiculously impressive despite the fact that his team lost.

Rondo had a good game statistical wise but at the end of the day nobody cared.

Oh.  Because you don't care no one does.  Not me, not other who have brought it up, not Magic Johnson who was gushing about it after the game.

Got it.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 09:25:30 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.

  I don't think that analyzing results is as simplistic as did you win or not. Whether you lose in game 7 or get blown out in 4 games will affect your outlook on a team and expectations of the team going forward, Paul Pierce putting up great stats on a bad team dictates you're likely to keep him and dump Raef and Blount.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:30:27 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.

  I don't think that analyzing results is as simplistic as did you win or not. Whether you lose in game 7 or get blown out in 4 games will affect your outlook on a team and expectations of the team going forward, Paul Pierce putting up great stats on a bad team dictates you're likely to keep him and dump Raef and Blount.

Well yeah I agree with most of this. Still, the hawks took us to game 7 in our championship year. What have they done since then?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ssspence on March 05, 2013, 09:30:46 AM
This thread has past the point of no return.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 05, 2013, 09:33:31 AM
To get back on topic, how do you guys think Rondo will be next season as far as style of play?

Do you think the injury will take away his athleticism, which is a large part of his game?

Will his jumper be improved?

How will he perform against other top PGs?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: CelticG1 on March 05, 2013, 09:34:28 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.

  I don't think that analyzing results is as simplistic as did you win or not. Whether you lose in game 7 or get blown out in 4 games will affect your outlook on a team and expectations of the team going forward, Paul Pierce putting up great stats on a bad team dictates you're likely to keep him and dump Raef and Blount.

You're not really analyzing the game if you only look at wins and losses and if you only look at stats for a winning team well to me thats just ridiculous.

Losing a close game and a blow out are completely different. A d3 college team and and theCeltics losing to the Heat are completely different things.

Anyone can look at thebgame how they want. I can say whoever scores the most points is the best player because whoever has more points at the end of the game wins.

To me loking at the game in such a simplistic way kind of ruins it. Might as well not even watch and look at the win loss column everyday (which im sure people do)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: D.o.s. on March 05, 2013, 09:37:33 AM
I would also say that Rondo probably has the most unique game out of all those guys on this list, and is the most irreplaceable--which is why I don't want him gone from the team, even if I don't think he's the best PG in the league.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:38:38 AM
To get back on topic, how do you guys think Rondo will be next season as far as style of play?

Do you think the injury will take away his athleticism, which is a large part of his game?

Will his jumper be improved?

How will he perform against other top PGs?

Your guess is as good as mine. I could see so many different scenarios playing out.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Snakehead on March 05, 2013, 09:40:30 AM
To get back on topic, how do you guys think Rondo will be next season as far as style of play?

Do you think the injury will take away his athleticism, which is a large part of his game?

Will his jumper be improved?

How will he perform against other top PGs?

The injury didn't seem too severe so I think he should be fine, also given that we've seen good recoveries from similar injuries and we know Rondo will be driven to hit rehab hard.

His jumper was very improved this year so no reason not to continue.

And I hope the free play of the team since his injury does change how the team thinks about Rondo and how he plays some.  It would be nice to have other players push the ball up and Rondo play off them more, which would allow him to score and be more dynamic.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:41:54 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.

  I don't think that analyzing results is as simplistic as did you win or not. Whether you lose in game 7 or get blown out in 4 games will affect your outlook on a team and expectations of the team going forward, Paul Pierce putting up great stats on a bad team dictates you're likely to keep him and dump Raef and Blount.

You're not really analyzing the game if you only look at wins and losses and if you only look at stats for a winning team well to me thats just ridiculous.

Losing a close game and a blow out are completely different. A d3 college team and and theCeltics losing to the Heat are completely different things.

Anyone can look at thebgame how they want. I can say whoever scores the most points is the best player because whoever has more points at the end of the game wins.

To me loking at the game in such a simplistic way kind of ruins it. Might as well not even watch and look at the win loss column everyday (which im sure people do)

Who does that? I'm pretty sure most people look at everything. I always look at all the stats. Still, if my team loses I really don't care if rondo had a triple double that game.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: ChainSmokingLikeDino on March 05, 2013, 09:45:17 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.

So, by this there can never be a valuable performance from a player on a bad team. We can never look at it and see how this player performed, how they help a team, how they can effect a team in the future. They lost. It is dismissed. What is the point of trying to evaluate how a player plays the game of basketball if the only metric is did the team win. A high draftee on a bottom dwelling team is not going to be on a team that wins 50 games. Is it pointless to look at their achievements and not ascribe it some value even though they players they play with are not very good?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 09:51:43 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*

I've never understood this argument. People dismissed Curry's game against The Knicks because The Warriors lost. I perfectly grasp that to Rondo, or Curry, or many players, the numbers mean nothing in a loss. But to those watching, and utilizing statistics to understand what happened in a game, dismissing statistics because of a loss makes zero sense. Yes, one can say wins trump individual achievements, but because The Warriors are not as good a team as The Knicks, were without Lee, and barely lost that game, that doesn't negate what Curry did. If Curry doesn't do that do they come even close to winning? Numbers aren't negated by a loss. Numbers are shaped by context and are to be viewed in context. If a player has a great game and the team over achieves, though still come up short, that doesn't mean it was all for naught. You can still see how the individual played a great game that led to the team playing better than one had the expectation they would. That is an achievement.

See I put ZERO into the barely lost almost won crap. If you lost the game you lost the game. Doesn't matter if it was by 1 point or 85. Just like when people like to say the celtics barely lost to the heat last year I just laugh. You can't barely lose, you either win or you lose there is no inbetween.

I acknowledge curry had a great game. At the end of the day tho it was all for nothing. You play great to win the game. You don't play great to have pretty looking stats in a loss.

So, by this there can never be a valuable performance from a player on a bad team. We can never look at it and see how this player performed, how they help a team, how they can effect a team in the future. They lost. It is dismissed. What is the point of trying to evaluate how a player plays the game of basketball if the only metric is did the team win. A high draftee on a bottom dwelling team is not going to be on a team that wins 50 games. Is it pointless to look at their achievements and not ascribe it some value even though they players they play with are not very good?

Never once said that. You're clearly not comprehending here. I acknowledged curry had a great game the other day. I acknowledged rondo had a great game 2....THAT BEING SAID, it was all for nothing. Why do people play the game? To win or to have good looking stats?
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: celticslove on March 05, 2013, 10:10:24 AM
i wonder who does better between rondo and westbrook if they are on the bobcats right now. :D
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: D.o.s. on March 05, 2013, 10:12:59 AM
i wonder who does better between rondo and westbrook if they are on the bobcats right now. :D

Right now? Westbrook--he's got two working ACLs.

 8)
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Moranis on March 05, 2013, 10:18:11 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*
Mario Chalmers also had by far his best game in that series in that game.

  Rondo spent quite a bit of time guarding Wade that series. The hot Heat guard in that series was generally whoever Ray was guarding.
Wade had probably his best game in that series in that game as well (although he had a few games that were all close so it is debatable).
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 10:21:58 AM
Who does that? I'm pretty sure most people look at everything. I always look at all the stats. Still, if my team loses I really don't care if rondo had a triple double that game.

  By that logic, would you care if he had a triple double and they won? Still, I think that this just comes down to semantics, if you look at stats then on some level you care what he does in losses.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 05, 2013, 10:28:34 AM
Who does that? I'm pretty sure most people look at everything. I always look at all the stats. Still, if my team loses I really don't care if rondo had a triple double that game.

  By that logic, would you care if he had a triple double and they won? Still, I think that this just comes down to semantics, if you look at stats then on some level you care what he does in losses.

If we win then yeah Id care if rondo had a triple double. At the same time If we win I don't really care what the stats say, we won. I still would acknowledge and appreciate it tho. Just like if we lose ill acknowledge if pierce had a good game but at the same time I just don't care. Wins and losses is all I care about at the end of the day.
Title: Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
Post by: BballTim on March 05, 2013, 10:31:17 AM
Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

Are you implying Rondo's 44/10/8 is overrated?

Its overrated because we lost the game. The number themselves aren't overrated but once the game was lost it became irrelevant. Just like if lebron took over game 6 but the heat still lost nobody would have cared.

How is it possibly irrelevant in talking about Rondo as a player?  It's an individual accomplishment.

It's one of the best playoff performances I've ever seen.  Unfortunately for us LeBron had maybe the best I've ever seen a few games later.

I put so much into winning *As does every NBA great*. To me stats mean very very little if you don't get the win. I can promise you rondo felt the same way. Think he cares about those numbers after the celtics lost?

Yes the numbers look great but again, his team lost the game. I personally stopped caring about those stats the very second that happend. Those great numbers weren't enough to get the W which at the end of the day, again, is  all that matters. *To me and most players*
Mario Chalmers also had by far his best game in that series in that game.

  Rondo spent quite a bit of time guarding Wade that series. The hot Heat guard in that series was generally whoever Ray was guarding.
Wade had probably his best game in that series in that game as well (although he had a few games that were all close so it is debatable).

  Again, you'd have to watch the game to see who was actually getting scored on. Sometimes Rondo just guards one guy, sometimes he gets moved around to guard who's hot on the other team. I'd say overall that Wade was held in check in that series.