CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: winsomme on May 26, 2013, 10:07:48 AM
-
I think the Spurs are showing in this postseason why Danny absolutely should be bringing back PP and Garnett. The "age factor" which has seemed like overriding factor going into this off season for the Cs in terms of how decisions should be made has never been the biggest factor for me and is even less so after seeing this run by the San Antonio Spurs.
Look at the main parts of the rosters:
Tony Parker Rondo
Danny Green Courney Lee
Manu Ginobili Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter Barndon Bass
Tim Duncan Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard Jeff Green
Gary Neal Jason Terry
Boris Diaw Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner ? Insert Player
Certainly many will argue many of these matchups, but I think when you step back from the rosters as a whole, the Cs are not that far off from having a very comparable roster.
The two biggest factors IMO why the Cs are not currently where the Spurs are are injury (Rondo and Sullinger most notably) and Danny still not having replaced Perk. We are undersized in the post and on the wing as well.
If this off season Danny is able to finally replace Perk with a decent legit big man (MLE?) and uses a pretty valuable draft pick well (along with the returns of Rondo and Sully), I don't see any reason why running it back (ie PP and KG stay) couldn't put us right back in the running for a Title. The Spurs are the proof that age in and of itself should not dominate the decision making.
I also really hope Danny moves on from bringing in undersized wing players. Watching the Miami-Indiana series should be showing that strong wing defenders are also very important in battling the Heat.
-
I definitely see the logic, but how will pierce and kg be after another year? How does rondo bounce back?
-
I just realized that I left out Avery Bradley which just goes to show just how many undersized wings we have on this team.
Avery Bradley, Jason Terry, Courtney Lee, Jordan Crawford...add in Barbosa. Too many small wings. Give me two of these guys at most.
-
I definitely see the logic, but how will pierce and kg be after another year? How does rondo bounce back?
True, but I have to think that Garnett is watching his old man friend Duncan and chomping at the bit to return.
I think as long as there are high profile guys out there in the same situation, KG and PP are gonna want to stay too.
-
I think some kind of trade is going to be necessary as well. I just hope it's not PP because I think he has the most value to us.
I really hope what happens that PP and the Cs agree to something where they buy him out and resigns for two years at solid money to keep him and KG here together through the end of 2015.
Then I hope we look at trades to free up some roster spots because we have a lot of money dedicated to redundant players.
We HAVE to get bigger in the post and on the wing. It is an absolute must.
-
I think the Spurs are showing in this postseason why Danny absolutely should be bringing back PP and Garnett. The "age factor" which has seemed like overriding factor going into this off season for the Cs in terms of how decisions should be made has never been the biggest factor for me and is even less so after seeing this run by the San Antonio Spurs.
Look at the main parts of the rosters:
Tony Parker Rondo
Danny Green Courney Lee
Manu Ginobili Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter Barndon Bass
Tim Duncan Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard Jeff Green
Gary Neal Jason Terry
Boris Diaw Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner ? Insert Player
Certainly many will argue many of these matchups, but I think when you step back from the rosters as a whole, the Cs are not that far off from having a very comparable roster.
There is a huge difference in talent at the top. Duncan was first-team All-NBA. Parker was 2nd team All-NBA. Parker and Duncan were 6th and 7th in MVP balloting, and also both top 10 (6th and 9th) in regular season PER.
So by any measure you want, the Spurs had two top-10 players. That's why they won 58 games and are cruising to the finals.
KG and Pierce, while still very good players, are just not comparable at this stage. As a point of comparison they were 38th and 40th in PER.
When healthy Rondo is terrific, but next year he is returning from an ACL injury, and you just have to recognize that he will probably not be playing at his pre-injury level for some or all of the year.
Put it all together and we just won't have the talent. I think the rest of the Spurs roster is also more talented than ours, but that is secondary to the talent at the top.
-
I think the Spurs are showing in this postseason why Danny absolutely should be bringing back PP and Garnett. The "age factor" which has seemed like overriding factor going into this off season for the Cs in terms of how decisions should be made has never been the biggest factor for me and is even less so after seeing this run by the San Antonio Spurs.
Look at the main parts of the rosters:
Tony Parker Rondo
Danny Green Courney Lee
Manu Ginobili Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter Barndon Bass
Tim Duncan Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard Jeff Green
Gary Neal Jason Terry
Boris Diaw Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner ? Insert Player
Certainly many will argue many of these matchups, but I think when you step back from the rosters as a whole, the Cs are not that far off from having a very comparable roster.
There is a huge difference in talent at the top. Duncan was first-team All-NBA. Parker was 2nd team All-NBA. Parker and Duncan were 6th and 7th in MVP balloting, and also both top 10 (6th and 9th) in regular season PER.
So by any measure you want, the Spurs had two top-10 players. That's why they won 58 games and are cruising to the finals.
KG and Pierce, while still very good players, are just not comparable at this stage. As a point of comparison they were 38th and 40th in PER.
When healthy Rondo is terrific, but next year he is returning from an ACL injury, and you just have to recognize that he will probably not be playing at his pre-injury level for some or all of the year.
Put it all together and we just won't have the talent. I think the rest of the Spurs roster is also more talented than ours, but that is secondary to the talent at the top.
It's easy to say that the rest of the roster is just "better" than the Cs based on how they are currently playing, but each Cs player has demonstrated the ability to play at the same or even a higher level than a comparable player on the Spurs. Jeff Green for example has shown flashes of being a go-to player. And Garnett was playing his best basketball of the season at the end.
I don't think you can look at PER stats to find the answers because this Cs team was definitely dysfunctional, but the dysfunction is correctable. Plus, looking at how the playoffs played out for us, I think the impact of the absence of Rondo certainly is the biggest take-away. This would have been a very different playoff run with Rondo on the floor.
Like I said earlier, we can go round and round on the different elements of the Spurs and the Cs rosters. and frankly each one of these debates (ie Tony Parker vs. Rondo; Duncan vs. KG) has been beaten to death. If you step back and look at the rosters as a whole, however, I think that we certainly have the core elements (like the Spurs) to have a Title contending team.
We just need Danny to stick with it AND make some better decisions in filling out the rest of the roster.
-
We are not the Spurs, we don't have Popavich, so I don't agree. They can consistently score, we can't!
-
We are not the Spurs, we don't have Popavich, so I don't agree. They can consistently score, we can't!
Tony Parker's ability to finish around the hoop makes them so dangerous. If Rondo can make the leap to a 17 or 18 PPG scorer I think this is a fair comparison. As long as Rondo is hovering around 13 or 14 points. For now, this poster is right, Spurs can score the Celtics can't.
-
I actually think our roster is better than the Spurs'. We just need to click, and that's on Doc.
-
Tony Parker = Rajon Rondo
Danny Green = Courtney Lee
Manu Ginobili < Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter > Brandon Bass
Tim Duncan = Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard = Jeff Green
Gary Neal < Jason Terry
Boris Diaw < Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner > ? Insert Player
Thing is, Pop gets all his players to contribute. Can we?
-
this is so ridiculous
the comparisons between splitter, leonard and diaw are awful, for one.
smh
and manu right now is better than an aging paul pierce
and it's tough to argue kg being better than or equal to tim duncan.
the grizzlies, pacers, warriors, bulls are an example of how we should move on.
-
I am for it.
-
I think the main difference is Parker vs rondo and tonys ability to be consistently aggressive and looking to score.
-
this is so ridiculous
the comparisons between splitter, leonard and diaw are awful, for one.
smh
and manu right now is better than an aging paul pierce
and it's tough to argue kg being better than or equal to tim duncan.
the grizzlies, pacers, warriors, bulls are an example of how we should move on.
Manu is actually older than Pierce and has showed his age much much more over the last couple seasons.
-
Tony Parker = Rajon Rondo
Danny Green = Courtney Lee
Manu Ginobili < Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter > Brandon Bass
Tim Duncan = Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard = Jeff Green
Gary Neal < Jason Terry
Boris Diaw < Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner > ? Insert Player
Thing is, Pop gets all his players to contribute. Can we?
and don't forget I accidentally left out Avery Bradley. I think with a few changes there is no reason the Cs can't be Title contenders for the next two years and THEN rebuild.
-
this is so ridiculous
the comparisons between splitter, leonard and diaw are awful, for one.
smh
and manu right now is better than an aging paul pierce
and it's tough to argue kg being better than or equal to tim duncan.
the grizzlies, pacers, warriors, bulls are an example of how we should move on.
Manu is actually older than Pierce and has showed his age much much more over the last couple seasons.
Definitely agree here. If I could take Manu or Paul straight up I would definitely take Pierce. By a lot actually.
-
It's actually the fiscally responsible thing to do as well. This team is VERY popular. To break it up doesn't make sense money-wise.
-
this is so ridiculous
the comparisons between splitter, leonard and diaw are awful, for one.
smh
and manu right now is better than an aging paul pierce
and it's tough to argue kg being better than or equal to tim duncan.
the grizzlies, pacers, warriors, bulls are an example of how we should move on.
Manu is actually older than Pierce and has showed his age much much more over the last couple seasons.
that's fine.
manu is still better than paul
-
this is so ridiculous
the comparisons between splitter, leonard and diaw are awful, for one.
smh
and manu right now is better than an aging paul pierce
and it's tough to argue kg being better than or equal to tim duncan.
the grizzlies, pacers, warriors, bulls are an example of how we should move on.
Manu is actually older than Pierce and has showed his age much much more over the last couple seasons.
that's fine.
manu is still better than paul
Another of the Spurs-Cs debates that could go on forever...
-
I think the Spurs are showing in this postseason why Danny absolutely should be bringing back PP and Garnett. The "age factor" which has seemed like overriding factor going into this off season for the Cs in terms of how decisions should be made has never been the biggest factor for me and is even less so after seeing this run by the San Antonio Spurs.
Look at the main parts of the rosters:
Tony Parker Rondo
Danny Green Courney Lee
Manu Ginobili Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter Barndon Bass
Tim Duncan Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard Jeff Green
Gary Neal Jason Terry
Boris Diaw Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner ? Insert Player
Certainly many will argue many of these matchups, but I think when you step back from the rosters as a whole, the Cs are not that far off from having a very comparable roster.
There is a huge difference in talent at the top. Duncan was first-team All-NBA. Parker was 2nd team All-NBA. Parker and Duncan were 6th and 7th in MVP balloting, and also both top 10 (6th and 9th) in regular season PER.
So by any measure you want, the Spurs had two top-10 players. That's why they won 58 games and are cruising to the finals.
KG and Pierce, while still very good players, are just not comparable at this stage. As a point of comparison they were 38th and 40th in PER.
When healthy Rondo is terrific, but next year he is returning from an ACL injury, and you just have to recognize that he will probably not be playing at his pre-injury level for some or all of the year.
Put it all together and we just won't have the talent. I think the rest of the Spurs roster is also more talented than ours, but that is secondary to the talent at the top.
It's easy to say that the rest of the roster is just "better" than the Cs based on how they are currently playing, but each Cs player has demonstrated the ability to play at the same or even a higher level than a comparable player on the Spurs. Jeff Green for example has shown flashes of being a go-to player. And Garnett was playing his best basketball of the season at the end.
I don't think you can look at PER stats to find the answers because this Cs team was definitely dysfunctional, but the dysfunction is correctable. Plus, looking at how the playoffs played out for us, I think the impact of the absence of Rondo certainly is the biggest take-away. This would have been a very different playoff run with Rondo on the floor.
Like I said earlier, we can go round and round on the different elements of the Spurs and the Cs rosters. and frankly each one of these debates (ie Tony Parker vs. Rondo; Duncan vs. KG) has been beaten to death. If you step back and look at the rosters as a whole, however, I think that we certainly have the core elements (like the Spurs) to have a Title contending team.
We just need Danny to stick with it AND make some better decisions in filling out the rest of the roster.
The top 3 teams in the league this year - MIA, OKC and SAS - all have two top 10 players. This is not just by PER. It is based on that, on All-NBA teams, on MVP votes...pick whatever criterion you want.
Next year we will have zero.
Pierce and KG are somewhere in the 30-40 range. Who knows where Rondo will end up, but even if he comes back in top form he's probably top 20 at best.
I don't see how fuzzy statements about rosters "as a whole" tell you anything useful. It's pretty simple, the Spurs' best players are significantly better than our best players, by any objective measure you can think of (including results in the W column).
Every champion in the modern era except one has had a top 10 player on its roster, and nearly all champions have had two players at that elite level. That's how you win in the NBA.
I'm actually not against running it back, for what that's worth. But I think hoping that we can contend for a championship with our current roster plus a minor piece or two is...optimistic, to say it tactfully. And Danny has said essentially the same thing.
-
I think the main difference is Parker vs rondo and tonys ability to be consistently aggressive and looking to score.
It helps when you have "the others" like Shaq likes to put it that are able to make shots. That killed us all year guys able to collapse on us Lee and Jet were just awful shooting the ball, no spacing at all. That's what makes the Spurs so good their shooters are deadly and spread the floor for Tony and Duncan.
-
I think the main difference is Parker vs rondo and tonys ability to be consistently aggressive and looking to score.
It helps when you have "the others" like Shaq likes to put it that are able to make shots. That killed us all year guys able to collapse on us Lee and Jet were just awful shooting the ball, no spacing at all. That's what makes the Spurs so good their shooters are deadly and spread the floor for Tony and Duncan.
I agree about this too. The top 5 3-point shooting teams in the league this year were MIA, SAS, OKC, NYK and GSW.
I don't think it's a coincidence that these teams made deep playoff runs.
-
this is so ridiculous
the comparisons between splitter, leonard and diaw are awful, for one.
smh
and manu right now is better than an aging paul pierce
and it's tough to argue kg being better than or equal to tim duncan.
Tiago Splitter
10/6
Brandon Bass last year
13/6
Kawhi Leonard
14/7/2/2
Jeff Green
17/5/2/1
Boris Diaw in 23 minutes (veteran with no upside)
6/3/2
Jared Sullinger in 20 minutes (rookie with tons of upside)
6/6/1
Manu Ginobili
12/3/5/1
Paul Pierce
19/6/5/1
Tim Duncan
18/10/3/3
Kevin Garnett
15/8/2/1
I'd say Brandon Bass is just as good as Tiago, Jeff Green is just as good as Kawhi, Jared Sullinger is better than Diaw, Paul Pierce is far better than Manu and Tim Duncan is better than KG. But what KG has that Timmy doesn't have is ridiculous defense.
-
The only way I would be interested in running it back , is if we can land Josh Smith , Cousins , or another legit big man without giving Up Rondo, PP,KG and Green ..
If you can't keep all those guys , I don't see how we would be getting better
that means packaging Bradley and/or Sully , plus picks and salary filler to land a legit big man .
-
I think the Spurs are showing in this postseason why Danny absolutely should be bringing back PP and Garnett. The "age factor" which has seemed like overriding factor going into this off season for the Cs in terms of how decisions should be made has never been the biggest factor for me and is even less so after seeing this run by the San Antonio Spurs.
Look at the main parts of the rosters:
Tony Parker Rondo
Danny Green Courney Lee
Manu Ginobili Paul Pierce
Tiago Splitter Barndon Bass
Tim Duncan Kevin Garnett
Kawhi Leonard Jeff Green
Gary Neal Jason Terry
Boris Diaw Jared Sullinger
Matt Bonner ? Insert Player
Certainly many will argue many of these matchups, but I think when you step back from the rosters as a whole, the Cs are not that far off from having a very comparable roster.
There is a huge difference in talent at the top. Duncan was first-team All-NBA. Parker was 2nd team All-NBA. Parker and Duncan were 6th and 7th in MVP balloting, and also both top 10 (6th and 9th) in regular season PER.
So by any measure you want, the Spurs had two top-10 players. That's why they won 58 games and are cruising to the finals.
KG and Pierce, while still very good players, are just not comparable at this stage. As a point of comparison they were 38th and 40th in PER.
When healthy Rondo is terrific, but next year he is returning from an ACL injury, and you just have to recognize that he will probably not be playing at his pre-injury level for some or all of the year.
Put it all together and we just won't have the talent. I think the rest of the Spurs roster is also more talented than ours, but that is secondary to the talent at the top.
It's easy to say that the rest of the roster is just "better" than the Cs based on how they are currently playing, but each Cs player has demonstrated the ability to play at the same or even a higher level than a comparable player on the Spurs. Jeff Green for example has shown flashes of being a go-to player. And Garnett was playing his best basketball of the season at the end.
I don't think you can look at PER stats to find the answers because this Cs team was definitely dysfunctional, but the dysfunction is correctable. Plus, looking at how the playoffs played out for us, I think the impact of the absence of Rondo certainly is the biggest take-away. This would have been a very different playoff run with Rondo on the floor.
Like I said earlier, we can go round and round on the different elements of the Spurs and the Cs rosters. and frankly each one of these debates (ie Tony Parker vs. Rondo; Duncan vs. KG) has been beaten to death. If you step back and look at the rosters as a whole, however, I think that we certainly have the core elements (like the Spurs) to have a Title contending team.
We just need Danny to stick with it AND make some better decisions in filling out the rest of the roster.
The top 3 teams in the league this year - MIA, OKC and SAS - all have two top 10 players. This is not just by PER. It is based on that, on All-NBA teams, on MVP votes...pick whatever criterion you want.
Next year we will have zero.
Pierce and KG are somewhere in the 30-40 range. Who knows where Rondo will end up, but even if he comes back in top form he's probably top 20 at best.
I don't see how fuzzy statements about rosters "as a whole" tell you anything useful. It's pretty simple, the Spurs' best players are significantly better than our best players, by any objective measure you can think of (including results in the W column).
Every champion in the modern era except one has had a top 10 player on its roster, and nearly all champions have had two players at that elite level. That's how you win in the NBA.
I'm actually not against running it back, for what that's worth. But I think hoping that we can contend for a championship with our current roster plus a minor piece or two is...optimistic, to say it tactfully. And Danny has said essentially the same thing.
I am quick to admit that I am not a statistics junkie...maybe someone else who is that agrees with me can build that argument. But when I watch the Spurs play and I think about the elements of our team I believe that we are not that far off from competing for a Title.
I mean who really thought that Tim Duncan could play at this level at this point in his career. Don't forget that he has been battling plantar faciitis and still has been able to play at this level. Also, don't forget that we have already had two Title runs with non-Top 10 talent.
Plus, I think you are underestimating Rondo's ability to return at to his elite level. I think Rose's hesitancy to return to the floor has unfortunately perpetuated the idea that players can't return after ACL surgery...
-
Tiago Splitter
10/6
Brandon Bass last year
13/6
Brandon Bass is better. (1-0-0)
Kawhi Leonard
14/7/2/2
Jeff Green
17/5/2/1
Equal. (1-1-0)
Boris Diaw in 23 minutes (veteran with no upside)
6/3/2
Jared Sullinger in 20 minutes (rookie with tons of upside)
6/6/1
Sully is better. (2-1-0)
Manu Ginobili
12/3/5/1
Paul Pierce
19/6/5/1
Pierce is far better. (3-1-0)
Tim Duncan
18/10/3/3
Kevin Garnett
15/8/2/1
Duncan is better, but KG has D. (3-1-1)
Danny Green
11/3/2/1
Courtney Lee last year
11/3/2/1
Exact same, so I'd say equal. (3-2-1)
Gary Neal
10/2/2/0
Jason Terry
10/2/3/1
Terry is equal at worst. (3-3-1)
Tony Parker
20/3/8/1
Rajon Rondo
13/5/11/2
Parker is better, but Rondo is close. (3-3-2)
DeJuan Blair
5/4/1/1
Shavlik Randolph
4/4/0/1
Equal. (3-4-2)
For lack of a better comparison?
Nando de Colo in 36 minutes
11/5/2/2
Avery Bradley in 36 minutes
13/3/3
Bradley is better, with defense and NDC doesn't get many minutes for a reason. (4-4-2)
You'll note on paper, we're just as good as San Antonio, if not better. It's up to Doc to play our players in the best way so that we win the most games. This is solely based on stats and we're just as good, if not better. One more run.
-
...
You'll note on paper, we're just as good as San Antonio, if not better. It's up to Doc to play our players in the best way so that we win the most games. This is solely based on stats and we're just as good, if not better. One more run.
Doc and Danny. Danny absolutely needs to have a better off season. I think draft-wise we could end up like last year where someone really talented drops to us. But FA and trades are where Danny could really put us into position for a run the next two years.
I think we are going to have to move some package of either Bass and Bradley or Lee and Sullinger to free up spots for players with different skill sets. We need size and right now we have something like 17 million tied up in undersized two guards.
-
As much as we all (me included!) like to believe the Spurs are the sturdiest of all modern NBA franchises, and Popovich is the best of modern NBA coaches, it is interesting to note that the Spurs have been bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice in the past five seasons (and they lost in the second round once). All this with what can be considered a better and overall healthier roster than the Celtics.
Since 2009-10, the Spurs have finished each season with a better record and a higher seed than the Celtics, but they have fared worse - when taking seeding into account - in the playoffs (when the real season starts).
This is why I agree that unless Ainge is BLOWN AWAY by trade proposals, he should run it back the next two seasons (until KG's contract ends). The Celtics simply need to stay healthy and Doc needs to fine-tune his lineups, which is exactly what has happened for the Spurs this season.
-
I mean who really thought that Tim Duncan could play at this level at this point in his career. Don't forget that he has been battling plantar faciitis and still has been able to play at this level. Also, don't forget that we have already had two Title runs with non-Top 10 talent.
See, I think this is where people kind of underestimate the difference between then and now.
When we won the title KG was actually still a top 5 player. He was DPOY and came in 3rd in the MVP voting. He was the best two-way player in the league, in my opinion.
But, that was six long years ago. In 2010 you have a better case, but (a) we lost, and (b) that team actually dramatically over-achieved in the playoffs. And even then, we had KG, Pierce and Allen still playing at All-Star levels.
If you don't believe that these numbers tell you the story, go back and watch one of those games from 2008. I think you will be shocked by how fluid and explosive KG and Pierce looked then, compared to now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4PMPdXK8I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJET_UmviUg
-
I actually think our roster is better than the Spurs'. We just need to click, and that's on Doc.
No, we just need another big man. A talented big man. I believe that's all we need
-
I actually think our roster is better than the Spurs'. We just need to click, and that's on Doc.
No, we just need another big man. A talented big man. I believe that's all we need
We had Steamer last year and were minutes away from the Finals. We have Shav this year, and that's all we're getting. Danny is not a magician: we will have to make do with what we've got.
-
I mean who really thought that Tim Duncan could play at this level at this point in his career. Don't forget that he has been battling plantar faciitis and still has been able to play at this level. Also, don't forget that we have already had two Title runs with non-Top 10 talent.
See, I think this is where people kind of underestimate the difference between then and now.
When we won the title KG was actually still a top 5 player. He was DPOY and came in 3rd in the MVP voting. He was the best two-way player in the league, in my opinion.
But, that was six long years ago. In 2010 you have a better case, but (a) we lost, and (b) that team actually dramatically over-achieved in the playoffs. And even then, we had KG, Pierce and Allen still playing at All-Star levels.
If you don't believe that these numbers tell you the story, go back and watch one of those games from 2008. I think you will be shocked by how fluid and explosive KG and Pierce looked then, compared to now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4PMPdXK8I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJET_UmviUg
But you IMO are discounting the impact of losing Rondo. Plus, like you said yourself, 2010 is a better case. We may have lost, but we were honestly a Perk injury away from a second Title.
And again, this is about being a Title contender. There are many factors that go into actually winning the Title, but is it possible.
In 2010 we did not overachieve. We simply had a good system with personnel that fit the system. We still have the good system, but we did not have the personnel this year. Mostly due to injury, but also some misses on Danny's part.
The bright spots are that we have a nice first round pick in this draft and Jeff Green showed some serious ability which we could use on this team or capitalize on it via trade. Jeff Green certainly a better commodity now due to his play and is on a very affordable contract.
Plus we should have both Rondo and Sullinger back next year.
-
Not to mention, Boris, that like CC just pointed out we went to a game 7 with the vaunted Miami Heat last season without Jeff Green and later Avery Bradley...
-
Tiago Splitter
10/6
Brandon Bass last year
13/6
Brandon Bass is better. (1-0-0)
Kawhi Leonard
14/7/2/2
Jeff Green
17/5/2/1
Equal. (1-1-0)
Boris Diaw in 23 minutes (veteran with no upside)
6/3/2
Jared Sullinger in 20 minutes (rookie with tons of upside)
6/6/1
Sully is better. (2-1-0)
Manu Ginobili
12/3/5/1
Paul Pierce
19/6/5/1
Pierce is far better. (3-1-0)
Tim Duncan
18/10/3/3
Kevin Garnett
15/8/2/1
Duncan is better, but KG has D. (3-1-1)
Danny Green
11/3/2/1
Courtney Lee last year
11/3/2/1
Exact same, so I'd say equal. (3-2-1)
Gary Neal
10/2/2/0
Jason Terry
10/2/3/1
Terry is equal at worst. (3-3-1)
Tony Parker
20/3/8/1
Rajon Rondo
13/5/11/2
Parker is better, but Rondo is close. (3-3-2)
DeJuan Blair
5/4/1/1
Shavlik Randolph
4/4/0/1
Equal. (3-4-2)
For lack of a better comparison?
Nando de Colo in 36 minutes
11/5/2/2
Avery Bradley in 36 minutes
13/3/3
Bradley is better, with defense and NDC doesn't get many minutes for a reason. (4-4-2)
You'll note on paper, we're just as good as San Antonio, if not better. It's up to Doc to play our players in the best way so that we win the most games. This is solely based on stats and we're just as good, if not better. One more run.
skewed stats and ure using player averages or what you think they should have
manu is a bench player while paul is a starter -- a starter who had to fill in for the PG role this year. their per36 numbers are kind of in the same vicinity
20/6rebs/5ast on 43.6% shooting from paul
18/5 rebs/7ast on 43.5% shooting from manu
kawhi leanord has started all games while jeff green started over 20.
kg is injured beyond repair. they dont even want him to get surgery. i like kg...i really do, but td has been owning in this playoffs run.
rondo was out the entire 2nd half of the season. no telling where his numbers wouldve went. i don't think, from what i've seen, he's consistent enough to compete with tony parker.
-
The Celtics have a defense that is good enough to contend. The team could use some help from the center position behind Garnett and some improved three-point shooting. Avery Bradley getting his upper-body strength back and getting to around 37-38% would do a lot to fix that, but it would be nice to bring in a back-up PG who you want to take the shot when he has the opportunity for an open three. It'd also be nice to have a Matt Bonner type guy who can hit a 3 as the power forward.
-
To me the original post just doesn't pass the eye test. The spurs are just a flat out way better team. I think it comes down to Tony Parker. The guy has been unstoppable in the playoffs. His penetration opens everything up for their offense and he is incredible at finishing at the rim. Add to that Duncan having a renaissance year and they are just better.
There are similarities between the C's and Spurs, but at this point with the way parker and duncan are playing, and the contributions they get from their bigs we just aren't as good.
Sometimes individual statistics don't tell the whole team story.
-
Tiago Splitter
10/6
Brandon Bass last year
13/6
Brandon Bass is better. (1-0-0)
Kawhi Leonard
14/7/2/2
Jeff Green
17/5/2/1
Equal. (1-1-0)
Boris Diaw in 23 minutes (veteran with no upside)
6/3/2
Jared Sullinger in 20 minutes (rookie with tons of upside)
6/6/1
Sully is better. (2-1-0)
Manu Ginobili
12/3/5/1
Paul Pierce
19/6/5/1
Pierce is far better. (3-1-0)
Tim Duncan
18/10/3/3
Kevin Garnett
15/8/2/1
Duncan is better, but KG has D. (3-1-1)
Danny Green
11/3/2/1
Courtney Lee last year
11/3/2/1
Exact same, so I'd say equal. (3-2-1)
Gary Neal
10/2/2/0
Jason Terry
10/2/3/1
Terry is equal at worst. (3-3-1)
Tony Parker
20/3/8/1
Rajon Rondo
13/5/11/2
Parker is better, but Rondo is close. (3-3-2)
DeJuan Blair
5/4/1/1
Shavlik Randolph
4/4/0/1
Equal. (3-4-2)
For lack of a better comparison?
Nando de Colo in 36 minutes
11/5/2/2
Avery Bradley in 36 minutes
13/3/3
Bradley is better, with defense and NDC doesn't get many minutes for a reason. (4-4-2)
You'll note on paper, we're just as good as San Antonio, if not better. It's up to Doc to play our players in the best way so that we win the most games. This is solely based on stats and we're just as good, if not better. One more run.
manu is a bench player while paul is a starter -- a starter who had to fill in for the PG role this year. their per36 numbers are kind of in the same vicinity
20/6rebs/5ast on 43.6% shooting from paul
18/5 rebs/7ast on 43.5% shooting from manu
-Notice there's a reason Pierce plays more minutes and has better per36 stats than Manu: he's better. He's not old. Manu is not as good as he used to be. Pierce was a legit borderline All-Star this year; Manu was far from it.
kawhi leanord has started all games while jeff green started over 20.
-Notice how Jeff has just as good stats as Kawhi, coming off the bench. He hasn't hit his potential at all, look at his second-half-of-the-year stats. He can be better, when starting.
kg is injured beyond repair. they dont even want him to get surgery. i like kg...i really do, but td has been owning in this playoffs run.
-TD might be owning this postseason, but that doesn't make KG worse.
rondo was out the entire 2nd half of the season. no telling where his numbers wouldve went. i don't think, from what i've seen, he's consistent enough to compete with tony parker.
-Rondo may be a question mark, but from what we've seen he can be just as good, if not better, than Parker. I did say TP is better, but not by much. Rondo is consistent in the Playoffs, where it matters.
I just think that if Doc does a good job, we're contenders. Our individual players are just as good, if not better, than the Spurs'.
-
Not to mention, Boris, that like CC just pointed out we went to a game 7 with the vaunted Miami Heat last season without Jeff Green and later Avery Bradley...
True, but how many games did the Heat play without Chris Bosh to start the series? We probably would have lost the series 4-1 or 4-2 if he was healthy from the start.
-
Injuries have taken a toll on us this year.
-
Tiago Splitter
10/6
Brandon Bass last year
13/6
Brandon Bass is better. (1-0-0)
Manu Ginobili
12/3/5/1
Paul Pierce
19/6/5/1
Pierce is far better. (3-1-0)
Tim Duncan
18/10/3/3
Kevin Garnett
15/8/2/1
Duncan is better, but KG has D. (3-1-1)
Danny Green
11/3/2/1
Courtney Lee last year
11/3/2/1
Exact same, so I'd say equal. (3-2-1)
skewed stats and ure using player averages or what you think they should have
manu is a bench player while paul is a starter -- a starter who had to fill in for the PG role this year. their per36 numbers are kind of in the same vicinity
20/6rebs/5ast on 43.6% shooting from paul
18/5 rebs/7ast on 43.5% shooting from manu
I agree with kgainez about Manu - Pierce has an edge but it's ever so slight.
And I think on some of the others you are just way off.
Splitter is a superior player to Bass. Per-36:
Bass 11/7/48%
Splitter 15/9/56%
Splitter is a better offensive player, better defender, better rebounder, more efficient, etc....he's one of the best post defenders in the league. Bass is pretty good, but Splitter is excellent and a legit big man rather than a tweener.
Calling KG and Duncan a tie because of KG's defense...I think you should check out TD's play this year. TD is a great defender as well, and has been much, much better offensively this year than KG was, particularly in the post.
http://nba.si.com/2013/04/04/tim-duncan-san-antonio-spurs-defense/
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/tim-duncan-spurs-low-post
And as far as Green vs. Lee: both guys are "3 and D" players, and on the "3" part Green was vastly superior ranking 8th in the NBA in total 3s made, shooting them at 43%.
The only players to make more 3s at a higher percentage were Steph Curry and Kyle Korver. Green was an elite outside threat this year.
And, to just repeat the most critical thing, the Spurs' best 2 guys were both legit MVP candidates even this year. We just do not have that level of talent.
-
I think this is an interesting topic for discussion. The stars have definitely alligned for SA Spurs this year. They are healthy and some of the other West teams (Lakers, OKC) are not.
I believe that a healthy Tony Parker is a better player than a healthy Rondo. The difference isn't about stats or shooting percentages but in the way the opposing team must adjust to stop Parker vs. how teams play off Rondo and don't care if he shoots. Rondo could well close this gap but right now, Parker is playing great and making a big impact.
The KG Duncan comparison comes down to health and perhaps more specifically wear and tear. Both are 37 but KG has 17 seasons/1323 games, Duncan 15 seasons/1180 games. KG just looks more broken down to me and I don't think KG can give a team a complete season without injury anymore. Duncan maybe be close to the end as well but appears to be more durable at this point in his career.
I take Pierce over Ginobili but it is the same kind of thing as with KG-Duncan. Yes they are both 35 but PP has 14 seasons and Manu only 10. PP has been a marvelously durable player but is starting to show signs.
Bottom line, yes, SA is having a great year and there are similarities that Cs can emulate but I don't think that necessarily means it is the way to go forward with this team. That doesn't mean I think we should just dump everyone but I actually do favor seeing what we can get for Pierce and KG. If we can't get value, then run them back again but we need to try and come up with a value trade (easier said than done).
-
Tiago Splitter
10/6
Brandon Bass last year
13/6
Brandon Bass is better. (1-0-0)
Manu Ginobili
12/3/5/1
Paul Pierce
19/6/5/1
Pierce is far better. (3-1-0)
Tim Duncan
18/10/3/3
Kevin Garnett
15/8/2/1
Duncan is better, but KG has D. (3-1-1)
Danny Green
11/3/2/1
Courtney Lee last year
11/3/2/1
Exact same, so I'd say equal. (3-2-1)
skewed stats and ure using player averages or what you think they should have
manu is a bench player while paul is a starter -- a starter who had to fill in for the PG role this year. their per36 numbers are kind of in the same vicinity
20/6rebs/5ast on 43.6% shooting from paul
18/5 rebs/7ast on 43.5% shooting from manu
I agree with kgainez about Manu - Pierce has an edge but it's ever so slight.
And I think on some of the others you are just way off.
Splitter is a superior player to Bass. Per-36:
Bass 11/7/48%
Splitter 15/9/56%
Splitter is a better offensive player, better defender, better rebounder, more efficient, etc....he's one of the best post defenders in the league. Bass is pretty good, but Splitter is excellent and a legit big man rather than a tweener.
Calling KG and Duncan a tie because of KG's defense...I think you should check out TD's play this year. TD is a great defender as well, and has been much, much better offensively this year than KG was, particularly in the post.
http://nba.si.com/2013/04/04/tim-duncan-san-antonio-spurs-defense/
http://www.48minutesofhell.com/tim-duncan-spurs-low-post
And as far as Green vs. Lee: both guys are "3 and D" players, and on the "3" part Green was vastly superior ranking 8th in the NBA in total 3s made, shooting them at 43%.
The only players to make more 3s at a higher percentage were Steph Curry and Kyle Korver. Green was an elite outside threat this year.
And, to just repeat the most critical thing, the Spurs' best 2 guys were both legit MVP candidates even this year. We just do not have that level of talent.
I think where people come down on Rondo, KG, and Green are the biggest factors in this debate.
While I don't think Rondo is an MVP candidate, I do think he is elite. The way the team played prior to his injury added to the fact that he will be coming back from ACL surgery has led to many people being way down on him and his abilities. I, however, look at Rondo and see a top talent and one that with the right personnel can be transformative.
I also look at KG as a transformative talent. He elevates the people around him and he played monster games at the END of the season. I really think his compete level is as high as ever, and I expect him to play at an All-Star level again next season. Plus, transformative players are few and far between in this league.
And as for Jeff Green, I have been extremely surprised by his play. I was never a fan of the Perk trade, but I think Green now has to be considered a high level talent with a lot of upside. Whether the Cs can figure out how to tap into that upside or Danny is able to capitalize on it via trade, I really am not sure, but I think in comparison to a player like Leonard, Green is a place where next year we could take a big step forward. Part of me would like Danny to package Green together with our pick and contract like Bass or Lee and get a player who might be a little better fit for our roster (like a Cousins or a Big Al).
-
I think this is an interesting topic for discussion. The stars have definitely alligned for SA Spurs this year. They are healthy and some of the other West teams (Lakers, OKC) are not.
I believe that a healthy Tony Parker is a better player than a healthy Rondo. The difference isn't about stats or shooting percentages but in the way the opposing team must adjust to stop Parker vs. how teams play off Rondo and don't care if he shoots. Rondo could well close this gap but right now, Parker is playing great and making a big impact.
The KG Duncan comparison comes down to health and perhaps more specifically wear and tear. Both are 37 but KG has 17 seasons/1323 games, Duncan 15 seasons/1180 games. KG just looks more broken down to me and I don't think KG can give a team a complete season without injury anymore. Duncan maybe be close to the end as well but appears to be more durable at this point in his career.
I take Pierce over Ginobili but it is the same kind of thing as with KG-Duncan. Yes they are both 35 but PP has 14 seasons and Manu only 10. PP has been a marvelously durable player but is starting to show signs.
Bottom line, yes, SA is having a great year and there are similarities that Cs can emulate but I don't think that necessarily means it is the way to go forward with this team. That doesn't mean I think we should just dump everyone but I actually do favor seeing what we can get for Pierce and KG. If we can't get value, then run them back again but we need to try and come up with a value trade (easier said than done).
I hear what you are saying, Vermont. I just think that we could get two more years out of KG and Paul and have very competitive team each year, and I think that what the Spurs are doing is a good indication that this thinking isn't unreasonable.
-
I think this is an interesting topic for discussion. The stars have definitely alligned for SA Spurs this year. They are healthy and some of the other West teams (Lakers, OKC) are not.
I believe that a healthy Tony Parker is a better player than a healthy Rondo. The difference isn't about stats or shooting percentages but in the way the opposing team must adjust to stop Parker vs. how teams play off Rondo and don't care if he shoots. Rondo could well close this gap but right now, Parker is playing great and making a big impact.
The KG Duncan comparison comes down to health and perhaps more specifically wear and tear. Both are 37 but KG has 17 seasons/1323 games, Duncan 15 seasons/1180 games. KG just looks more broken down to me and I don't think KG can give a team a complete season without injury anymore. Duncan maybe be close to the end as well but appears to be more durable at this point in his career.
I take Pierce over Ginobili but it is the same kind of thing as with KG-Duncan. Yes they are both 35 but PP has 14 seasons and Manu only 10. PP has been a marvelously durable player but is starting to show signs.
Bottom line, yes, SA is having a great year and there are similarities that Cs can emulate but I don't think that necessarily means it is the way to go forward with this team. That doesn't mean I think we should just dump everyone but I actually do favor seeing what we can get for Pierce and KG. If we can't get value, then run them back again but we need to try and come up with a value trade (easier said than done).
I hear what you are saying, Vermont. I just think that we could get two more years out of KG and Paul and have very competitive team each year, and I think that what the Spurs are doing is a good indication that this thinking isn't unreasonable.
There is nothing I saw at the end of the season last year that suggests to me at all that these guys have 2 years left. Not on THIS team anyway. Perhaps on another roster where they can be like the 3rd or 4th best player but equating our situation to the Spurs IMO just doesn't hold water.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He's still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
I see you continue to make this point...Duncan has had his best year in 5 plus seasons and looked washed up the year the Celtics won the title and the first round exit to Memphis year and previous seasons
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
I see you continue to make this point...Duncan has had his best year in 5 plus seasons and looked washed up the year the Celtics won the title and the first round exit to Memphis year and previous seasons
What are you talkin about Jerry? Duncan's per-36 stats have been pretty consistent. He's doing more on offense this year. The Spurs have been consistently elite. The year we won a title they still won 56 games and lost in the WCF. They have remained one of the strongest teams in the league.
KG's Celtics were contenders for 3.5 years. Duncan's Spurs have been contenders since 1997.
At this point, Boston is an also-ran stuck in perpetual mediocrity unless they make significant additions. They haven't been a real threat since 2011... although last year they did manage to fluke into the ECF thanks to some lucky draws in the first two rounds (Horford-less Hawks and 8th seed Philly). KG has slipped a lot more than Duncan at this point, but he's still the MVP of our team... and I think if we did manage to keep him and PIerce, would could theoretically contend again if we managed to make significant additions (specifically a quality center). Not sure how we can miraculously pull that off, though.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
I see you continue to make this point...Duncan has had his best year in 5 plus seasons and looked washed up the year the Celtics won the title and the first round exit to Memphis year and previous seasons
What are you talkin about Jerry? Duncan's per-36 stats have been pretty consistent. He's doing more on offense this year. The Spurs have been consistently elite. The year we won a title they still won 56 games and lost in the WCF. They have remained one of the strongest teams in the league.
KG's Celtics were contenders for 3.5 years. Duncan's Spurs have been contenders since 1997.
At this point, Boston is an also-ran stuck in perpetual mediocrity unless they make significant additions. They haven't been a real threat since 2011... although last year they did manage to fluke into the ECF thanks to some lucky draws in the first two rounds (Horford-less Hawks and 8th seed Philly). KG has slipped a lot more than Duncan at this point, but he's still the MVP of our team... and I think if we did manage to keep him and PIerce, would could theoretically contend again if we managed to make significant additions (specifically a quality center). Not sure how we can miraculously pull that off, though.
Yeah Duncan has been able to provide a consistent high rate of play even at his age. KG has slipped a bit and can't do what Duncan continually does for the spurs. Pops system has allowed for mediocre role players to shine an for youngster to play roles like veterans can. Parker has only gotten better and manu has been consistent as well despite injuries and age himself.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
I see you continue to make this point...Duncan has had his best year in 5 plus seasons and looked washed up the year the Celtics won the title and the first round exit to Memphis year and previous seasons
What are you talkin about Jerry? Duncan's per-36 stats have been pretty consistent. He's doing more on offense this year. The Spurs have been consistently elite. The year we won a title they still won 56 games and lost in the WCF. They have remained one of the strongest teams in the league.
KG's Celtics were contenders for 3.5 years. Duncan's Spurs have been contenders since 1997.
At this point, Boston is an also-ran stuck in perpetual mediocrity unless they make significant additions. They haven't been a real threat since 2011... although last year they did manage to fluke into the ECF thanks to some lucky draws in the first two rounds (Horford-less Hawks and 8th seed Philly). KG has slipped a lot more than Duncan at this point, but he's still the MVP of our team... and I think if we did manage to keep him and PIerce, would could theoretically contend again if we managed to make significant additions (specifically a quality center). Not sure how we can miraculously pull that off, though.
Yeah Duncan has been able to provide a consistent high rate of play even at his age. KG has slipped a bit and can't do what Duncan continually does for the spurs. Pops system has allowed for mediocre role players to shine an for youngster to play roles like veterans can. Parker has only gotten better and manu has been consistent as well despite injuries and age himself.
Duncan's pretty remarkable, actually. In his prime he was averaging 22 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists, 2.5 blocks with 50% shooting per 36 minutes.... Check out his year-by-year stats per 36 minutes and you'll see that he's consistently every year managed to average 20+ points, 11+ boards, 3+ assists, and roughly 2 blocks per 36 minutes. This year: 21.3 points, 12 rebounds, 3.2 assists, 3.2 blocks per 36 minutes. He's a machine. The guy doesn't age. Aside from the last couple years where his scoring dipped 17 in 2011 and 19 last year, he's really been pretty even. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html#all_per_minute
KG's prime (2004) he was averaging 22 points, 13 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 blocks, 1.3 steals on 50% shooting per 36 minutes. In his first year in Boston he was close to that... 21 points, 10 rebounds, 4 assists, 1.5 steals, 1.4 blocks 54% shooting per 36 minutes. Since then, he's dipped a bit. This year, he put up 17.9 points, 9.4 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.1 block.. 49% shooting per 36 minutes. Like Duncan, he's held to roughly 30 minutes in the regular season and then lifted to 35+ in the playoffs. KG still remains our most important player ... but he's unfortunately slipped a bit more from his prime than Duncan has. And Duncan has a superior supporting cast.
Duncan Per-36
Season FG% FT% TRB AST STL BLK PTS
1997-98 .549 .662 11.0 2.5 0.6 2.3 19.4
1998-99 .495 .690 10.5 2.2 0.8 2.3 19.9
1999-00 .490 .761 11.5 2.9 0.8 2.1 21.5
2000-01 .499 .618 11.3 2.8 0.8 2.2 20.6
2001-02 .508 .799 11.3 3.3 0.7 2.2 22.6
2002-03 .513 .710 11.8 3.6 0.6 2.7 21.3
2003-04 .501 .599 12.2 3.0 0.9 2.6 21.9
2004-05 .496 .670 12.0 2.9 0.7 2.8 21.9
2005-06 .484 .629 11.4 3.3 0.9 2.1 19.2
2006-07 .546 .637 11.2 3.6 0.9 2.5 21.1
2007-08 .497 .730 12.0 3.0 0.8 2.1 20.5
2008-09 .504 .692 11.4 3.8 0.5 1.8 20.7
2009-10 .518 .725 11.6 3.6 0.7 1.7 20.6
2010-11 .500 .716 11.3 3.4 0.8 2.4 17.1
2011-12 .492 .695 11.5 2.9 0.8 1.9 19.7
2012-13 .502 .817 11.9 3.2 0.9 3.2 21.3
Career .507 .693 11.5 3.1 0.8 2.3 20.7
Kevin Garnett Per-36
Season FG% FT% TRB AST STL BLK PTS
1995-96 .491 .705 7.9 2.3 1.4 2.1 13.1
1996-97 .499 .754 7.4 2.8 1.3 2.0 15.7
1997-98 .491 .738 8.8 3.9 1.6 1.7 17.0
1998-99 .460 .704 9.9 4.1 1.6 1.7 19.8
1999-00 .497 .765 10.6 4.5 1.3 1.4 20.6
2000-01 .477 .764 10.4 4.5 1.2 1.6 20.1
2001-02 .470 .801 11.1 4.8 1.1 1.4 19.4
2002-03 .502 .751 11.9 5.4 1.2 1.4 20.4
2003-04 .499 .791 12.7 4.6 1.3 2.0 22.1
2004-05 .502 .811 12.8 5.4 1.4 1.3 21.0
2005-06 .526 .810 11.8 3.7 1.3 1.3 20.2
2006-07 .476 .835 11.7 3.8 1.1 1.5 20.5
2007-08 .539 .801 10.1 3.8 1.5 1.4 20.7
2008-09 .531 .841 9.9 2.9 1.3 1.4 18.3
2009-10 .521 .837 8.8 3.2 1.2 1.0 17.3
2010-11 .528 .862 10.2 2.8 1.5 0.9 17.1
2011-12 .503 .857 9.5 3.4 1.1 1.2 18.3
2012-13 .496 .786 9.4 2.8 1.4 1.1 17.9
Career .498 .790 10.4 3.9 1.3 1.5 19.0
-
I believe that a healthy Tony Parker is a better player than a healthy Rondo. The difference isn't about stats or shooting percentages but in the way the opposing team must adjust to stop Parker vs. how teams play off Rondo and don't care if he shoots.
Evaluating players in terms of how their scoring affects defenses would be more meaningful if both players were scorers. Rondo isn't. His priority on offense is to get his teammates open shots. The defenses play off of him because they're trying to stop his penetration and passing, and they're generally unable to stop either.
Look at how much less of an offensive weapon KG was in the playoffs without Rondo compared to last year with Rondo. In the 2012 playoffs KG was feasting on open 20 footers that Rondo was getting him. Those easy shots were few and far between against the Knicks. The teams we played last year weren't trying to stop Rondo from taking 20 footers, as you noticed. They were trying to stop him from getting KG wide open jumpers, they just weren't able to stop that. Rondo led the postseason in assists by a whopping 4 assists per game.
Likewise, opponents were unable to keep Rondo from penetrating. Rondo made 4 shots a game within 3 feet of the basket in the 2012 playoffs, the only players to average more were LeBron (5.5), Bynum (4.4) and Griffin (4.2). So I agree that teams play off of Rondo in the hopes that he'll take a jumper because the Celts score much more efficiently when he passes the ball or penetrates. I just think that it's silly to knock him for the way he's defended when defenses are unable to stop him from doing what he wants to do in spite of how he's guarded.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
I see you continue to make this point...Duncan has had his best year in 5 plus seasons and looked washed up the year the Celtics won the title and the first round exit to Memphis year and previous seasons
What are you talkin about Jerry? Duncan's per-36 stats have been pretty consistent. He's doing more on offense this year. The Spurs have been consistently elite. The year we won a title they still won 56 games and lost in the WCF. They have remained one of the strongest teams in the league.
KG's Celtics were contenders for 3.5 years. Duncan's Spurs have been contenders since 1997.
At this point, Boston is an also-ran stuck in perpetual mediocrity unless they make significant additions. They haven't been a real threat since 2011... although last year they did manage to fluke into the ECF thanks to some lucky draws in the first two rounds (Horford-less Hawks and 8th seed Philly). KG has slipped a lot more than Duncan at this point, but he's still the MVP of our team... and I think if we did manage to keep him and PIerce, would could theoretically contend again if we managed to make significant additions (specifically a quality center). Not sure how we can miraculously pull that off, though.
I agree, kg can't hold Duncans Jock career wise...but in the last 5 plus years they have fluctuated and Duncan looked slow and done while kg was flourishing in Boston
-
I disagree.
Duncan, for whatever reason, continues to bang out incredibly consistent seasons year after year. Look at him now; he dominating his way to a fifth NBA Finals appearance in what has been an outstanding career. KG, on the other hand, remains dominant on only one side of the floor. He is defense is incredible, even at age 37, but unfortunately, the energy he exerts there takes away from his offense.
When healthy, Rondo is better than Parker. Both are great guards who I think often times get forgotten in the best PG discussion (for me, Rondo is third when healthy, and Parker was breaking the top five this season; if not for injuries, he would've been a legit MVP candidate).
Ginobili and Pierce are very similar in that they are big-game players that make big shots and are incredibly crafty. Both have regressed on the defensive end, but their smarts on the other end are what make they so dangerous on offense. I'd take Pierce just because I think he's better than Ginobili defensively right now. Plus, he's a Celtic!
Kawhi Leonard is one of my favorite players in the league, and the thing that's scary about him is that he's really just a defensive specialist for the Spurs right now. He brings a lot else to the table in rebounding, shooting, and passing, so I think he's got a great future ahead of him. Right now, though, I'd say Green is a little bit better, if only because his offensive game is much more polished, and he's an animal in the open court. His perimeter defense is solid as well.
Those are the core guys. When I look at the role players for both teams, I think SAS's are far better.
I'd take Green over Bradley because even though his defense isn't as good as Bradley's, he's bigger and can shoot really well. Plus, I haven't seen a full season of Bradley starting. I consider Lee to be a worse version of Green.
Terry and Neal are very similar in that they are microwave scorers who are terrible on defense. I'd take Terry because of the experience. Crawford is also like Neal, except that Crawford sucks.
I compare Sullinger to Dejuan Blair. They're both undersized big guys who have health issue, and are really good rebounders. I like Sullinger because he has a post game, even if Blair is more athletic.
I guess Bass and Diaw are similar in that they are faceup, undersized PFs, except that Diaw is a better passer, and has a little bit of a post game. I like Diaw because he moves the ball well.
I don't think there's anyone on our roster who is similar to Splitter.
Overall, I don't think we can be like the Spurs and continue to contend because our supporting cast isn't as good as theirs'.
Their stars are also more consistent than ours.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
I see you continue to make this point...Duncan has had his best year in 5 plus seasons and looked washed up the year the Celtics won the title and the first round exit to Memphis year and previous seasons
What are you talkin about Jerry? Duncan's per-36 stats have been pretty consistent. He's doing more on offense this year. The Spurs have been consistently elite. The year we won a title they still won 56 games and lost in the WCF. They have remained one of the strongest teams in the league.
KG's Celtics were contenders for 3.5 years. Duncan's Spurs have been contenders since 1997.
At this point, Boston is an also-ran stuck in perpetual mediocrity unless they make significant additions. They haven't been a real threat since 2011... although last year they did manage to fluke into the ECF thanks to some lucky draws in the first two rounds (Horford-less Hawks and 8th seed Philly). KG has slipped a lot more than Duncan at this point, but he's still the MVP of our team... and I think if we did manage to keep him and PIerce, would could theoretically contend again if we managed to make significant additions (specifically a quality center). Not sure how we can miraculously pull that off, though.
I agree, kg can't hold Duncans Jock career wise...but in the last 5 plus years they have fluctuated and Duncan looked slow and done while kg was flourishing in Boston
Really?
Duncan Per-36
Season FG% FT% TRB AST STL BLK PTS
1997-98 .549 .662 11.0 2.5 0.6 2.3 19.4
1998-99 .495 .690 10.5 2.2 0.8 2.3 19.9
1999-00 .490 .761 11.5 2.9 0.8 2.1 21.5
2000-01 .499 .618 11.3 2.8 0.8 2.2 20.6
2001-02 .508 .799 11.3 3.3 0.7 2.2 22.6
2002-03 .513 .710 11.8 3.6 0.6 2.7 21.3
2003-04 .501 .599 12.2 3.0 0.9 2.6 21.9
2004-05 .496 .670 12.0 2.9 0.7 2.8 21.9
2005-06 .484 .629 11.4 3.3 0.9 2.1 19.2
2006-07 .546 .637 11.2 3.6 0.9 2.5 21.1
2007-08 .497 .730 12.0 3.0 0.8 2.1 20.5
2008-09 .504 .692 11.4 3.8 0.5 1.8 20.7
2009-10 .518 .725 11.6 3.6 0.7 1.7 20.6
2010-11 .500 .716 11.3 3.4 0.8 2.4 17.1
2011-12 .492 .695 11.5 2.9 0.8 1.9 19.7
2012-13 .502 .817 11.9 3.2 0.9 3.2 21.3
Career .507 .693 11.5 3.1 0.8 2.3 20.7
Kevin Garnett Per-36
Season FG% FT% TRB AST STL BLK PTS
1995-96 .491 .705 7.9 2.3 1.4 2.1 13.1
1996-97 .499 .754 7.4 2.8 1.3 2.0 15.7
1997-98 .491 .738 8.8 3.9 1.6 1.7 17.0
1998-99 .460 .704 9.9 4.1 1.6 1.7 19.8
1999-00 .497 .765 10.6 4.5 1.3 1.4 20.6
2000-01 .477 .764 10.4 4.5 1.2 1.6 20.1
2001-02 .470 .801 11.1 4.8 1.1 1.4 19.4
2002-03 .502 .751 11.9 5.4 1.2 1.4 20.4
2003-04 .499 .791 12.7 4.6 1.3 2.0 22.1
2004-05 .502 .811 12.8 5.4 1.4 1.3 21.0
2005-06 .526 .810 11.8 3.7 1.3 1.3 20.2
2006-07 .476 .835 11.7 3.8 1.1 1.5 20.5
2007-08 .539 .801 10.1 3.8 1.5 1.4 20.7
2008-09 .531 .841 9.9 2.9 1.3 1.4 18.3
2009-10 .521 .837 8.8 3.2 1.2 1.0 17.3
2010-11 .528 .862 10.2 2.8 1.5 0.9 17.1
2011-12 .503 .857 9.5 3.4 1.1 1.2 18.3
2012-13 .496 .786 9.4 2.8 1.4 1.1 17.9
Career .498 .790 10.4 3.9 1.3 1.5 19.0
Also FYI about defense...
Defensive Rating Leaders This season:
1. Tim Duncan-95.0
2. Roy Hibbert-96.9
3. Paul George-97.1
4. Tony Allen-98.4
5. Marc Gasol-98.5
6. Larry Sanders-98.5
7. Joakim Noah-98.6
8. David West-98.6
9. Kevin Garnett-98.9
10. Lamar Odom-99.0
Defensive Rating Career Active Leaders:
1. Tim Duncan 95.37
2. Ben Wallace 95.76
3. Dwight Howard 98.30
4. Marcus Camby 98.53
5. Kevin Garnett 98.95
6. Manu Ginobili 99.69
7. Jermaine O'Neal 100.01
8. Rasheed Wallace 100.96
9. Shawn Marion 100.96
10. Rajon Rondo 101.00
-
The only thing that the C's and Spurs have in common is being percieved old. After the Rondo, Pierce, Garnett vs Parker, Ginobli, Duncan comparison the Spurs blow us out the water. They are simply the better managed organization.
-
Duncan is still pretty much Duncan at age 37. I think he had the highest defensive rating in the entire league this year. As always, dominant bigs win you titles in this league.
KG has unfortunately slipped a bit more than Duncan. He was always a poor-man's Duncan to begin with, but at 37 Duncan clearly is his superior. KG is still the most crucial part of our team when he's on the floor, though.
The SPurs are just a masterclass franchise... they have remained a 60 win team pretty much every year. Boston the last couple years has been rather mediocre (only barely over .500 this season). Spurs have a lot more size and depth than Boston. We couldn't simply "run it back" and mimick one of the finest teams in the league... we'd need to make significant additions.
It would be nice to have another legit big. I'm in favor of giving Greg Oden a shot. As insane as it might sound, if Greg can remain healthy, I can see him equaling the impact of Splitter.
You call the Spurs a master class franchise (which I don't wholly disagree with), yet the Cs in the KG era have been as effective if not more effective than the Spurs. The Spurs have had two first round playoff exists which if that team would was playing in this market people would have been calling for a major overhaul.
Plus, who is the franchise player/talent that the Spurs have developed in this time. It seems to me that they are doing nothing more than the Cs in terms of how they are assembling their team year to year. Certainly they have developed key role players, but so have the Cs.
I just think that the Spurs are the fly in the ointment for those who think that blowing this thing up is the only sensible option. Danny has made more moves that have not worked out than the Spurs, but there is a very clear opportunity for him to redirect the ship this off season to put us on a similar path to the Spurs. I hope he chooses this route instead of trying to reboot.
-
The only thing that the C's and Spurs have in common is being percieved old. After the Rondo, Pierce, Garnett vs Parker, Ginobli, Duncan comparison the Spurs blow us out the water. They are simply the better managed organization.
I just disagree, ManUp. Our role players match up fairly well. I think Danny made some mistakes this past off season and those, along with the Rondo and Sullinger injuries, are the major differences between the two franchises. I mean Jeff Green, Avery Bradley, and Jared Sullinger are very talented role players to add to the core of Rondo, PP, and KG.
Courtney Lee was a disappointment and really a surprise. I thought he was going to be a nice addition. But Danny did not shore up the bigs they way I was hoping and he stacked the roster with too many undersized SGs. It just ended up being an unbalanced roster.
The good news IMO is if he sticks with the core, I think he can rework the role players to better suit the system. He's done it before and he does draft well....
-
We have had trouble closing out games several years, the Spurs do not. How many 4th quarter leads have we blown?
Things always look great on paper but the Spurs have won several titles to our one. Their strengths are things that you can't see on paper because they are intangible. They also have an inside out game which we do not possess.
Again, blatant homerism blinds many should be the headline at Celtics Blog.
-
Spurs are there because of westbrook going down. They will get smoked in the finals.
I'm already looking forward to another year of them being overrated again.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
agreesies but idk too many ppl on here who will want to have this convo again
-
As much as we all (me included!) like to believe the Spurs are the sturdiest of all modern NBA franchises, and Popovich is the best of modern NBA coaches, it is interesting to note that the Spurs have been bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice in the past five seasons (and they lost in the second round once). All this with what can be considered a better and overall healthier roster than the Celtics.
Since 2009-10, the Spurs have finished each season with a better record and a higher seed than the Celtics, but they have fared worse - when taking seeding into account - in the playoffs (when the real season starts).
This is why I agree that unless Ainge is BLOWN AWAY by trade proposals, he should run it back the next two seasons (until KG's contract ends). The Celtics simply need to stay healthy and Doc needs to fine-tune his lineups, which is exactly what has happened for the Spurs this season.
That's completely and utterly ignoring the fact that the Spurs play in the West, which has a significant head over the East when it comes to talent.
It took us 7 games to beat the Sixers last year, while they don't even make the playoffs (per record) in the West.
While we may have gone further "on paper," the paper doesn't take into account that type of talent disparity.
-
The Spurs have a healthy Tim Duncan, we don't.
The Spurs have rebounding and size, we don't.
The Spurs have three point shooting wings, we don't.
While we can run it back one more time, we will never be the Spurs.
-
KG's Celtics were contenders for 3.5 years. Duncan's Spurs have been contenders since 1997.
The Celtics stopped being a contender on 1/25/13. If Rondo is fully recovered by the start of next year, this team could very well be right back to contender status.
-
i never got how the c's couldn't be like the spurs this yeat, We have our Great Veteran Big Man (KG) Like The spurs Have Duncan.we have our great young PG (rondo) like the spurs have parker,We have our great veteran Scorer who should be coming off the bench (pierce) like the spurs have manu.
the way there team is built always surprises me
-
The only thing that the C's and Spurs have in common is being percieved old. After the Rondo, Pierce, Garnett vs Parker, Ginobli, Duncan comparison the Spurs blow us out the water. They are simply the better managed organization.
I just disagree, ManUp. Our role players match up fairly well. I think Danny made some mistakes this past off season and those, along with the Rondo and Sullinger injuries, are the major differences between the two franchises. I mean Jeff Green, Avery Bradley, and Jared Sullinger are very talented role players to add to the core of Rondo, PP, and KG.
Courtney Lee was a disappointment and really a surprise. I thought he was going to be a nice addition. But Danny did not shore up the bigs they way I was hoping and he stacked the roster with too many undersized SGs. It just ended up being an unbalanced roster.
The good news IMO is if he sticks with the core, I think he can rework the role players to better suit the system. He's done it before and he does draft well....
The Spurs have defined lineups and players with defined roles on both sides of the floor. Although from a talent perspective they may not blow us out of the water, from a fit and positional need stand point they absolutely do. Popovic would have no need for an undersized 4 who only took midrange jumpers and didn't rebound, or and undersized SG with no other guard skills. Guys like Bradley, Bass and Lee probably would struggle for minutes on the Spurs but they start here.
To be the Spurs we'd need better players. The problem is we don't have assets or cap flexibility to "rework" our role players. Even if we did we don't have the coach to make it work. I don't anyone outside of Popovic wins 60+ games with that Spurs roster.
-
Spurs are there because of westbrook going down. They will get smoked in the finals.
I'm already looking forward to another year of them being overrated again.
2012-13 Playing Western Conference Finals
2011-12 Lost Western Conference Finals
2010-11 Lost Western Conference First Round
2009-10 Lost Western Conference Semifinals
2008-09 Lost Western Conference First Round
2007-08 Lost Western Conference Finals
2006-07 Won Finals
2005-06 Lost Western Conference Semifinals
2004-05 Won Finals
2003-04 Lost Western Conference Semifinals
2002-03 Won Finals
2001-02 Lost Western Conference Semifinals
2000-01 Lost Western Conference Finals
1999-00 Lost Western Conference First Round
1998-99 Won Finals
1997-98 Lost Western Conference Semifinals
That is all.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
-
Pop vs Spoelstra automatically gives the Spurs a legit shot at the title.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
all this proves is that it's possible to cherry pick numbers.
We've had more success more recently with KG, but the Spurs have built a consistently competitive team for the entirety of Duncan's career.
-
My feeling is that age is a red herring for the Celtics. The real killer is our roster`s yet to be balanced to compensate for injuries to key guys even once in the KG era. Yes the likes of Rondo, and KG are [dang] near irreplacable but when the ability of a roster to work pick and roll defences is so heavily tied to a 3rd year shootimng guard being healthy, see how things changed when Bradley came.
-
As much as we all (me included!) like to believe the Spurs are the sturdiest of all modern NBA franchises, and Popovich is the best of modern NBA coaches, it is interesting to note that the Spurs have been bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice in the past five seasons (and they lost in the second round once). All this with what can be considered a better and overall healthier roster than the Celtics.
Since 2009-10, the Spurs have finished each season with a better record and a higher seed than the Celtics, but they have fared worse - when taking seeding into account - in the playoffs (when the real season starts).
This is why I agree that unless Ainge is BLOWN AWAY by trade proposals, he should run it back the next two seasons (until KG's contract ends). The Celtics simply need to stay healthy and Doc needs to fine-tune his lineups, which is exactly what has happened for the Spurs this season.
That's completely and utterly ignoring the fact that the Spurs play in the West, which has a significant head over the East when it comes to talent.
It took us 7 games to beat the Sixers last year, while they don't even make the playoffs (per record) in the West.
While we may have gone further "on paper," the paper doesn't take into account that type of talent disparity.
It took us 7 games against the 8th seed Atlanta Hawks back in 2008 and we destroyed the Lakers in the finals in 6. And the lakers were better and favorites on winning the title back then.
One thing you forget is match ups. We can beat elite teams and lost to lottery ones just like the regular season.
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
yeah, I don't see it that way. KG is right there with TD. Pierce is better than Ginobili, and Rondo is capable of playing with TP. The role players are a mixed bag, but none of SAs role players has the upside of Jeff Green.
Danny needs to figure out how to reshape the role players, but I think he is capable of doing that. The #16 pick and the MLE are two key pieces. Add to those trades and I think he can get us a better big man rotation and some size on the perimeter....
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
yeah, I don't see it that way. KG is right there with TD. Pierce is better than Ginobili, and Rondo is capable of playing with TP. The role players are a mixed bag, but none of SAs role players has the upside of Jeff Green.
Danny needs to figure out how to reshape the role players, but I think he is capable of doing that. The #16 pick and the MLE are two key pieces. Add to those trades and I think he can get us a better big man rotation and some size on the perimeter....
If it were true that KG and Pierce are as good as Duncan and Ginobili, then the celtics would be playing Miami right now. Unfortunately the last two playoff seasons have made it painfully clear that KG and Pierce just can't carry a team anymore. They have each lost a few steps. Ainge has said this himself on multiple occasions.
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
yeah, I don't see it that way. KG is right there with TD. Pierce is better than Ginobili, and Rondo is capable of playing with TP. The role players are a mixed bag, but none of SAs role players has the upside of Jeff Green.
Danny needs to figure out how to reshape the role players, but I think he is capable of doing that. The #16 pick and the MLE are two key pieces. Add to those trades and I think he can get us a better big man rotation and some size on the perimeter....
If it were true that KG and Pierce are as good as Duncan and Ginobili, then the celtics would be playing Miami right now. Unfortunately the last two playoff seasons have made it painfully clear that KG and Pierce just can't carry a team anymore. They have each lost a few steps. Ainge has said this himself on multiple occasions.
Notice how they did carry the team within minutes of a Finals appearance in the last two seasons.
::)
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
yeah, I don't see it that way. KG is right there with TD. Pierce is better than Ginobili, and Rondo is capable of playing with TP. The role players are a mixed bag, but none of SAs role players has the upside of Jeff Green.
Danny needs to figure out how to reshape the role players, but I think he is capable of doing that. The #16 pick and the MLE are two key pieces. Add to those trades and I think he can get us a better big man rotation and some size on the perimeter....
If it were true that KG and Pierce are as good as Duncan and Ginobili, then the celtics would be playing Miami right now. Unfortunately the last two playoff seasons have made it painfully clear that KG and Pierce just can't carry a team anymore. They have each lost a few steps. Ainge has said this himself on multiple occasions.
Notice how they did carry the team within minutes of a Finals appearance in the last two seasons.
::)
Uhm...did you miss losing to the knicks in the first round? Ainge sure didn't. They only made it to the ECF last year because Rose was injured and Rondo carried the team. We also had a guy named Ray Allen last year.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
I don't think too many (if any) of the Spurs playoff runs were based on the Spurs beating a clearly more talented team, so I wouldn't attribute any of them to his terrific coaching.
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
yeah, I don't see it that way. KG is right there with TD. Pierce is better than Ginobili, and Rondo is capable of playing with TP. The role players are a mixed bag, but none of SAs role players has the upside of Jeff Green.
Danny needs to figure out how to reshape the role players, but I think he is capable of doing that. The #16 pick and the MLE are two key pieces. Add to those trades and I think he can get us a better big man rotation and some size on the perimeter....
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
Duncan averaged 18 and 10 with 3 blocks per game this year in just 30 minutes while shooting 50% from the field.
KG averaged 15 and 8 while shooting just a hiar under 50% and averaged LESS THAN a block per game in the same minutes as Duncan.
As a 37 year old Duncan made first team All NBA and Second team all NBA defense. KG still anchors our teams defense but he has considerably lost a step, especially when compared to Duncan.
-
With the injuries the Celtics have sustained this year, the responsibilities and work increases rested upon KG and PP more than any other players on the club.
It is not fair to compare KG and PP with other superstars who did not have to deal with these extra burdens.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
I don't think too many (if any) of the Spurs playoff runs were based on the Spurs beating a clearly more talented team, so I wouldn't attribute any of them to his terrific coaching.
Perhaps because they were the more talented team, and that's because of Pop.
-
It is not fair to compare KG and PP with other superstars who did not have to deal with these extra burdens.
Even without these injuries we have had trouble scoring late in the games.
-
The Spurs are better because of the talent fit more then just the talent.
Parker vs. Rondo. Both are top 5 PGs. Parker is the better scorer and was able to take more of that role on as Duncan and Manu have slowed down.
Then bench role players. The Celtics have talent, but does it compliment the best players?
The Spurs have guys that have better roles. The wings defend and hit open shots. They do not need the ball in their hands. They have bigs that rebound and defend (with real size) or hit outside shot and defend.
The Spurs have done a much better job of building a team around their aging stars that compliments the team.
The Celtics have some equal talent, but does not compliment as well.
-
What works for tha Spurs won't necessarily work for us.
-
Who thinks the Spurs would be on the verge of reaching the Finals if they didn't have Tony Parker?
-
Who thinks the Spurs would be on the verge of reaching the Finals if they didn't have Tony Parker?
I think that team minus Parker could have handled the Knicks pretty easily, and perhaps the Pacers too. The Heat are another story, of course.
So, I think they'd be a heck of a lot closer than the Celtics got, if that's your question. Speculation on my part, but that's what you asked for.
Part of this is a reflection of the Spurs' depth, which is one of the points people have been making in this thread. Neal, de Colo and Patty Mills are serviceable NBA point guards, and Ginobili is a very good playmaker himself. We had zero PGs other than Rondo.
-
The Spurs have done a way better job than Ainge in finding cheapie role players to surround their Big 3.
Splitter, drafted 27th in 2007. If the Spurs take Alindo Tucker instead, as Ainge did with Giddens instead of DeAndre Jordan, they don't have a competent big to play next to Duncan. Or if Ainge took Marc Gasol instead of Pruitt at 32 in 2007.
Danny Green, $800k FA, starting for what will be a Finals team. Ainge hasn't had a solid hit on a cheapie FA since PJ Brown's four months as a Celtic. Green averages 10.5 ppg shooting 45/43/85% and plays solid defense.
Gary Neal, same as Green. 40% 3 point shooter who plays gritty defense.
Matt Bonner. $3m salary. Three point specialist the past 6 seasons who stretches the floor to create room for Duncan and driving lanes for Manu and Parker. Ainge's $3m signing, Chris Wilcox, can't stay on the floor due to injury (and his unforseen heart condition)
Kawhi Leonard 16th pick of the 2011 draft. Spurs spin George Hill, who they picked 28th in 2008, for their only pick above 20 since Duncan in 1997, and they hit a home run with Leonard. Ainge's bounty in 2008, the aforementioned Giddens two picks after Hill, was nothing but salary filler when dumped two years later. BTW, Pekovic, Jordan, and Asik were all picked after Giddens (as was Chalmers, Dragic and Mbah a Moute). Any one of those bigs instead of Giddens and the Cs probably have at least one more title. Unlike head case Avery Bradley, Leonard is right sized for his position and doesn't wilt in the playoffs.
Blair, picked 37th in 2009. Ainge hasn't drafted a player besides AB who has contributed around his Big 3 since BBD in 2007 (and I know that BBD was picked by Seattle, for Ainge). And AB's contribution was minimal due to his many injuries.
Boston's FA acquisitions (Shaq, Sheed, JO, Lee, Jet) all didn't work out while SA's cheapie FAs did. Using hindsight, if Ainge picked a big in 2007, then surrounded his Big 3 with cheapie young role player show could shoot threes and defend, like Green and Neal, the Cs could be where the Spurs are, if the Cs stayed healthy of course.
-
Ainge hasn't drafted a player besides AB who has contributed around his Big 3 since BBD in 2007 (and I know that BBD was picked by Seattle, for Ainge). And AB's contribution was minimal due to his many injuries.
I call you on this one, Sullinger was helping until his injury.
-
Here's an interesting fact:
Since the '07-'08 season, the Boston Celtics have won more total playoff game than any other team in the league:
Celtics:
56 playoff wins. 1 Championship. 2 Conference Championships.
Lakers:
55 playoff wins. 2 Championships. 3 Conference Championships.
Heat:
44 playoff wins. 1 Championship. 2 Conference Championships.
Spurs:
37 playoff wins. 0 Championships. O Conference Championships (likely to be 1 before too long).
Magic:
32 playoff wins. 0 Championships. 1 Conference Championship.
Mavericks:
24 playoff wins. 1 Championship. 1 Conference Championship.
Cavaliers:
23 playoff wins. 0 Championships. 1 Conference Championship.
The Lakers two titles and three conference titles, with just one less total playoff win trumps us, but I think it's fair to say that we've been the second most successful franchise in the NBA since Kevin Garnett joined our team.
Even if the Spurs go on to win it all this year, they'll still lag behind us in playoff accomplishments over that time span.
-
Just goes to show you that playoff wins means long series, not closed out. That Spurs core has won several rings prior to 08 though.
-
As much as we all (me included!) like to believe the Spurs are the sturdiest of all modern NBA franchises, and Popovich is the best of modern NBA coaches, it is interesting to note that the Spurs have been bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice in the past five seasons (and they lost in the second round once). All this with what can be considered a better and overall healthier roster than the Celtics.
Since 2009-10, the Spurs have finished each season with a better record and a higher seed than the Celtics, but they have fared worse - when taking seeding into account - in the playoffs (when the real season starts).
This is why I agree that unless Ainge is BLOWN AWAY by trade proposals, he should run it back the next two seasons (until KG's contract ends). The Celtics simply need to stay healthy and Doc needs to fine-tune his lineups, which is exactly what has happened for the Spurs this season.
That's completely and utterly ignoring the fact that the Spurs play in the West, which has a significant head over the East when it comes to talent.
It took us 7 games to beat the Sixers last year, while they don't even make the playoffs (per record) in the West.
While we may have gone further "on paper," the paper doesn't take into account that type of talent disparity.
It took us 7 games against the 8th seed Atlanta Hawks back in 2008 and we destroyed the Lakers in the finals in 6. And the lakers were better and favorites on winning the title back then.
One thing you forget is match ups. We can beat elite teams and lost to lottery ones just like the regular season.
Totally true, but there's no way you can convince me that the East isn't the weaker conference--and subsequently, that the KG celtics have been playing against relatively weaker competition (than the Spurs have) in their playoff runs since 2007.
-
Here's an interesting fact:
Since the '07-'08 season, the Boston Celtics have won more total playoff game than any other team in the league:
Celtics:
56 playoff wins. 1 Championship. 2 Conference Championships.
Lakers:
55 playoff wins. 2 Championships. 3 Conference Championships.
Heat:
44 playoff wins. 1 Championship. 2 Conference Championships.
Spurs:
37 playoff wins. 0 Championships. O Conference Championships (likely to be 1 before too long).
Magic:
32 playoff wins. 0 Championships. 1 Conference Championship.
Mavericks:
24 playoff wins. 1 Championship. 1 Conference Championship.
Cavaliers:
23 playoff wins. 0 Championships. 1 Conference Championship.
The Lakers two titles and three conference titles, with just one less total playoff win trumps us, but I think it's fair to say that we've been the second most successful franchise in the NBA since Kevin Garnett joined our team.
Even if the Spurs go on to win it all this year, they'll still lag behind us in playoff accomplishments over that time span.
You're right that we've had a great run.
Doesn't tell us much about what to do next year, though, which is (was?) the topic of the thread.
-
Who thinks the Spurs would be on the verge of reaching the Finals if they didn't have Tony Parker?
Me.
If Russ were healthy, it'd be a whole different story though.
-
We should certainly give the club and Doc an honest shot next year with a healthy group.
Each year since winning in 2008, outside of 2011-2012 were we virtually injury riddled.
And even in 2012 we were not completely healthy.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
I don't think too many (if any) of the Spurs playoff runs were based on the Spurs beating a clearly more talented team, so I wouldn't attribute any of them to his terrific coaching.
Perhaps because they were the more talented team, and that's because of Pop.
Yeah, if not for Pop Duncan would have probably had a Chris Bosh-like career.
-
We should certainly give the club and Doc an honest shot next year with a healthy group.
Each year since winning in 2008, outside of 2011-2012 were we virtually injury riddled.
And even in 2012 we were not completely healthy.
The fallacy of that logic is that the older you get the more injury prone you will be at certain positions. Don't you think it's likely that guys will get injured again? I do.
-
As much as we all (me included!) like to believe the Spurs are the sturdiest of all modern NBA franchises, and Popovich is the best of modern NBA coaches, it is interesting to note that the Spurs have been bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice in the past five seasons (and they lost in the second round once). All this with what can be considered a better and overall healthier roster than the Celtics.
Since 2009-10, the Spurs have finished each season with a better record and a higher seed than the Celtics, but they have fared worse - when taking seeding into account - in the playoffs (when the real season starts).
This is why I agree that unless Ainge is BLOWN AWAY by trade proposals, he should run it back the next two seasons (until KG's contract ends). The Celtics simply need to stay healthy and Doc needs to fine-tune his lineups, which is exactly what has happened for the Spurs this season.
That's completely and utterly ignoring the fact that the Spurs play in the West, which has a significant head over the East when it comes to talent.
It took us 7 games to beat the Sixers last year, while they don't even make the playoffs (per record) in the West.
While we may have gone further "on paper," the paper doesn't take into account that type of talent disparity.
It took us 7 games against the 8th seed Atlanta Hawks back in 2008 and we destroyed the Lakers in the finals in 6. And the lakers were better and favorites on winning the title back then.
One thing you forget is match ups. We can beat elite teams and lost to lottery ones just like the regular season.
Totally true, but there's no way you can convince me that the East isn't the weaker conference--and subsequently, that the KG celtics have been playing against relatively weaker competition (than the Spurs have) in their playoff runs since 2007.
We became underdogs every year since KG went down from injury in 2009. LeBron's Cavs and Dwight's Magic were clear favorites to win the Eastern Conference. Dwight and LeBron were clear MVP candidates and their team were on 50+ wins.
Western Conference last year was deep as today. We took the defending champions in 7 games. But it only took 5 games for the Heat to take down the Thunders and win the championship.
Like I said, it's all about the match ups.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
I don't think too many (if any) of the Spurs playoff runs were based on the Spurs beating a clearly more talented team, so I wouldn't attribute any of them to his terrific coaching.
Perhaps because they were the more talented team, and that's because of Pop.
Yeah, if not for Pop Duncan would have probably had a Chris Bosh-like career.
Pop is a huge part of the Spurs success in the last 15 years.
-
Ainge hasn't drafted a player besides AB who has contributed around his Big 3 since BBD in 2007 (and I know that BBD was picked by Seattle, for Ainge). And AB's contribution was minimal due to his many injuries.
I call you on this one, Sullinger was helping until his injury.
Well Sullinger didn't play with the Big 3. He did manage to play 45 games this past season with the new Big 3 before being lost for the season to a back operation. I like the Sully pick, BTW.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
I don't think too many (if any) of the Spurs playoff runs were based on the Spurs beating a clearly more talented team, so I wouldn't attribute any of them to his terrific coaching.
Perhaps because they were the more talented team, and that's because of Pop.
Yeah, if not for Pop Duncan would have probably had a Chris Bosh-like career.
:o :o I hope you mean he would have probably had a Kevin Garnett-like career.
-
The Spurs have Pop, we don't.
Pop is not afraid to yell at his stars for making dumb plays or bench them in the final minutes of the game for that matter.
Doc on the other hand tries to always please his star players, he will never yell at KG or Paul ever. Never calls them out in front of the whole team.
Poppovic, does.
This is why their rookies and young guys play so well, because they know that Pop, won't take their "crap".
The Spurs have had Pop during the entire KG era and it hasn't really made them more successful than the Celts, or even as successful for that matter.
Last time I checked the Spurs with Pop has 4 Championships.
1999, 2003, 2005, 2007. They are 4 out of 4 in all their final appearances.
I don't think too many (if any) of the Spurs playoff runs were based on the Spurs beating a clearly more talented team, so I wouldn't attribute any of them to his terrific coaching.
Perhaps because they were the more talented team, and that's because of Pop.
Yeah, if not for Pop Duncan would have probably had a Chris Bosh-like career.
You mean he would have joined with Kobe and Nash and coasted to a few rings?
-
Ainge hasn't drafted a player besides AB who has contributed around his Big 3 since BBD in 2007 (and I know that BBD was picked by Seattle, for Ainge). And AB's contribution was minimal due to his many injuries.
I call you on this one, Sullinger was helping until his injury.
Well Sullinger didn't play with the Big 3. He did manage to play 45 games this past season with the new Big 3 before being lost for the season to a back operation. I like the Sully pick, BTW.
Didn't Ainge draft Jeff Green?
-
The Spurs are significantly better than the Celtics are in virtually every phase of the game and every position.
yeah, I don't see it that way. KG is right there with TD. Pierce is better than Ginobili, and Rondo is capable of playing with TP. The role players are a mixed bag, but none of SAs role players has the upside of Jeff Green.
Danny needs to figure out how to reshape the role players, but I think he is capable of doing that. The #16 pick and the MLE are two key pieces. Add to those trades and I think he can get us a better big man rotation and some size on the perimeter....
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
Duncan averaged 18 and 10 with 3 blocks per game this year in just 30 minutes while shooting 50% from the field.
KG averaged 15 and 8 while shooting just a hiar under 50% and averaged LESS THAN a block per game in the same minutes as Duncan.
As a 37 year old Duncan made first team All NBA and Second team all NBA defense. KG still anchors our teams defense but he has considerably lost a step, especially when compared to Duncan.
Those particular stats are a bit of a dubious comparison, though.
KG has maintained that 'near 50%' FG% while shooting a far higher share of shots from outside than Duncan.
Duncan has always played much closer to the hoop on both offense and defense than KG. He takes a much larger share of his shots within 2-3 feet of the basket. he also normally plays closer under the hoop and along the baseline on defense. That sounds great - and it is certainly not a 'bad thing' that Duncan plays close to the hoop. He gets more close-in high-percentage shots off the post-up or off put-backs. And he's going to get more blocks on defense.
KG, is much more of a 'stretch' big. His role on offense is to pull a defensive big man out of the paint to open it up for others. He's a much better outside shooter than Duncan.
I would argue that KG is actually more versatile overall on offense than Duncan. His utilization is lower over recent years (a product of playing with Pierce and Allen). KG has posted a USG% of around 23% most years, while Duncan has been called on at about a 28% rate. And thus Duncan has taken 2-3 more shots per game. But KG's still been pretty much just as efficient on post-up plays as Duncan, while possessing a much better outside game and the ability to work off the dribble.
KG's shooting percentages from every distance are as good or better than Duncan's. Mostly better. He just doesn't take as many shots as Duncan. Which is more of a function of the teams they each have been on.
Defensively, their roles overlap, but Duncan spends more time defending the low post while KG is one of the best high-paint, P&R defenders, ever. He's also a tremendous show-&-recover help defender on the perimeter.
Defending the high paint doesn't result in exiting counting stats. You aren't in great position for rebounds or blocks. But you disrupt passing lanes and hedge away driving lanes and force oppositions to settle for lower-percentage outside shots. You do get the occasional steal. So while Duncan's block rates are a little higher, KG's steal rates are a little higher.
Duncan has, accordingly, had a slight edge in Defensive Rebound Rate in recent years, but not by much. Both have been among the NBA elite, posting DRB% between 25-30% each year.
Both Duncan and Garnett are great players. In my opinion, they are the two premier power forwards of their generation and among the greatest ever. But they are very different TYPES of power forwards. Duncan is more of a 'classic' PF. Versatile, yes, but with an emphasis on the baseline and low-post game. KG is a different kind of beast, extending the PF game out much further from the basket on both ends.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste. Depending on what the rest of your team is made up of, one may be more or less valuable than the other.
-
Celtics need a catch and shoot guy to be back at the level of the Spurs. Also if we could convince pierce to come off the bench then yes, we could be the spurs. Need a big man as well though, but if we could have pierce off the bench like Manu that would be a huge help.
-
Celtics need a catch and shoot guy to be back at the level of the Spurs. Also if we could convince pierce to come off the bench then yes, we could be the spurs. Need a big man as well though, but if we could have pierce off the bench like Manu that would be a huge help.
Who in the spurs is a catch and shoot guy? Bonner? If thats the case, Kyle Korver can be our Bonner.
We need scorers that are decent defenders.
Kawhi Leonard type, Danny Green type players. Not stars, but just really good role players.
And we need a Tiago Splitter kind of guy, I'm thinking Gortat? John Henson could be our Splitter.
Pierce could be our Ginobilli
Duncan = KG
Parker = Rondo
-
Who in the spurs is a catch and shoot guy? Bonner? If thats the case, Kyle Korver can be our Bonner.
Just getting Korver is way easier said than done
-
Who in the spurs is a catch and shoot guy? Bonner? If thats the case, Kyle Korver can be our Bonner.
Just getting Korver is way easier said than done
Just stop trying to rebuttal everything I say.
Would you? It's annoying as crap. Whats your problem?
You just pick and choose a sentence out of a whole post just to argue.
Get a life.
Plus.
My post was hypothetical.
And I wasn't talking to you. That was in reply to WeMadeIt17.
-
As others have said, there are enormous, glaring differences between the Spurs' roster and ours.
The biggest thing to me is that the Spurs have a lot of size and versatility. They can play any style and match up with nearly any team. They are really effective both offensively and defensively.
Most importantly, the Spurs have an MVP candidate leading the way for them, a guy who on the tail end of his athletic prime, in Tony Parker. That's something the Celtics don't have, with all due respect to Rajon Rondo and Paul Pierce.
-
Timo I would say Danny green is a catch a shoot guy as well. And yes if we could get korver that would be great
-
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
-
Timo I would say Danny green is a catch a shoot guy as well. And yes if we could get korver that would be great
Danny Green can catch and shoot, yes, but he's more than that, he can drive and run and defend, but that boy can shoot the lights out.
So hypothetically we'll if we need someone like him, we kind of already do in Courtney Lee, but Lee has been struggling hard.
They're both Athletic SG's that can shoot. Man I hope courtney lee steps it up next season.
-
Yeah I agree lee could definitely play his role
-
Who in the spurs is a catch and shoot guy? Bonner? If thats the case, Kyle Korver can be our Bonner.
Just getting Korver is way easier said than done
Just stop trying to rebuttal everything I say.
Would you? It's annoying as crap. Whats your problem?
You just pick and choose a sentence out of a whole post just to argue.
Get a life.
Plus.
My post was hypothetical.
And I wasn't talking to you. That was in reply to WeMadeIt17.
I think what CC was implying is that in a thread asking how we compare to the Spurs, saying "we'd be more like the Spurs if we just got more guys like the Spurs have" doesn't add a lot, without more specifics.
It seems like a valid observation. I'm not sure what else has been going on between you two, and I don't really want to know, but I don't see it as an outsider as something too argumentative for its own sake.
-
if u all are watching the spurs right now and are saying the talent between us and the spurs is comparable idk what to tell u.
-
Who in the spurs is a catch and shoot guy? Bonner? If thats the case, Kyle Korver can be our Bonner.
Just getting Korver is way easier said than done
Just stop trying to rebuttal everything I say.
Would you? It's annoying as crap. Whats your problem?
You just pick and choose a sentence out of a whole post just to argue.
Get a life.
Plus.
My post was hypothetical.
And I wasn't talking to you. That was in reply to WeMadeIt17.
I think what CC was implying is that in a thread asking how we compare to the Spurs, saying "we'd be more like the Spurs if we just got more guys like the Spurs have" doesn't add a lot, without more specifics.
It seems like a valid observation. I'm not sure what else has been going on between you two, and I don't really want to know, but I don't see it as an outsider as something too argumentative for its own sake.
What I was discussing with WeMadeit17 was comparisons and it was all hypothetical, I wasn't saying that we should do it. All I was doing was comparing players, and trying to name players that is comparable to the spurs players.
-
The talent difference i believe is very comparable. KG could easily avg. 15ppg and 8 rebounds as duncan did. Rondo if healthy is capable of what tony does. Pierce can do what Manu does as well. I think what we are missing which from what i have said and same with timo is our role players. We needed them this year. Really thats what this team was built on this year. Guys like Sully and Rondo being healthy, Pierce and KG doing their normal things, JG stepping up (which he did), and Role players like Lee,Terry,AB,and Crawford being able to step in and score and play D. Only a few of those things happened and thats where you get the difference.
-
The talent difference i believe is very comparable. KG could easily avg. 15ppg and 8 rebounds as duncan did. Rondo if healthy is capable of what tony does. Pierce can do what Manu does as well. I think what we are missing which from what i have said and same with timo is our role players. We needed them this year. Really thats what this team was built on this year. Guys like Sully and Rondo being healthy, Pierce and KG doing their normal things, JG stepping up (which he did), and Role players like Lee,Terry,AB,and Crawford being able to step in and score and play D. Only a few of those things happened and thats where you get the difference.
no we can't and that's why we had a lovely first round exit
TP is much better than Rondo right now because Rondo just isn't consistent. I think he's getting there though. KG and duncan...sure...but TD just did great things this series. He also looks a step ahead of KG. And if you want to put PP on the bench, I'm so cool with that.
You're also forgetting how the Spurs have a coach that's lightyears ahead of ours. They're also kind of deep...oh and big.
Spurs are much better than the Cs. And unless we want to put Paul on the bench, DEMAND a consistent game from Rondo, feature JG more and get a coach who's not stuck on being loyal to 2-3 guys, then sure, we can be better than the Spurs.
-
if u all are watching the spurs right now and are saying the talent between us and the spurs is comparable idk what to tell u.
I'm with ya man.
-
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
There can be no real comparison between the Spurs this year and the Celtics this year because the Celtics didn't really HAVE their whole team for anything but about 12 games in the middle of the season, while the Spurs had most of their main rotation for most of the regular season and most importantly now, in the playoffs. The C's didn't have Bradley or the 'good' Jeff Green in the first half and they didn't have Sully or Rondo in the second half. They were basically a crippled roster one way or another all season.
The Spurs were very simply a much better TEAM this year and I don't think that can be questioned.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings. On who we think those players will be next season, if healthy and integrated. Not on how things went during a bizarrely broken season.
Viewed that way, sure, the OPs premise might still not hold water. Or maybe it does. But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
-
Viewed that way, sure, the OPs premise might still not hold water. Or maybe it does. But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
Fair points, mmmmm (I can't help thinking of Campbell Soup when I read your name).
Thing is, the OP's premise holds water about as well as the wreck of the Titanic lying on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
-
I agree the Spurs are the better team hands down. I think if we had a healthy AB going into the season and our rotation was more figured out then yes we could be very comparable. I am going on the hypothetical P.O.V. And Rondo in the playoffs is pretty consistent if you ask me. He shows up every year this time of year. I am just saying that if everyone is healthy this is very close. I say if Parker tore his ACL then the spurs would be exactly where we are right now.
-
So, people really think RR couldn't do what Parker did? Really? I guess I didn't see RR put up amazing numbers last season ECF. Can he get back to that level, who knows... but he is on Parker's level in the playoffs, NO QUESTION! Talking about Parker being an MVP candidate... well, show me side by sides of Parkers season stats and RR's when he was healthy and I'm sure they are comparable. Because Parker's team is a winning team of course they would consider him an MVP candidate and if the Celtics were a winning team then with the numbers RR was putting up then I am sure he would have been considered too!
Kevin Garnet IS as good as Duncan RIGHT NOW and the people who are saying he isn't are making me laugh! What makes Duncan better? Wait, it's because Duncan was selected to teams that KG wasn't? Hahahahahaaha please stop!Duncan is on a HEALTHY team, with a HEALTHY PG that makes his life so much easier, and HE is healthy! Not only that but he is on a team with very few new players so the team has had more time to gel. What makes Duncan better and please don't talk about all team selections anymore (please).
PP is better than Manu and I really don't think anyone can question that and be serious! If there wasn't history (maybe fit) with Manu, Spurs would give him up for PP any day of the week.
Now I'm not talking about this thread's topic b/c I want to run it back regardless of what SA did/does!
People always fall in love with what's hot and make it so much more than it is. Parker is great and he's doing his thing in the playoffs but to say RR isn't on his level (pre-injury is all we can go on), then really I don't know what to say to you b/c I don't get what proof you have that says he isn't, errr wasn't.
If RR gets back to playing last season's level (playoffs especially) then all the people saying he isn't on Parker's level right now will be singing a different tune.
LOL I seem to have argued more about RR than the other guys but it just made me do a double take at the people saying Parker is on another level than RR. I guess scoring 37pts with 6 assists and 4rbs in an WCF game RECENTLY, can make you forget that not too long ago RR scored 44 with 10 assists and 8rbs in the ECF except he did it against the eventual champs.
I'm too lazy to check on it but what makes TP better than RR (I'm not talking about looking at teams but them as individuals)? RR is better than he is at most things... even though everyone says he isn't consistent. Is TP a better defender than RR, what about rebounder, better at assisting, better scorer? What makes him better??? No, what their teams does doesn't matter right now, b/c if what their teams did meant anything, then that means Irving isn't as good as he is b/c his team is HOT garbage (a guy who people think is better than RR too). So, yea, TP has the rings but it doesn't mean he's better.
-
Spurs are getting very good defensively and are still light years ahead on offense compare to Boston. When you see the production of the bench on both end of the floor, it's scary. I hope they win it this year. They deserve it.
-
apples and oranges
-
They can score in the fourth, we can't. It has hurt the last few years.
-
There are multiple teams in the league can might be tempted to chase past glory like the OP wants us to. If we compare to best case scenarios, it is easy to convince ourselves that there is a good chance that it will happen.
People should not forget that San Antonio had the best record in the league last season. They won 61 games the season before. There is nothing surprising about their post season performance this season.
-
I don't follow the Spurs, but have they had any major changes to their roster in the last 2-3 yrs? Their core is still intact and they don't have a revolving door of players each season.
I wish the C's could have gone further, but chemistry wasn't on their side and when they had a chance to get chemistry a game changing injury would occur. If KG had a reliable player to come in and spell him some minutes (consistently) without a huge drop off, then that would change a lot for the C's.
-
If Kevin Garnett is sitting at home watching the NBA playoffs and contemplating whether he should thinking about hanging up the high tops for good or giving it a go for one more season, seeing what this Spurs team, and his old nemesis--Tim Duncan--are doing, can only be swaying him towards going for it again.
He's not the GM, but ultimately I think he might be the one who ends up making the decision on whether we run it back or not.
He can be a fairly convincing guy, and if he sits down with Danny and tells him "I can do this for one more year, I'm convinced of it. Give me Paul Pierce back and a healthy Rondo, and some small tweaks, and let's go," I think it will happen.
-
The talent difference i believe is very comparable. KG could easily avg. 15ppg and 8 rebounds as duncan did. Rondo if healthy is capable of what tony does. Pierce can do what Manu does as well. I think what we are missing which from what i have said and same with timo is our role players. We needed them this year. Really thats what this team was built on this year. Guys like Sully and Rondo being healthy, Pierce and KG doing their normal things, JG stepping up (which he did), and Role players like Lee,Terry,AB,and Crawford being able to step in and score and play D. Only a few of those things happened and thats where you get the difference.
no we can't and that's why we had a lovely first round exit
TP is much better than Rondo right now because Rondo just isn't consistent. I think he's getting there though. KG and duncan...sure...but TD just did great things this series. He also looks a step ahead of KG. And if you want to put PP on the bench, I'm so cool with that.
You're also forgetting how the Spurs have a coach that's lightyears ahead of ours. They're also kind of deep...oh and big.
Spurs are much better than the Cs. And unless we want to put Paul on the bench, DEMAND a consistent game from Rondo, feature JG more and get a coach who's not stuck on being loyal to 2-3 guys, then sure, we can be better than the Spurs.
Agree to most of it.
KG and PP may be able to produce similar numbers as TD and Manu but the latter pair play more efficiently as the former pair. TD really plays intelligently and uses his size to score inside unlike KG who prefers to take on jumpers thus lessening chances of getting offensive rebounds. Manu is quicker and far better than PP in playing the open court and more importantly chases opposing players and smother fastbreaks. Tony Parker is a better scorer than Rondo. TP's jumper is so so good. I could just wish Rondo spent his time doing a lot of shooting while recovering from his ACL injury so he has something special to show to the fans when he comes back.
Personally, if we want to run it back we need another scorer and shotblocker/rebounder and a different head coach.
-
I don't follow the Spurs, but have they had any major changes to their roster in the last 2-3 yrs? Their core is still intact and they don't have a revolving door of players each season.
I wish the C's could have gone further, but chemistry wasn't on their side and when they had a chance to get chemistry a game changing injury would occur. If KG had a reliable player to come in and spell him some minutes (consistently) without a huge drop off, then that would change a lot for the C's.
Their core has stayed the same, but they've made some really smart personnel moves. Drafting Tiego Splitter, trading for Kawhi Leonard, signing Danny Green, Gary Neal, and Boris Diaw for nothing.
-
One name explains the Spurs - R.C. Buford.
The guy is the best general manager in the game.
Period.
The Spurs are where they are because their organization is one of the best in the game.
Wyc should seek to copy it.
-
If Kevin Garnett is sitting at home watching the NBA playoffs and contemplating whether he should thinking about hanging up the high tops for good or giving it a go for one more season, seeing what this Spurs team, and his old nemesis--Tim Duncan--are doing, can only be swaying him towards going for it again.
He's not the GM, but ultimately I think he might be the one who ends up making the decision on whether we run it back or not.
He can be a fairly convincing guy, and if he sits down with Danny and tells him "I can do this for one more year, I'm convinced of it. Give me Paul Pierce back and a healthy Rondo, and some small tweaks, and let's go," I think it will happen.
Agree with all of this. Tp
-
We can try and run it back...but without addition of a serious center to help KG , I just can't see the Celtics being true contenders . Health will kill our run again.
Yes give us Splitter, ASIK or another good young center and along with KG , the C's could make some noise.
Old legs and no size is a bad combination
-
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings.
But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
OK, so you don't like comparisons (a) based on last year, (b) based on qualitative factors because those are affected by team records, and you want to see performance at (c) "nominal performance ratings."
I'll address all three of those by using quantitative metrics rather than the qualitative evaluations, and by extending the comparison to the last six years rather than only last year.
Take a look at PER with each player's rank among all NBA players:
KG TD KG rank TD rank
2007-08 25.42 24.05 4 9
2008-09 21.32 24.51 18 5
2009-10 19.51 24.79 30 5
2010-11 20.67 21.94 24 14
2011-12 20.47 22.60 34 14
2012-13 19.25 24.45 38 6
So, by this objectively calculated number you see a clear decline for KG, while TD's performance this year is competitive with those from five years ago.
Note that your point about how the "team is doing" influencing such rankings is not really borne out here. Plenty of players have high PERs on teams with losing records - including KG, who had terrific PERs on those mediocre MIN teams. And while KG's PER has declined as the team's record has declined, it's more likely that the causality runs the other way - he's not as good, so the team is performing worse.
If you don't like PER you can pick any other relevant metric you want, old-school or advanced, and you'll see the same pattern. KG has declined by more than TD.
And, coming back to a point I've made again and again, you win rings in the NBA with top 10 players, often by having two such guys. It is very simple. By no metric do we have even one, while the Spurs have two. They are much better positioned to run it back.
-
I agree with above. If the Celtics want to make any noise they HAVE to get a center. KG at the 4 would be deadly again. You give him a gortat to guard the big guys and board he'll conserve so much more energy. I feel thats his biggest argument to danny (aside that we weren't healthy this year) If he still wants to play. He could tell danny listen. If we get a true 5. The 5-5-5 plan works, and Sully can get plenty of minutes and experience for the future. If we get a big man and Rondo comes back strong we would be just fine. Just depends on what Danny and Doc think is best.
-
I don't follow the Spurs, but have they had any major changes to their roster in the last 2-3 yrs? Their core is still intact and they don't have a revolving door of players each season.
I wish the C's could have gone further, but chemistry wasn't on their side and when they had a chance to get chemistry a game changing injury would occur. If KG had a reliable player to come in and spell him some minutes (consistently) without a huge drop off, then that would change a lot for the C's.
Their core has stayed the same, but they've made some really smart personnel moves. Drafting Tiego Splitter, trading for Kawhi Leonard, signing Danny Green, Gary Neal, and Boris Diaw for nothing.
Yes, it seems like they always find the right players to compliment their core.
-
agree with above. If the Celtics want to make any noise they HAVE to get a center. KG at the 4 would be deadly again. You give him a gortat to guard the big guys and board he'll conserve so much more energy. I feel thats his biggest argument to danny (aside that we weren't healthy this year) If he still wants to play. He could tell danny listen. If we get a true 5. The 5-5-5 plan works, and Sully can get plenty of minutes and experience for the future. If we get a big man and Rondo comes back strong we would be just fine. Just depends on what Danny and Doc think is best.
Still does not solve the late game scoring droughts though. They happened even with Perk here. We lost leads, I don't know what will fix it. PP can't finish games anymore like he used to do so. KG has never been a great finisher, ditto for RR. Is JG ready to finish games? I do not know, I hope so.
-
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings.
But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
OK, so you don't like comparisons (a) based on last year, (b) based on qualitative factors because those are affected by team records, and you want to see performance at (c) "nominal performance ratings."
I'll address all three of those by using quantitative metrics rather than the qualitative evaluations, and by extending the comparison to the last six years rather than only last year.
Take a look at PER with each player's rank among all NBA players:
KG TD KG rank TD rank
2007-08 25.42 24.05 4 9
2008-09 21.32 24.51 18 5
2009-10 19.51 24.79 30 5
2010-11 20.67 21.94 24 14
2011-12 20.47 22.60 34 14
2012-13 19.25 24.45 38 6
So, by this objectively calculated number you see a clear decline for KG, while TD's performance this year is competitive with those from five years ago.
Note that your point about how the "team is doing" influencing such rankings is not really borne out here. Plenty of players have high PERs on teams with losing records - including KG, who had terrific PERs on those mediocre MIN teams. And while KG's PER has declined as the team's record has declined, it's more likely that the causality runs the other way - he's not as good, so the team is performing worse.
If you don't like PER you can pick any other relevant metric you want, old-school or advanced, and you'll see the same pattern. KG has declined by more than TD.
And, coming back to a point I've made again and again, you win rings in the NBA with top 10 players, often by having two such guys. It is very simple. By no metric do we have even one, while the Spurs have two. They are much better positioned to run it back.
You completely missed the point of my comment about 'nominal' expectations - that was meant to say how you should look at the OP's proposed _roster_. That wasn't meant to be specific to the KG v TD comparison.
Yeah, PER is skewed too heavily by counting & utilization stats and yeah, I've criticized it pretty heavily before so if i p--- on it right now, it has nothing to do with the KG v TD companions. PER has always been one of my least favorite stats. There are tons of articles already on the web pointing out its flaws so I won't bother here. But in particular, PER comparisons break down quickly when comparing across different roles. About the only thing I like to use PER for is to compare a player to himself over time or between two players in the same role on the same team. Other than that, it's a pretty useless stat.
PER is only 'objectively calculated' in the sense that the math it uses is the same for all players. But it is not an objectively derived calculation. PER, like all such derived stats, is the result of an arbitrary weighting of inputs - and that weighting is completely subjective.
I don't think my point anywhere has been that KG has been 'better' than Duncan. My point is that they do different things.
Right off the bat, KG's lower shot utilization (Duncan has typically attempted about 2 or 3 extra shots per game) is going to kill KG's PER comparison with TD. Duncan has only had a USG% under 26% once in his career. He's been SAS' primary scoring option for most of his seasons. KG has been secondary or third option behind Pierce and even sometimes Ray since coming to Boston. His USG% has not been above 26% once.
You can argue that that makes Duncan better, if you want. I would argue that their roles on their respective teams are simply different. Duncan plays closer to the basket. He's got a great guard to feed him and great outside shooters to stretch the defense and give him chances at put-backs. He's clearly excelled in this role. KG's role is different. He plays farther from the basket and used his superior perimeter shooting and great passing to facilitate his teammates' ability to get to the basket.
It's pretty telling that, even though Duncan has taken a much larger share of his shots 'At Rim' (pretty much those 2-3 extra shots per game have been 'at rim') KG's eFG% has consistently been higher:
| Year] | KG | TD |
| 2007-08] | 54% | 50% |
| 2008-09] | 53% | 50%% |
| 2009-10] | 52% | 52% |
| 2010-11] | 53% | 50% |
| 2011-12] | 51% | 49% |
| 2012-13] | 50% | 50% |
Basically, even though he's taking a larger share of shots from outside, KG is a consistently more efficient shooter than Duncan.
Again, this doesn't mean that KG is 'better' than Duncan. This points out that he has abilities that make it advantageous to USE him in different ways than you would use Duncan.
KG's at his most valuable when you have another big man who can play in the low-post. Because offensively KG forces at least one big defender to come out of the paint to guard him - sometimes two. And defensively it allows KG to focus on the high paint.
This is why KG & Shaq were such an unstoppable pair and why KG & Sully played so well together. In 378 minutes together KG & Sully posted a +10.8 net rating (points per 100 possessions) - easily the highest two-some net rating on our team for pairs that got more than 300 minutes together.
For comparison, KG & Bass played 1015 minutes together and posted a Net Rtg of -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
You may legitimately suggest that it is a flaw in KG that his game is sensitive to the type of players around him. Or you could just acknowledge the weakness in the quality of big men he's had next to him for much of the last few years.
And that who you play with has an effect.
Aside - a dream pairing would be Duncan and KG. Wow.
-
And the Spurs made getting Kawhi Leonard possible by drafting George Hill 26th overall in 2008. Know who the Celtics drafted with insight and forethought 4 picks later?
That's right...JR Giddens.
-
And the Spurs made getting Kawhi Leonard possible by drafting George Hill 26th overall in 2008. Know who the Celtics drafted with insight and forethought 4 picks later?
That's right...JR Giddens.
Hill was supposedly one of Ainge's guys too right?
-
I want to help you all out from the statistics side...We are not better than the Spurs as a team. You all will find small differences of +/- 3% in these stats but they are still BETTER
Tony Parker vs. Rajon Rondo (and to be fair, I used last years statistics) - TP is a much better scorer, better free throw percentage. Can Rondo get there -- yes? I think he's learning it...but right now, no.
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=2225&VsPlayerID=200765&Season=2011-12
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=200765&VsPlayerID=2225 (this year, if you want to try to predict the future and stuff)
Manu v. Paul Pierce - our only 'clear' advantage, but in all honestly the only category paul wins convincingly is rebounds. Please be aware that Manu plays 10 minutes less than Paul on avg, so him putting up similar numbers is actually very bad for "Paul is better" argument.
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=1938&VsPlayerID=1718
per36 -- http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=1938&VsPlayerID=1718&PerMode=Per36
Timmy vs Kevin - This one is almost a draw as well, but TD picks up more rebounds, blocks more shots, and has more points (fga) than Kevin. TD has a slight advantage. Also, I saw someone say TD has more of an advantage because he's a bit bigger and isn't afraid to knock around in the paint, while KG likes to hit that pick and pop -- He's openly said he hates being a center.
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=708&VsPlayerID=1495
So you take a dude that's MUCH better than Rondo, a dude that's JUST as good as Paul (and get him to be a threat OFF the bench) and a guy that's a HAIR better than Kevin and you easily have a core that's better than the Celtics', and we havent even discussed the Spurs other 3 starters.
IF we run it back and you all want to use the Spurs as an example, you all need to be finding ways to convince Paul to come off the bench and convince Rondo of a reason to be consistent and become a scorer. I don't think the issue with Rondo is happening until his security blankets in PP and KG are gone. I don't think Paul is going to play #2 to Jeff. I don't think KGs stats are going to get any better.
Stop dreaming, folks.
-
I can see Paul agreeing to come off the bench and let Green take the offensive focus, but yea, I agree with all of your other points
-
I can see Paul agreeing to come off the bench and let Green take the offensive focus, but yea, I agree with all of your other points
You know, I hope he would, but we don't tend to talk about how cocky Paul is/can be. If he does, I think that would instantly make our team better, and I also think if we kept a guy like JET, he plays better his second year.
So having PP contribute 15-18ppg off the bench (but still closing games a la Manu)
Jet off the bench contributing 12-15 ppg
A guy like Lee defending. A guy like Sully rebounding...that automatically makes us better
-
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings.
But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
OK, so you don't like comparisons (a) based on last year, (b) based on qualitative factors because those are affected by team records, and you want to see performance at (c) "nominal performance ratings."
I'll address all three of those by using quantitative metrics rather than the qualitative evaluations, and by extending the comparison to the last six years rather than only last year.
Take a look at PER with each player's rank among all NBA players:
KG TD KG rank TD rank
2007-08 25.42 24.05 4 9
2008-09 21.32 24.51 18 5
2009-10 19.51 24.79 30 5
2010-11 20.67 21.94 24 14
2011-12 20.47 22.60 34 14
2012-13 19.25 24.45 38 6
So, by this objectively calculated number you see a clear decline for KG, while TD's performance this year is competitive with those from five years ago.
Note that your point about how the "team is doing" influencing such rankings is not really borne out here. Plenty of players have high PERs on teams with losing records - including KG, who had terrific PERs on those mediocre MIN teams. And while KG's PER has declined as the team's record has declined, it's more likely that the causality runs the other way - he's not as good, so the team is performing worse.
If you don't like PER you can pick any other relevant metric you want, old-school or advanced, and you'll see the same pattern. KG has declined by more than TD.
And, coming back to a point I've made again and again, you win rings in the NBA with top 10 players, often by having two such guys. It is very simple. By no metric do we have even one, while the Spurs have two. They are much better positioned to run it back.
You completely missed the point of my comment about 'nominal' expectations - that was meant to say how you should look at the OP's proposed _roster_. That wasn't meant to be specific to the KG v TD comparison.
Yeah, PER is skewed too heavily by counting & utilization stats and yeah, I've criticized it pretty heavily before so if i p--- on it right now, it has nothing to do with the KG v TD companions. PER has always been one of my least favorite stats. There are tons of articles already on the web pointing out its flaws so I won't bother here. But in particular, PER comparisons break down quickly when comparing across different roles. About the only thing I like to use PER for is to compare a player to himself over time or between two players in the same role on the same team. Other than that, it's a pretty useless stat.
PER is only 'objectively calculated' in the sense that the math it uses is the same for all players. But it is not an objectively derived calculation. PER, like all such derived stats, is the result of an arbitrary weighting of inputs - and that weighting is completely subjective.
I don't think my point anywhere has been that KG has been 'better' than Duncan. My point is that they do different things.
Right off the bat, KG's lower shot utilization (Duncan has typically attempted about 2 or 3 extra shots per game) is going to kill KG's PER comparison with TD. Duncan has only had a USG% under 26% once in his career. He's been SAS' primary scoring option for most of his seasons. KG has been secondary or third option behind Pierce and even sometimes Ray since coming to Boston. His USG% has not been above 26% once.
You can argue that that makes Duncan better, if you want. I would argue that their roles on their respective teams are simply different. Duncan plays closer to the basket. He's got a great guard to feed him and great outside shooters to stretch the defense and give him chances at put-backs. He's clearly excelled in this role. KG's role is different. He plays farther from the basket and used his superior perimeter shooting and great passing to facilitate his teammates' ability to get to the basket.
It's pretty telling that, even though Duncan has taken a much larger share of his shots 'At Rim' (pretty much those 2-3 extra shots per game have been 'at rim') KG's eFG% has consistently been higher:
| Year] | KG | TD |
| 2007-08] | 54% | 50% |
| 2008-09] | 53% | 50%% |
| 2009-10] | 52% | 52% |
| 2010-11] | 53% | 50% |
| 2011-12] | 51% | 49% |
| 2012-13] | 50% | 50% |
Basically, even though he's taking a larger share of shots from outside, KG is a consistently more efficient shooter than Duncan.
Again, this doesn't mean that KG is 'better' than Duncan. This points out that he has abilities that make it advantageous to USE him in different ways than you would use Duncan.
KG's at his most valuable when you have another big man who can play in the low-post. Because offensively KG forces at least one big defender to come out of the paint to guard him - sometimes two. And defensively it allows KG to focus on the high paint.
This is why KG & Shaq were such an unstoppable pair and why KG & Sully played so well together. In 378 minutes together KG & Sully posted a +10.8 net rating (points per 100 possessions) - easily the highest two-some net rating on our team for pairs that got more than 300 minutes together.
For comparison, KG & Bass played 1015 minutes together and posted a Net Rtg of -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
You may legitimately suggest that it is a flaw in KG that his game is sensitive to the type of players around him. Or you could just acknowledge the weakness in the quality of big men he's had next to him for much of the last few years.
And that who you play with has an effect.
Aside - a dream pairing would be Duncan and KG. Wow.
OK,
1. I suggested you can use other metrics than PER. They all show consistent play for TD and a decline for KG. Your eFG% numbers show this too. Like I said, pick whatever you want.
2. You do acknowledge that PER can be used to compare "a player to himself over time." That's what I was doing. KG has declined, TD has not.
3. If you're suggesting that KG's performance is dependent on having a solid low-post big man on the court with him, I don't understand. For one, your argument about KG being paired with Bass vs. Sully is incomplete. KG with Bass in 2012 was phenomenal (nearly the same at +9.1). KG paired with Bass in 2013 was much less so as you say. Wouldn't we conclude from that that KG and/or Bass declined, or something else changed, rather than something specific about how KG is better with a low post guy?
4. And, your point about KG being better at PF is also incomplete. KG's individual numbers in the second half of 2012 - after he got moved to C and paired with Bass - were much better, as was the team's overall performance and in opposition to your theory. Isn't the most plausible explanation that KG played really well in the second half of 2012, but was not as good in 2013? Rather than something about who he was paired with?
The simplest explanation for all of these facts is that KG has consistently declined over the last several years. Nearly any qualitative evaluation, any quantitative evaluation you want to pick will tell you the same thing. He can still be great in spurts, but those are getting briefer and briefer. The facts are pretty robust to who he's played with, at least given that you will have noise once you start taking smaller and smaller slices of the data.
-
Duncan's play absolutely has declined, largely in his ability to play long minutes and his defense. KG has also declined though his decline has come more on the offensive/rebounding side of things.
Given how up and down both big men are year to year in those areas I think its largely health related.
This year Duncan had a remarkable defensive year, extremely impressive how he's held up defensively. The prior 3 years he was slow footed liability much of the year on D. He needed more help, Leonard/Splitter now provide that along with his better health from what I can see.
-
Duncan's play absolutely has declined, largely in his ability to play long minutes and his defense. KG has also declined though his decline has come more on the offensive/rebounding side of things.
Given how up and down both big men are year to year in those areas I think its largely health related.
This year Duncan had a remarkable defensive year, extremely impressive how he's held up defensively. The prior 3 years he was slow footed liability much of the year on D. He needed more help, Leonard/Splitter now provide that along with his better health from what I can see.
I won't disagree that Duncan has declined slightly, just to be clear. But, even with his decline he is still a top-10 player in the NBA this year, and that's what you need to be a title contender.
-
Duncan's play absolutely has declined, largely in his ability to play long minutes and his defense. KG has also declined though his decline has come more on the offensive/rebounding side of things.
Given how up and down both big men are year to year in those areas I think its largely health related.
This year Duncan had a remarkable defensive year, extremely impressive how he's held up defensively. The prior 3 years he was slow footed liability much of the year on D. He needed more help, Leonard/Splitter now provide that along with his better health from what I can see.
I won't disagree that Duncan has declined, just to be clear. But, even with his decline he is still a top-10 player in the NBA this year, and that's what you need to be a title contender.
I don't see him as being a top 10 player. Top 10 big man certainly, but not as an overall player.
No longer a total gamechanger defensively or offensively, instead he brings a well rounded and disciplined game.
-
It's easy to forget just how good Duncan is when you don't get an opportunity to watch him play very often. This Memphis/SA series was a treat in that regard.
In Game 4 especially, Tony Parker got the press but Duncan was creating scoring opportunities for him all night. Parker will run off of a screen to knock Tony Allen or Mike Conley off the ball. Marc Gasol is supposed to rotate to help on Parker while they recover, but Duncan sets these subtle little picks that block Gasol from contesting the shot.
Brilliant offensive execution and really fun to watch once I started looking for it. Duncan does so much for that team that never shows in the stat sheet.
-
Duncan's play absolutely has declined, largely in his ability to play long minutes and his defense. KG has also declined though his decline has come more on the offensive/rebounding side of things.
Given how up and down both big men are year to year in those areas I think its largely health related.
This year Duncan had a remarkable defensive year, extremely impressive how he's held up defensively. The prior 3 years he was slow footed liability much of the year on D. He needed more help, Leonard/Splitter now provide that along with his better health from what I can see.
I won't disagree that Duncan has declined, just to be clear. But, even with his decline he is still a top-10 player in the NBA this year, and that's what you need to be a title contender.
I don't see him as being a top 10 player. Top 10 big man certainly, but not as an overall player.
No longer a total gamechanger defensively or offensively, instead he brings a well rounded and disciplined game.
First-team All-NBA. Second-team All-Defense. 7th in MVP voting. 6th in PER.
Those are a lot of top-10-ish numbers. What's your full list of players who've been better this year, on offense and defense overall?
-
I want to help you all out from the statistics side...We are not better than the Spurs as a team. You all will find small differences of +/- 3% in these stats but they are still BETTER
Tony Parker vs. Rajon Rondo (and to be fair, I used last years statistics) - TP is a much better scorer, better free throw percentage. Can Rondo get there -- yes? I think he's learning it...but right now, no.
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=2225&VsPlayerID=200765&Season=2011-12
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=200765&VsPlayerID=2225 (this year, if you want to try to predict the future and stuff)
Manu v. Paul Pierce - our only 'clear' advantage, but in all honestly the only category paul wins convincingly is rebounds. Please be aware that Manu plays 10 minutes less than Paul on avg, so him putting up similar numbers is actually very bad for "Paul is better" argument.
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=1938&VsPlayerID=1718
per36 -- http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=1938&VsPlayerID=1718&PerMode=Per36
Timmy vs Kevin - This one is almost a draw as well, but TD picks up more rebounds, blocks more shots, and has more points (fga) than Kevin. TD has a slight advantage. Also, I saw someone say TD has more of an advantage because he's a bit bigger and isn't afraid to knock around in the paint, while KG likes to hit that pick and pop -- He's openly said he hates being a center.
http://stats.nba.com/playerVsPlayer.html?PlayerID=708&VsPlayerID=1495
So you take a dude that's MUCH better than Rondo, a dude that's JUST as good as Paul (and get him to be a threat OFF the bench) and a guy that's a HAIR better than Kevin and you easily have a core that's better than the Celtics', and we havent even discussed the Spurs other 3 starters.
IF we run it back and you all want to use the Spurs as an example, you all need to be finding ways to convince Paul to come off the bench and convince Rondo of a reason to be consistent and become a scorer. I don't think the issue with Rondo is happening until his security blankets in PP and KG are gone. I don't think Paul is going to play #2 to Jeff. I don't think KGs stats are going to get any better.
Stop dreaming, folks.
'Still not prepared to argue pro or con on the OPs premise, but I have a hard time seeing Parker as "MUCH" (all caps) better than Rondo.
In the last full season (2011-2012) data you linked, every 36 minutes, Parker created ~40 points via assist or shot. Rondo created ~37. This last year, their rates were ~41 & 38.4.
So Parker has a slight edge in point creation. But Rondo grabbed significantly more rebounds and steals in each of these last two years. About 2 rebounds and a steal more per36 minutes. That's a pretty significant difference in defensive play value. Parker committed one less TOV per 36 during these last couple of years.
If you ask me, it looks close to a wash.
And arguably, if the C's had not shot so freaking poorly as a team this last year, Rondo's assist rates (and thus point creation rates) might have been a bit better.
Otherwise, I don't have a strong opinion on the overall topic.
-
Duncan's play absolutely has declined, largely in his ability to play long minutes and his defense. KG has also declined though his decline has come more on the offensive/rebounding side of things.
Given how up and down both big men are year to year in those areas I think its largely health related.
This year Duncan had a remarkable defensive year, extremely impressive how he's held up defensively. The prior 3 years he was slow footed liability much of the year on D. He needed more help, Leonard/Splitter now provide that along with his better health from what I can see.
I won't disagree that Duncan has declined, just to be clear. But, even with his decline he is still a top-10 player in the NBA this year, and that's what you need to be a title contender.
I don't see him as being a top 10 player. Top 10 big man certainly, but not as an overall player.
No longer a total gamechanger defensively or offensively, instead he brings a well rounded and disciplined game.
First-team All-NBA. Second-team All-Defense. 7th in MVP voting. 6th in PER.
Those are a lot of top-10-ish numbers. What's your full list of players who've been better this year, on offense and defense overall?
PER = garbage, always was always will be thus
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=64913.msg1469821#msg1469821
Defensively he's good but he's not even the best defensive big man on his team, Splitter is better.
-
Duncan's play absolutely has declined, largely in his ability to play long minutes and his defense. KG has also declined though his decline has come more on the offensive/rebounding side of things.
Given how up and down both big men are year to year in those areas I think its largely health related.
This year Duncan had a remarkable defensive year, extremely impressive how he's held up defensively. The prior 3 years he was slow footed liability much of the year on D. He needed more help, Leonard/Splitter now provide that along with his better health from what I can see.
I won't disagree that Duncan has declined, just to be clear. But, even with his decline he is still a top-10 player in the NBA this year, and that's what you need to be a title contender.
I don't see him as being a top 10 player. Top 10 big man certainly, but not as an overall player.
No longer a total gamechanger defensively or offensively, instead he brings a well rounded and disciplined game.
First-team All-NBA. Second-team All-Defense. 7th in MVP voting. 6th in PER.
Those are a lot of top-10-ish numbers. What's your full list of players who've been better this year, on offense and defense overall?
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=64913.msg1469821#msg1469821
OK, you listed 9 players there (leaving out Dwight Howard):
1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Dwight Howard (healthy, not this past year)
4. Chris Paul
5. Russell Westbrook
6. James Harden
7. Tony Parker
8. Carmelo Anthony
9. Wade
10. Curry
Who else do you think is better this year, on both sides of the ball? I'm curious to know exactly how many guys you have above TD for this year.
-
Once you're out of the top 10 I think you're left with a group of players who provide similar values to Duncan.
Paul George, Brook Lopez, Marc Gasol, Blake Griffin, Kobe Bryant, Al Horford, Noah, Bosh. Aldridge.
I'd put those all around the same level as Duncan. Some are completely one way players (Hi Brook/Kobe) but bring a more elite single skill or aspect to the game.
Tim is a top 20 guy, if you wanted to say 12 I couldn't argue too hard, if you wanted to say 17 I'd shrug. He's definitely more well rounded than a lot of players I have above or below him.
-
Thinking about this reminds me how important fit is when building a team.
A team with Parker and an offense built around motion, spacing, shooting, and his P&R game gets so much more out of a well-rounded player like Duncan than others that lack that important first piece.
-
Over the last 2 years, the Spurs have had an unfair reputation of being a "boring" slow it down, defensive minded type of team.
They had the 7th ranked offense this past season. (1st last year).
They have ranked 6th and 7th (last season) in offensive pace.
The Celtics, on the other hand have not been as offensively blessed these past 2 seasons.
Our pace has also been pretty poor the last 2 seasons.
Statistically, we were a better offensive team this year than last year, but we had a bigger drop off in defense (last year 1st ranked, this year 7th ranked).
I think if we played with much more pace, we would have more possessions and offensive opportunities to improve KG's statistics and PER.
-
Once you're out of the top 10 I think you're left with a group of players who provide similar values to Duncan.
Paul George, Brook Lopez, Marc Gasol, Blake Griffin, Kobe Bryant, Al Horford, Noah, Bosh. Aldridge.
I'd put those all around the same level as Duncan. Some are completely one way players (Hi Brook/Kobe) but bring a more elite single skill or aspect to the game.
Tim is a top 20 guy, if you wanted to say 12 I couldn't argue too hard, if you wanted to say 17 I'd shrug. He's definitely more well rounded than a lot of players I have above or below him.
Ok, next time I will say "top 12." Haha.
Maybe it's just because I've forgotten him myself so many times over the years and I'm over-compensating now, but I think he is just criminally under-rated both in history and even in terms of his level now, at least by fans (he did make those All-NBA teams and get those MVP votes, after all).
I mean, I'm not picking on your rankings specifically because they are inherently subjective, but I look at it personally and think: given the importance of big guys who can both score down low and anchor a post defense (and TD was by at least one metric the best post defender in the league this year), how is it possible that you could want someone like Wade instead of him?
Take Wade off the Heat and give them TD along with Lebron and Bosh. Are they better or worse?
Or, swap Bosh and TD on MIA/SAS, so that it's now Lebron/Wade/TD vs. Parker/Bosh/Ginobili - what happens in a 7-game Heat/Spurs series?
Not to mention someone like Horford or Lopez...you want to plug those guys in for TD on the Spurs, and then go and play the Heat next week, in a seven game series?
Would the Spurs with one of those guys have swept the Grizzlies?
Or, put 2013 TD on the 2011 Bulls with Rose and Deng, instead of Noah. Etc.
I'm not even really trying to get into detailed discussions about the hypotheticals I'm throwing out there, but I think they illustrate something.
Maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll start learning a lot about how well TD can still play in a few days.
-
I'm firmly in the tier line of NBA players. I have TD in the third Tier.
1. MVP (LeBron gets this on his own)
2. MVP Caliber
3. All-NBA/All-Star Caliber
Once you're outside the top what 6/7 there are a lot of guys who don't separate from the rest of a bunch of guys.
For your player swap hypotheticals it all depends. On a team like Spurs with a strong offensive system and another mobile big Splitter Bosh would be devastating.
Miami would be a slower team, stronger rebounding but less quickness. That's big tradeoff. Trading Wade would further change Miami's identity. A two big team would be so radically different from what Miami does best.
I place a lot of value on having talent/endurance to have a team built around you, its a huge burden on a player. Tim Duncan doesn't have to shoulder that load anymore, and I don't think he could do it for an entire season.
-
The Spurs show we should run it back because they're significantly better at every position than us?
-
The Spurs show we should run it back because they're significantly better at every position than us?
All but center are debatable, I believe.
-
I just dont see how you can say KG is right there with Duncan at this point in both their careers.
I think trying to say which is 'better' than the other becomes almost a matter of taste.
Well, OK, but according to the 'taste' of most head coaches, sportswriters and other NBA analysts, Duncan is a far better player than KG as of right now.
Like PJ said, Duncan was 1st team All-NBA and 2nd team All-Defense. He also finished 7th in MVP voting. KG was not even really on the map for those awards.
So if according to your taste KG is equal, that's obviously OK, but you have to recognize that it is a minority opinion.
Don't really care.
To me, a lot of this whole thread keeps waiving over the obvious. It is silly to compare the teams based on KG vs Duncan, PP vs Manu, Rondo vs Parker and so on using this last season as the comparison basis, considering that outside of KG & PP, none of the principles on the C's were even 'all there' for the whole season.
Comparing how well KG or any individual played between two teams with such radically different fortunes seems dubious at an exacting level. Team effects DO effect how the individuals perform, even elite superstars. And it also most definitely affects how fans / writers / coaches perceive players. So I'm not particularly worried about whether my opinion is 'minority' or not. I detailed the basis for my opinion and I'll stand by it.
The OP's premise, flawed or not, should only be viewed from the hopeful lens of how well the proposed lineups (on either team) might fair if healthy and performing at at least their recent nominal performance ratings.
But the criticisms that are based purely on how crappy THIS year went for the C's don't particularly impress me.
OK, so you don't like comparisons (a) based on last year, (b) based on qualitative factors because those are affected by team records, and you want to see performance at (c) "nominal performance ratings."
I'll address all three of those by using quantitative metrics rather than the qualitative evaluations, and by extending the comparison to the last six years rather than only last year.
Take a look at PER with each player's rank among all NBA players:
KG TD KG rank TD rank
2007-08 25.42 24.05 4 9
2008-09 21.32 24.51 18 5
2009-10 19.51 24.79 30 5
2010-11 20.67 21.94 24 14
2011-12 20.47 22.60 34 14
2012-13 19.25 24.45 38 6
So, by this objectively calculated number you see a clear decline for KG, while TD's performance this year is competitive with those from five years ago.
Note that your point about how the "team is doing" influencing such rankings is not really borne out here. Plenty of players have high PERs on teams with losing records - including KG, who had terrific PERs on those mediocre MIN teams. And while KG's PER has declined as the team's record has declined, it's more likely that the causality runs the other way - he's not as good, so the team is performing worse.
If you don't like PER you can pick any other relevant metric you want, old-school or advanced, and you'll see the same pattern. KG has declined by more than TD.
And, coming back to a point I've made again and again, you win rings in the NBA with top 10 players, often by having two such guys. It is very simple. By no metric do we have even one, while the Spurs have two. They are much better positioned to run it back.
You completely missed the point of my comment about 'nominal' expectations - that was meant to say how you should look at the OP's proposed _roster_. That wasn't meant to be specific to the KG v TD comparison.
Yeah, PER is skewed too heavily by counting & utilization stats and yeah, I've criticized it pretty heavily before so if i p--- on it right now, it has nothing to do with the KG v TD companions. PER has always been one of my least favorite stats. There are tons of articles already on the web pointing out its flaws so I won't bother here. But in particular, PER comparisons break down quickly when comparing across different roles. About the only thing I like to use PER for is to compare a player to himself over time or between two players in the same role on the same team. Other than that, it's a pretty useless stat.
PER is only 'objectively calculated' in the sense that the math it uses is the same for all players. But it is not an objectively derived calculation. PER, like all such derived stats, is the result of an arbitrary weighting of inputs - and that weighting is completely subjective.
I don't think my point anywhere has been that KG has been 'better' than Duncan. My point is that they do different things.
Right off the bat, KG's lower shot utilization (Duncan has typically attempted about 2 or 3 extra shots per game) is going to kill KG's PER comparison with TD. Duncan has only had a USG% under 26% once in his career. He's been SAS' primary scoring option for most of his seasons. KG has been secondary or third option behind Pierce and even sometimes Ray since coming to Boston. His USG% has not been above 26% once.
You can argue that that makes Duncan better, if you want. I would argue that their roles on their respective teams are simply different. Duncan plays closer to the basket. He's got a great guard to feed him and great outside shooters to stretch the defense and give him chances at put-backs. He's clearly excelled in this role. KG's role is different. He plays farther from the basket and used his superior perimeter shooting and great passing to facilitate his teammates' ability to get to the basket.
It's pretty telling that, even though Duncan has taken a much larger share of his shots 'At Rim' (pretty much those 2-3 extra shots per game have been 'at rim') KG's eFG% has consistently been higher:
| Year] | KG | TD |
| 2007-08] | 54% | 50% |
| 2008-09] | 53% | 50%% |
| 2009-10] | 52% | 52% |
| 2010-11] | 53% | 50% |
| 2011-12] | 51% | 49% |
| 2012-13] | 50% | 50% |
Basically, even though he's taking a larger share of shots from outside, KG is a consistently more efficient shooter than Duncan.
Again, this doesn't mean that KG is 'better' than Duncan. This points out that he has abilities that make it advantageous to USE him in different ways than you would use Duncan.
KG's at his most valuable when you have another big man who can play in the low-post. Because offensively KG forces at least one big defender to come out of the paint to guard him - sometimes two. And defensively it allows KG to focus on the high paint.
This is why KG & Shaq were such an unstoppable pair and why KG & Sully played so well together. In 378 minutes together KG & Sully posted a +10.8 net rating (points per 100 possessions) - easily the highest two-some net rating on our team for pairs that got more than 300 minutes together.
For comparison, KG & Bass played 1015 minutes together and posted a Net Rtg of -0.6 points per 100 possessions.
You may legitimately suggest that it is a flaw in KG that his game is sensitive to the type of players around him. Or you could just acknowledge the weakness in the quality of big men he's had next to him for much of the last few years.
And that who you play with has an effect.
Aside - a dream pairing would be Duncan and KG. Wow.
OK,
1. I suggested you can use other metrics than PER. They all show consistent play for TD and a decline for KG. Your eFG% numbers show this too. Like I said, pick whatever you want.
2. You do acknowledge that PER can be used to compare "a player to himself over time." That's what I was doing. KG has declined, TD has not.
3. If you're suggesting that KG's performance is dependent on having a solid low-post big man on the court with him, I don't understand. For one, your argument about KG being paired with Bass vs. Sully is incomplete. KG with Bass in 2012 was phenomenal (nearly the same at +9.1). KG paired with Bass in 2013 was much less so as you say. Wouldn't we conclude from that that KG and/or Bass declined, or something else changed, rather than something specific about how KG is better with a low post guy?
4. And, your point about KG being better at PF is also incomplete. KG's individual numbers in the second half of 2012 - after he got moved to C and paired with Bass - were much better, as was the team's overall performance and in opposition to your theory. Isn't the most plausible explanation that KG played really well in the second half of 2012, but was not as good in 2013? Rather than something about who he was paired with?
The simplest explanation for all of these facts is that KG has consistently declined over the last several years. Nearly any qualitative evaluation, any quantitative evaluation you want to pick will tell you the same thing. He can still be great in spurts, but those are getting briefer and briefer. The facts are pretty robust to who he's played with, at least given that you will have noise once you start taking smaller and smaller slices of the data.
On (1) - the numbers don't really show what you seem to think. After 2008, KG's numbers are virtually identical. His points per minute, his shot attempts and makes. His defensive rebound rates are virtually unchanged _through_ 2007-2008. The only numbers that jump out as dropping from 2008 are his points per minute - which is clearly due to a drop in FTA per minute - which in turn stems from the drop in USG%.. Basically, the only thing that really changed was KG's _role_ in the offense. In 2008 we pushed slightly more of our offense through him to the tune of a 25.5% USG% and he was getting to the lined 5.2 times per 36.. Since then, we have never had him at a USG above 24.9 and he's never gotten to the line more than 3.9 times per 36. So his points per 36 have dropped from 20.7 per 36 that year to about ~18 pretty much every year since. On roughly the same number of FGA during most of that span.
On (2) Further the numbers you posted show his PER as pretty much unchanged from 2008-2009 to the present. There is no real meaningful difference in those PER numbers: 21.3, 19.5, 20.7, 20.5, 19.3
Basically the drop in PER, USG and FTA indicate a role change after 2008 - not necessarily a decline. He's been pretty flat in all rate stats since then.
The Celtics began heavily relying on Rondo to run the offense in the 2008 playoff run, during which the percentage of shots that he assisted shot from 28.2% in the regular season up to 36.9% in those playoffs. From that point forward, Rondo's AST% has never dropped back down below 40% in regular season OR playoffs and has even busted 50% at times.
On (3) and (4) -- are you seriously suggesting that Bass of this last year's regular season played anywhere near the quality of basketball that Bass did in the second half of last season?
All along, my main point - the reason I even jumped into this thread - was to point out that the use of straight counting stats like points or blocks is inadequate for comparing the value of KG & Duncan because, while both are listed as 'C/PF' players, they play the game very differently. And I think it's pretty clear from the points I've made that that is true.
KG, even with whatever marginal declines, still is one of the elite big men in this game. He legitimately deserved his All Star selection this last year. Look around the East - a couple of the bigs like Bosh are slightly better on offense, but nowhere near as good on defense. And the only big in the east who's even close to KG in value on defense, Chandler, is a one-trick pony on offense. Kevin Garnett is still just so much more well-rounded and versatile than the vast majority of big men.
Whether KG or Duncan is, at this point, a 'better' player is, imho, very much dependent on what you want out of that position. It's easy to point to how great Duncan played this year (and he had a phenomenal season) and think that KG has fallen behind. But just two years ago it was the opposite - Duncan's numbers took a dip in 2010-11 and KG posted a very strong year in numbers. From '09-11, the Spurs couldn't manage to play more than 10 games in the playoffs before getting bumped, while KG was playing 23, 9 & 20. During those years, the whispers were (foolishly, imho) that Duncan's era was 'done'. Next year, it could be either one who posts the 'better' season.
At some point, both these guys will be 'done'. But neither of them really looks close to that day just yet.
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year
PP is not THAT much better than Manu. Just like TD isn't THAT much better than KG
but when you notice that Manu is coming off the bench and TD is playing at the 4 rather than the 5, they have a much...much better team.
-
On paper, talent-wise the Spurs may or may not be significantly better. What they are significantly better at though is getting easy points in the paint. The Spurs 3 best paints are experts at getting shots right at the rim either in transition or by penetrating in the halfcourt. Our 2 key players get almost all their shots from 15 feet and out. Our whole offense is perimeter-based and therefore, more easily defended. That's why despite the similarities in age, the Spurs will always be better than this team as constituted not simply because of sheer talent but because of skillset.
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year
PP is not THAT much better than Manu. Just like TD isn't THAT much better than KG
but when you notice that Manu is coming off the bench and TD is playing at the 4 rather than the 5, they have a much...much better team.
RR isn't just better at assisting, he's a much better rebounder and a better defender. PP is much better than Manu. TD is not better than KG.
I'll just agree to disagree.
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year
PP is not THAT much better than Manu. Just like TD isn't THAT much better than KG
but when you notice that Manu is coming off the bench and TD is playing at the 4 rather than the 5, they have a much...much better team.
RR isn't just better at assisting, he's a much better rebounder and a better defender. PP is much better than Manu. TD is not better than KG.
I'll just agree to disagree.
If you think that Tim Duncan isn't better than KG at this point in their respective careers then you're kidding yourself. Sorry, I love the spirit but that fact is clear as crystal.
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game. I'd say Parker's been better during the regular season the last couple of years and worse before that, Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game. I'd say Parker's been better during the regular season the last couple of years and worse before that, Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Just as one example, Parker was finals MVP in 2007, averaging 25ppg in a 4-game sweep of the Cavs. He also just averaged 25ppg and 10apg in that sweep of the Griz in the conference finals, including 37 pts in the closeout game on the road.
I'm not enough of a Spurs expert to know off-hand, but I'd bet he's had other dominant performances.
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Once we take into account the regular season, too, it's not even close. The regular season does matter to some extent, because Parker's excellence in the regular season has helped the Spurs to the high win totals which has given them home court advantage so often in the playoffs.
-
Parker can score down the stretch, Rondo defers to others and given his free throw shooting who can blame him. We won many games during his time here we also have lost many a fourth quarter lead. Granted, this isn't only on Rondo other guys fail to score in the fourth as well. But Parker can go to the hole in the fourth and Rondo does not. Parker is an 80% FT shooter. He can drive and not worry about the FT because he can knock them down.
-
Parker can score down the stretch, Rondo defers to others and given his free throw shooting who can blame him. We won many games during his time here we also have lost many a fourth quarter lead. Granted, this isn't only on Rondo other guys fail to score in the fourth as well. But Parker can go to the hole in the fourth and Rondo does not. Parker is an 80% FT shooter. He can drive and not worry about the FT because he can knock them down.
The Spurs didn't score a field goal in the last four minutes of their recent game 4 victory of the Grizzlies. Luckily, for them the Grizzlies weren't lighting it up offensively either. Troubles scoring down the stretch happen all the time to all kinds of teams.
You'll need to show some evidence other than your own memory for me to believe that this has been a significantly bigger problem for the Celtics than for other teams over the course of the Rondo/KG/Pierce era.
Also note that the Heat scored all of three points in the final five minutes of last night's loss to the Pacers.
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?
And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.
-
Parker can score down the stretch, Rondo defers to others and given his free throw shooting who can blame him. We won many games during his time here we also have lost many a fourth quarter lead. Granted, this isn't only on Rondo other guys fail to score in the fourth as well. But Parker can go to the hole in the fourth and Rondo does not. Parker is an 80% FT shooter. He can drive and not worry about the FT because he can knock them down.
Over the last 2 seasons Parker's played about 50% more games than Rondo and he's made about 50% more layups in the 4th quarter or overtime. So he gets to the hole about exactly as often as Rondo in those situations.
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?
And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.
I get your argument, but at the end of the day I just think it's much more valuable and rare to have a guy who can score 20-30 points efficiently, not to mention getting big buckets late in games when the opposing defense clamps down. What Rondo does is great, but I'd rather have Parker.
To me it's sort of like asking, would you rather have Jason Kidd or Isiah Thomas? I can see the argument for Kidd, but personally I'd rather build my team around Isiah.
-
Seriously, blowing it up is never a good thing. Just reload, reboot, and shoot. Rebuild always sends you to the back of the pack and that means you'll stay there for a very long time before you can fight your way back again (that's even if you can)
-
Parker can score down the stretch, Rondo defers to others and given his free throw shooting who can blame him. We won many games during his time here we also have lost many a fourth quarter lead. Granted, this isn't only on Rondo other guys fail to score in the fourth as well. But Parker can go to the hole in the fourth and Rondo does not. Parker is an 80% FT shooter. He can drive and not worry about the FT because he can knock them down.
Over the last 2 seasons Parker's played about 50% more games than Rondo and he's made about 50% more layups in the 4th quarter or overtime. So he gets to the hole about exactly as often as Rondo in those situations.
That doesn't even account for all the passes that Rondo makes for easy baskets for teammates once he gets in the lane and collapses the defense. I don't have any numbers for that, but I'm sure we can all reasonably surmise that Rondo would be among the league leaders in the category of assists from the paint (I know he was the league leader in assists leading to points in the paint this past season).
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?
And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.
I get your argument, but at the end of the day I just think it's much more valuable and rare to have a guy who can score 20-30 points efficiently, not to mention getting big buckets late in games when the opposing defense clamps down. What Rondo does is great, but I'd rather have Parker.
To me it's sort of like asking, would you rather have Jason Kidd or Isiah Thomas? I can see the argument for Kidd, but personally I'd rather build my team around Isiah.
Thomas got more assists than Kidd. It's more like Kidd vs Payton (or a Payton that's not the defender he was) and I'd rather build my team around Kidd.
-
Thomas got more assists than Kidd. It's more like Kidd vs Payton (or a Payton that's not the defender he was) and I'd rather build my team around Kidd.
Yeah, I don't think Payton is a fair comparison. We're talking about one guard (Parker) who is as good a scorer at the position as anybody and who has been the key guy for a title team, and helped lead his team deep into the playoffs many other times. The other guy (Rondo), is a triple-double threat who has also led his team deep, but hasn't been able to assume that mantle as the lead scorer or crunch time shot-maker. He relies on his teammates to close out games, even when he's grabbing rebounds, dishing out assists, and getting acrobatic layups to fall.
Rondo doesn't measure up to Kidd just as Parker doesn't quite measure up to Thomas. But I think the analogy is mostly a fair one, even if Isiah got more assists. Parker is not nearly as much a passer, though he's clearly shown the ability to get assists when that's what the game offers him.
My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?
And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.
I get your argument, but at the end of the day I just think it's much more valuable and rare to have a guy who can score 20-30 points efficiently, not to mention getting big buckets late in games when the opposing defense clamps down. What Rondo does is great, but I'd rather have Parker.
To me it's sort of like asking, would you rather have Jason Kidd or Isiah Thomas? I can see the argument for Kidd, but personally I'd rather build my team around Isiah.
Last season, eleven players averaged more than 20 points per game. One player averaged more than 10 assists per game. The "rare" part of your argument is clearly untrue. A passer like Rondo is actually more rare than a scorer like Parker.
Clearly, right now, Parker is more valuable. His team's still playing, and he just got done with probably the best playoff series of his life to help lead his team to another finals appearance. Rondo's been limping around, recovering from surgery since February.
Rondo's also four years younger and based on his past performances, I think it's very fair to expect that he has a few more playoff series left in his career to rival the ones he had in 2009 vs. Chicago, in 2010 vs. Cleveland, 2011 vs. New York, and 2012 vs. Miami (those are just his finest ones).
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?
And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.
I get your argument, but at the end of the day I just think it's much more valuable and rare to have a guy who can score 20-30 points efficiently, not to mention getting big buckets late in games when the opposing defense clamps down. What Rondo does is great, but I'd rather have Parker.
To me it's sort of like asking, would you rather have Jason Kidd or Isiah Thomas? I can see the argument for Kidd, but personally I'd rather build my team around Isiah.
Last season, eleven players averaged more than 20 points per game. One player averaged more than 10 assists per game. The "rare" part of your argument is clearly untrue. A passer like Rondo is actually more rare than a scorer like Parker.
Clearly, right now, Parker is more valuable. His team's still playing, and he just got done with probably the best playoff series of his life to help lead his team to another finals appearance. Rondo's been limping around, recovering from surgery since February.
Rondo's also four years younger and based on his past performances, I think it's very fair to expect that he has a few more playoff series left in his career to rival the ones he had in 2009 vs. Chicago, in 2010 vs. Cleveland, 2011 vs. New York, and 2012 vs. Miami (those are just his finest ones).
A point guard who can score like Parker is very rare -- in my opinion there's nobody at that position as effective as he is, all things considered. Especially when you consider that he's also a very capable passer. He doesn't get as many assists because that's not the way the Spurs' system works. If you counted Parker's "hockey assists" I'm guessing he would seem like more of a passer statistically. Don't get me wrong, Rondo is a rare talent as well. Any team would love to have either Parker or Rondo as one of their key pieces. But with Parker I think you are closer to having a contender if he's your starting point than with Rondo, because if you have Rondo you still need that elite leading scorer.
-
Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.
Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.
Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP.
Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.
Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.
I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.
I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument. Assists are not the same thing as points. Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way. Rondo has not. That's really more or less the end of the story for me.
Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?
And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.
I get your argument, but at the end of the day I just think it's much more valuable and rare to have a guy who can score 20-30 points efficiently, not to mention getting big buckets late in games when the opposing defense clamps down. What Rondo does is great, but I'd rather have Parker.
To me it's sort of like asking, would you rather have Jason Kidd or Isiah Thomas? I can see the argument for Kidd, but personally I'd rather build my team around Isiah.
Last season, eleven players averaged more than 20 points per game. One player averaged more than 10 assists per game. The "rare" part of your argument is clearly untrue. A passer like Rondo is actually more rare than a scorer like Parker.
Clearly, right now, Parker is more valuable. His team's still playing, and he just got done with probably the best playoff series of his life to help lead his team to another finals appearance. Rondo's been limping around, recovering from surgery since February.
Rondo's also four years younger and based on his past performances, I think it's very fair to expect that he has a few more playoff series left in his career to rival the ones he had in 2009 vs. Chicago, in 2010 vs. Cleveland, 2011 vs. New York, and 2012 vs. Miami (those are just his finest ones).
A point guard who can score like Parker is very rare -- in my opinion there's nobody at that position as effective as he is, all things considered. Especially when you consider that he's also a very capable passer. He doesn't get as many assists because that's not the way the Spurs' system works. If you counted Parker's "hockey assists" I'm guessing he would seem like more of a passer statistically. Don't get me wrong, Rondo is a rare talent as well. Any team would love to have either Parker or Rondo as one of their key pieces. But with Parker I think you are closer to having a contender if he's your starting point than with Rondo, because if you have Rondo you still need that elite leading scorer.
I apologize for the quibbling on this minor point, but of the eleven players who averaged over 20 points per game last season, four of them--Parker, Irving, Curry, and Westbrook--were point guards. That's more than a fair share of top scorers coming from the PG position. I'm still not buying the rarity argument.
I'm not hating on Tony Parker here; he's long been probably my favorite non-Celtic in the game. If you'd rather have Parker than Rondo, I get that.
Personally, I don't think there's much separation between the top five to seven point guards in the league as far as talent goes. I think it comes down more to personal preference. The other PGs on that list are more scorers than pass-first guys like Rondo, who happens to be a rarity in today's game.
-
Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!
KG vs. Duncan- Wash
RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).
PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!
So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!
Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).
Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!
Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game. I'd say Parker's been better during the regular season the last couple of years and worse before that, Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.
i tend to agree with you and what i've seen in the post season
in the regular season, TP looks tons better, is much more consistent than RR
but you're asking me to use my logic and copy and paste it into the future
now if i woulda done that with paul pierce this year, he'd have a great post season..but he didn't, so i can't do that. I have to go by what we've seen.
and from regular season to play offs, Tony Parker is MUCH MORE CONSISTENT THAN RONDO...that's my argument.
-
I apologize for the quibbling on this minor point, but of the eleven players who averaged over 20 points per game last season, four of them--Parker, Irving, Curry, and Westbrook--were point guards. That's more than a fair share of top scorers coming from the PG position. I'm still not buying the rarity argument.
Your point about there being a lot of score-first point guards in the league and not so many prolific passers is well taken.
However, at least in my view Parker is on a different level than the other guys you mentioned, mostly because I trust his poise on the big stage. I think he's much more capable than those others of producing consistently in high pressure situations and not making as many mistakes or taking as many ill-advised shots. Not saying those other guys won't get to where Parker is, but his experience is the big difference maker for me there. That's why I think he's the best. He's got the ability and he puts up the numbers but he's also a really smart and controlled player.
Like you I appreciate that going with a score first point guard or a pass first point guard is a matter of preference. In my view, if you are going to have your point guard be the focal point of your offense, it's more valuable to have somebody who can take over when other guys are not up to the task of getting the key baskets late in games. The nice thing with Parker is he's clearly capable of making great passes, too. So is Duncan. That's why the Parker / Duncan pick and roll is so deadly and effective. Both guys are a threat to score and both can pass to the other guy, or to open shooters or cutters elsewhere on the floor. That's Rondo's biggest weakness in running the offense, in my opinion -- it's a limiting factor when the guy running your plays isn't nearly as much a threat to score himself. The defense knows he's going to pass to somebody. The impressive thing with Rondo is that he's such a creative passer that it's still hard to predict where the ball is going to go.
-
I have to agree with PhoSita
And the point people are making that Rondo's assists are better because teammates get wide open...lol...come on, guys. If you're a pass first PG, you're going to rack up the assists. There aren't many in this day and age. Also, if you're smart enough to pass to your teammate in his fave spot, well...aren't you just doing what a PG SHOULD do?
Tony gets his guys in great position, gets them wide open as well. And on TOP of that, Tim Duncan and Splitter are setting great, hard LEGAL screens that help get defenders lost.
The Spurs are better. We were 20-23 with Rondo. No way we were going to be a 50 win club.
You all can act like the regular season doesn't matter AT ALL, but it has some bearing on what happens in the playoffs, such as matchups, homecourt advantage, familiarity and such.
I've never been a fan of Rondo sleep walking thru the regular season only to be a monster in the playoffs. Anyone on the team for that matter. Tony Parker brings it all the time, is extremely smart, is aggressive and can score -- because after all, you win a basketball game based on how many points you score.
-
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.
I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere? Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating. The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.
What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense? That's not rhetorical. Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much. How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists? (Also, this isn't a factor of offensive rebounding. Last season, for instance, San Antonio ranked 24th in offensive rebounds, but still had the most efficient offense.)
... Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.
Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?
-
I apologize for the quibbling on this minor point, but of the eleven players who averaged over 20 points per game last season, four of them--Parker, Irving, Curry, and Westbrook--were point guards. That's more than a fair share of top scorers coming from the PG position. I'm still not buying the rarity argument.
Your point about there being a lot of score-first point guards in the league and not so many prolific passers is well taken.
However, at least in my view Parker is on a different level than the other guys you mentioned, mostly because I trust his poise on the big stage. I think he's much more capable than those others of producing consistently in high pressure situations and not making as many mistakes or taking as many ill-advised shots. Not saying those other guys won't get to where Parker is, but his experience is the big difference maker for me there. That's why I think he's the best. He's got the ability and he puts up the numbers but he's also a really smart and controlled player.
Like you I appreciate that going with a score first point guard or a pass first point guard is a matter of preference. In my view, if you are going to have your point guard be the focal point of your offense, it's more valuable to have somebody who can take over when other guys are not up to the task of getting the key baskets late in games. The nice thing with Parker is he's clearly capable of making great passes, too. So is Duncan. That's why the Parker / Duncan pick and roll is so deadly and effective. Both guys are a threat to score and both can pass to the other guy, or to open shooters or cutters elsewhere on the floor. That's Rondo's biggest weakness in running the offense, in my opinion -- it's a limiting factor when the guy running your plays isn't nearly as much a threat to score himself. The defense knows he's going to pass to somebody. The impressive thing with Rondo is that he's such a creative passer that it's still hard to predict where the ball is going to go.
The bolded part is a big key for me, as well. Rondo is still considerably younger than Parker, but the fact that he's had so much big game experience, and performed at extremely high levels and experienced a ton of team success in those situations, is going to hold him in really good stead as he enters his prime years.
-
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.
I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere? Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating. The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.
What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense? That's not rhetorical. Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much. How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?
Everyone who's saying the Celtics are better or it's a wash, please pay attention to this
because for our starters, the statistics are very close (Leonard to JG, Green to AB, Splitter to Bass).
We are not a better team, right now, at all. And I will say this again:
If running it back like the Spurs means putting Paul on the bench, getting KG a 6'11+ Center, getting Rondo to score more (or at least be more consistent), then I'm with it.
But to say the team as is should just be better is a fallacy. And if we don't run it back, I have no problem trying to get RR and JG the pieces they need to compete.
-
Let's forget the counting stats because different roles result in different totals in each category.
The first thing I looked at was turnover percentage, where TP is ahead of RR for the career by a large margin, 14.0% vs. 20.4%, meaning, I think, that Rondo commits nearly 50% more turnovers per 100 possessions.
TP beats Rondo in offensive rating, 109-106.
Rondo beats TP in defensive rating, 101-104.
Interesting that it's a 3-point spread in both and a split decision, offense-defense.
So it's probably a basketball theory decision, and I'll take Parker 10 times out of 10. Here's why.
In the final seconds with the ball, I'll take TP's better ability to score and make free throwst every time. He can be the guy with the ball in those situations; Rondo, not so much.
Second, turnovers from the point guard position drive me nuts. True that Rondo has a better assist/turnover ratio and more assists, but I discount Rondo 2 assists per game where he turns down a layup or easy bucket to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else. That flattens out the discrepancy in total assists and assist/turnover, tilting toward TP's favor for
me.
Third, Parker plays nice with the referees.
Fourth is the jumper, even though Parker isn't killer from 3, he's a threat and must be guarded. There have been times when Rondo simply wasn't guarded outside in the half court, and that was in playoff games. He stood there and dribbled.
They're close, but I'd prefer Parker if starting from scratch.
-
On paper, talent-wise the Spurs may or may not be significantly better. What they are significantly better at though is getting easy points in the paint. The Spurs 3 best paints are experts at getting shots right at the rim either in transition or by penetrating in the halfcourt. Our 2 key players get almost all their shots from 15 feet and out. Our whole offense is perimeter-based and therefore, more easily defended. That's why despite the similarities in age, the Spurs will always be better than this team as constituted not simply because of sheer talent but because of skillset.
This is a very important observation and it reflects one of my biggest concerns over the C's the last 2-3 years: less and less shots 'at rim'.
To the counter, if the assumption going forward for next year is a healthy Sully and the acquisition of at least one decent big man, then that issue could be addressed somewhat.
-
Let's forget the counting stats because different roles result in different totals in each category.
The first thing I looked at was turnover percentage, where TP is ahead of RR for the career by a large margin, 14.0% vs. 20.4%, meaning, I think, that Rondo commits nearly 50% more turnovers per 100 possessions.
TP beats Rondo in offensive rating, 109-106.
Rondo beats TP in defensive rating, 101-104.
Interesting that it's a 3-point spread in both and a split decision, offense-defense.
So it's probably a basketball theory decision, and I'll take Parker 10 times out of 10. Here's why.
In the final seconds with the ball, I'll take TP's better ability to score and make free throwst every time. He can be the guy with the ball in those situations; Rondo, not so much.
Second, turnovers from the point guard position drive me nuts. True that Rondo has a better assist/turnover ratio and more assists, but I discount Rondo 2 assists per game where he turns down a layup or easy bucket to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else. That flattens out the discrepancy in total assists and assist/turnover, tilting toward TP's favor for
me.
Third, Parker plays nice with the referees.
Fourth is the jumper, even though Parker isn't killer from 3, he's a threat and must be guarded. There have been times when Rondo simply wasn't guarded outside in the half court, and that was in playoff games. He stood there and dribbled.
They're close, but I'd prefer Parker if starting from scratch.
The book on Parker earlier in his career regarding the jump shot was more or less the same as it is on Rondo. As a matter of fact, just looking at this year's playoffs, it appears that the defense still prefers to go under screens on Tony than risk trying to fight over them. Parker has improved his mid-range jumper. Of course, so has Rondo. Rondo was among the leaders in field goal percentage from 16 to 23 feet this past season.
Rondo will probably never be confused with Steve Nash or Chris Paul as a perimeter shooter, but he seems to be roughly on the same trajectory as Tony Parker. It's nice that Tony can hit a jumper, but I don't think anyone would say that his outside shooting touch is what makes him a special player.
-
I don't think we are comparable to the Spurs. First off, I think Tony Parker and Tim Duncan are better then anyone on the Celtics. I also think Kawhi Leonard is much better then our young talent(Bradley, Sullinger). They also have major size in Duncan and Splitter and they use their size. KG doesn't really play like a center and then after him we don't have any centers.
-
My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.
That's an individual-focused way to look at it.
I would rather have the guy who helps his _TEAM_ score efficiently, whether it is him taking the shot or someone else.
Rondo doesn't take a ton of shots - but the ones he does take he tends to complete at a high efficiency (career eFG% of 49%, just a hair behind Parker's 51%). And the ones he doesn't take are instead assists to guys with better shots.
If Rondo was not playing with great shooters like Pierce, Allen & Garnett, maybe he'd have been better off taking more shots. But logically, when he might be open for a league-average 40% 2PT jumper, even if he is capable of making that shot at an above average 45%, if Ray Allen is open at the 3PT arc for a shot that Ray makes at an eFG% of 64%, then I want him passing to Ray.
That's smart team basketball.
-
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.
I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere? Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating. The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.
What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense? That's not rhetorical. Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much. How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists? (Also, this isn't a factor of offensive rebounding. Last season, for instance, San Antonio ranked 24th in offensive rebounds, but still had the most efficient offense.)
... Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.
Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?
To the question in bold: Yes.
Our offensive woes are DIRECTLY correlated with our decreasing use of a post up game and fewer shots at the rim in general in the last 2-3 years.
Basically after losing Perk (who while not a great offensive player, could set a hard baseline screen and help clear space under the hoop) and then Shaq, we just have not had any consistent big man who works close to the post to balance KG's stretch game. We've had brief flashes of success with other bigs, but the only guy who's stayed healthy for the bulk of the last couple of years is Brandon Bass, who offensively is a poor imitation of KG - a stretch big, who isn't really very complementary to KG's game.
We had a brief, wonderful stretch when we paired Sully with KG -- as I've pointed out earlier, with those two together up front, our Net Rating was a fantastic +10 points per 100 possessions and had a solidly positive offensive rating of 105 (and, oh-yeah, a stingy DRtg of 95!).
If we DO have KG back next year, and we could get a solid, full season of Sully up front with him - that could be a huge boost to our offense.
-
Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?
No. He's not injured like Curry or Gordon or Roy. An ACL tear is one discrete injury that happens. Rondo is not consistently injured.
-
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.
I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere? Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating. The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.
What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense? That's not rhetorical. Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much. How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?
Everyone who's saying the Celtics are better or it's a wash, please pay attention to this
because for our starters, the statistics are very close (Leonard to JG, Green to AB, Splitter to Bass).
We are not a better team, right now, at all. And I will say this again:
If running it back like the Spurs means putting Paul on the bench, getting KG a 6'11+ Center, getting Rondo to score more (or at least be more consistent), then I'm with it.
But to say the team as is should just be better is a fallacy. And if we don't run it back, I have no problem trying to get RR and JG the pieces they need to compete.
I think that the OP's assumptions all along have been that a real big man would need to be acquired (and also having Sully healthy all year).
I don't think anyone wants a repeat of last year where we played the fall without 2 of our key guys (no Bradley, Green obviously not fully recovered) and the fall without 2 of our starters (Rondo, Sully) and key rotation guy (Leandro).
I think folks need to keep clear that the intent of a 'run it back' is not to floor the same exact team as this last season by any means.
-
Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?
No. He's not injured like Curry or Gordon or Roy. An ACL tear is one discrete injury that happens. Rondo is not consistently injured.
I would agree that Rondo isn't consistently injured. However, in referencing specifically to BBallTim's argument, it's my understanding that he's attributing most of Rondo's poorer performances in the playoffs to injuries. Obviously, this is legit for the elbow injury. However, with the other minor injuries, should those count against Rondo? Or, is the caveat "Rondo is better when healthy" a fair one? Is any player truly 100% in the playoffs? Is it legit to play the injury card to discount sub-par performances?
-
I think that the OP's assumptions all along have been that a real big man would need to be acquired (and also having Sully healthy all year).
. . . .
I think folks need to keep clear that the intent of a 'run it back' is not to floor the same exact team as this last season by any means.
All good and well, but here's the problem with this line of reasoning -- where is this "real big man" going to come from?
We've got like, what, 11 guys under contract for next season, even if the China guys get waived?
To have a real chance I think this "real big man" would have to be somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Al Jefferson, or at least somebody like David West or Carl Landry. I just have no Earthly clue how the Celtics could acquire somebody like that without breaking up the core.
-
Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?
No. He's not injured like Curry or Gordon or Roy. An ACL tear is one discrete injury that happens. Rondo is not consistently injured.
I would agree that Rondo isn't consistently injured. However, in referencing specifically to BBallTim's argument, it's my understanding that he's attributing most of Rondo's poorer performances in the playoffs to injuries. Obviously, this is legit for the elbow injury. However, with the other minor injuries, should those count against Rondo? Or, is the caveat "Rondo is better when healthy" a fair one? Is any player truly 100% in the playoffs? Is it legit to play the injury card to discount sub-par performances?
Not to mention that Parker is playing pretty great right now despite dealing with injuries to his calf.
-
I think that the OP's assumptions all along have been that a real big man would need to be acquired (and also having Sully healthy all year).
. . . .
I think folks need to keep clear that the intent of a 'run it back' is not to floor the same exact team as this last season by any means.
All good and well, but here's the problem with this line of reasoning -- where is this "real big man" going to come from?
We've got like, what, 11 guys under contract for next season, even if the China guys get waived?
To have a real chance I think this "real big man" would have to be somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Al Jefferson, or at least somebody like David West or Carl Landry. I just have no Earthly clue how the Celtics could acquire somebody like that without breaking up the core.
New Zealand via Pittsburgh.
-
Thomas got more assists than Kidd. It's more like Kidd vs Payton (or a Payton that's not the defender he was) and I'd rather build my team around Kidd.
Yeah, I don't think Payton is a fair comparison. We're talking about one guard (Parker) who is as good a scorer at the position as anybody and who has been the key guy for a title team, and helped lead his team deep into the playoffs many other times. The other guy (Rondo), is a triple-double threat who has also led his team deep, but hasn't been able to assume that mantle as the lead scorer or crunch time shot-maker. He relies on his teammates to close out games, even when he's grabbing rebounds, dishing out assists, and getting acrobatic layups to fall.
Rondo doesn't measure up to Kidd just as Parker doesn't quite measure up to Thomas. But I think the analogy is mostly a fair one, even if Isiah got more assists. Parker is not nearly as much a passer, though he's clearly shown the ability to get assists when that's what the game offers him.
My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.
First of all I don't think you're overly familiar with Gary Payton, who was more of a scorer than you seem to realize. Also Kidd's best statistical playoffs (20/8/9) is fairly comparable to Rondo's 17/7/12 and he was a few years older than Rondo is now before he ever broke 15 ppg in the playoffs. I think Rondo measures up to Kidd much better than Parker measures up to Isiah. And Parker's a good clutch scorer, I don't know that he's really elite.
-
Let's forget the counting stats because different roles result in different totals in each category.
The first thing I looked at was turnover percentage, where TP is ahead of RR for the career by a large margin, 14.0% vs. 20.4%, meaning, I think, that Rondo commits nearly 50% more turnovers per 100 possessions.
TP beats Rondo in offensive rating, 109-106.
Rondo beats TP in defensive rating, 101-104.
Interesting that it's a 3-point spread in both and a split decision, offense-defense.
So it's probably a basketball theory decision, and I'll take Parker 10 times out of 10. Here's why.
In the final seconds with the ball, I'll take TP's better ability to score and make free throwst every time. He can be the guy with the ball in those situations; Rondo, not so much.
Second, turnovers from the point guard position drive me nuts. True that Rondo has a better assist/turnover ratio and more assists, but I discount Rondo 2 assists per game where he turns down a layup or easy bucket to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else. That flattens out the discrepancy in total assists and assist/turnover, tilting toward TP's favor for
me.
Your turnover analysis is silly. Rondo and Parker both turn the ball over at pretty much the same rate, about 1 every 12 minutes of play. Parker's better TO% is based almost entirely on his shooting the ball more often than Rondo. Also it's fairly likely that Parker turns down the occasional shot in order to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else, he'd be a pretty poor poor pg if he didn't.
-
I have to agree with PhoSita
And the point people are making that Rondo's assists are better because teammates get wide open...lol...come on, guys. If you're a pass first PG, you're going to rack up the assists.
Rondo averaged 11+ assists for the 3rd season in a row this year. The only players who ever averaged 11+ assists more than 3 times are Stockton, Magic and Nash. The only other player to average 11+ assists 3 times by Rondo's age was Magic. People that talk about how it's not that big a deal because "pass first pgs rack up assists" should pay more attention to what they're seeing.
I've never been a fan of Rondo sleep walking thru the regular season only to be a monster in the playoffs. Anyone on the team for that matter. Tony Parker brings it all the time, is extremely smart, is aggressive and can score -- because after all, you win a basketball game based on how many points you score.
Rondo's led all pgs in rebounds and assists per game in each of the last 2 seasons, was 3rd team all-nba last year and has been 1st or 2nd team all defense as well as an all-star in each of the previous 4 seasons. Not bad "sleepwalking" in the grand scheme of things.
-
Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.
I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere? Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating. The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.
What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense? That's not rhetorical. Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much. How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists? (Also, this isn't a factor of offensive rebounding. Last season, for instance, San Antonio ranked 24th in offensive rebounds, but still had the most efficient offense.)
While all the Rondo detractors made a big deal out of the team's offensive rating being slightly better (2 points) with Rondo on the bench this year when he was on the court the prior 2 years the Celts were 10 and 7 points better and in the playoffs they were 18 and 11 points better. The Spurs ORTG differential when Parker's played the last 3 years were -3, -1 and +3, in the 11 and 12 playoffs it was -9 and +6. I'm not sure you'd be correct if you're pointing to Parker for all of the Spurs offensive success.
... Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.
Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?
I would say so. Rondo's capable of terrific play in the postseason when he's healthy. Good enough to lead a team on a deep playoff run. Most of the other great players are generally healthier, no doubt due to his size and playing style. You're more likely to get relatively healthy play from Parker, but even though Rondo gets injured quite a bit you're still more likely to get the play we saw from him last year or against the Cavs in 2010 from Rondo than Parker IMO.
-
No, the Spurs show with the right coach we could have been in it all the way this year......but it would have started this time LAST year......!
-
Thomas got more assists than Kidd. It's more like Kidd vs Payton (or a Payton that's not the defender he was) and I'd rather build my team around Kidd.
Yeah, I don't think Payton is a fair comparison. We're talking about one guard (Parker) who is as good a scorer at the position as anybody and who has been the key guy for a title team, and helped lead his team deep into the playoffs many other times. The other guy (Rondo), is a triple-double threat who has also led his team deep, but hasn't been able to assume that mantle as the lead scorer or crunch time shot-maker. He relies on his teammates to close out games, even when he's grabbing rebounds, dishing out assists, and getting acrobatic layups to fall.
Rondo doesn't measure up to Kidd just as Parker doesn't quite measure up to Thomas. But I think the analogy is mostly a fair one, even if Isiah got more assists. Parker is not nearly as much a passer, though he's clearly shown the ability to get assists when that's what the game offers him.
My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.
First of all I don't think you're overly familiar with Gary Payton, who was more of a scorer than you seem to realize. Also Kidd's best statistical playoffs (20/8/9) is fairly comparable to Rondo's 17/7/12 and he was a few years older than Rondo is now before he ever broke 15 ppg in the playoffs. I think Rondo measures up to Kidd much better than Parker measures up to Isiah. And Parker's a good clutch scorer, I don't know that he's really elite.
I disagree that Rondo is on the same level as Kidd, though I definitely agree Parker is not anywhere near as good as Isiah.
I guess you're right that I'm not as familiar with Peyton's game. Perhaps he would have had the same playoff success as Parker if he played with a big man like Duncan.
Anyways, the point is just that I'll take the guy who can get me 20-30 points consistently and still run the offense effectively and make the smart passes over the guy who is a triple double threat and racks up assists but isn't going to get more than 15 points or so unless he takes a ton of shots and won't be a threat to score in crunch time.
Honestly, I think the rules of the game these days really favor the former over the latter. Teams expect to get a significant chunk of their offense from their primary ball-handler. I know that by some metrics Rondo generates a great deal of offense, but I don't agree with the notion that assists are the same thing as points scored.