Rondo for Steve Nash

[paulcowens]

Ah, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where everything was reducible to statistics?  Sadly, more and more of us believe in precisely such a world, and are busy constructing exactly such a future.  One day soon, when your child comes to you for a goodnight hug, you'll ask the computer to do a quick calibration of how good little Johnny, or Sally, had been that day, and you would calibrate your affection accordingly.  In the brave new world we are creating, numbers substitute for reality.  Sports fans are doing their part to create that world.

Do you think I'm talking bs?   Ok, fine, but note that every single time most folks talk about sports, virtually all they talk about are statistics, and now that we have 'advanced statistics', it's become a profound delusion.  See, back when we only had a few reference numbers to work with, we were forced to recognize that they offered, at best, a rough approximation.  Today, most people are convinced that their advanced statistics alone more than adequately substitute for reality.   Anytime two players are to be compared, 'advanced statistics' are considered to close the case, if basic stats haven't already done it.

But, of course, when it comes to Rondo, everyone agrees that basic statistics alone clearly demonstrate that Rondo is inferior to any pg who can pass AND shoot.  Thus we clearly should trade Rondo for Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, John Wall, and pretty much any guard that can pass AND shoot.  The result would be basketball heaven and a dynasty within whatever years the Big Three can eak out.

It's hard to understand why Danny hasn't pulled the Rondo trade trigger before, what with all of this being so very obvious.  Perhaps he sees what almost no Celtic fans and media seem to see:  the Celtic offense stalls when it slows down.  When Rondo starts walking the ball up and standing around, the offense sputters and eventually stalls.   When the Cs attack on offense, they have one of the best, if not the best offense in the league.  It's not Rondo's shooting that we should worry about.  It's the way he stalls out the offense.    If that can be changed, we should NEVER trade him.  If it can't ... well, maybe we should.

But even with this major flaw - not his shooting, but his notorious inconsistency - I think Rondo has kept the Big Three at the top longer than they would have been otherwise.  As much as we love KG, PP and Ray Ray, I think we should recognize that their age would be showing a lot more without Rondo.  I think he has a superior ability to make everyone around him better, more even than Paul or Nash.

[StartOrien]

But, of course, when it comes to Rondo, everyone agrees that basic statistics alone clearly demonstrate that Rondo is inferior to any pg who can pass AND shoot.  Thus we clearly should trade Rondo for Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, John Wall, and pretty much any guard that can pass AND shoot.  The result would be basketball heaven and a dynasty within whatever years the Big Three can eak out.

Uh... ya - we should.

[BballTim]

 Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Look at the big three's stats before and after they joined forces. Look at the stats of the Miami guys, Kobe and Pau, AI and Melo or other situations where players that are the focal points of offenses are put with more talented players. Their stats almost always take a hit.

Of course their numbers will take a hit - they have to share the scoring load. How's that applicable to Nash? It's not like he'd be playing with another point guard that he'd have to share assists with. I guess his 14 points a game might go down? But he doesn't shoot much anyways.

  But shooting's his only advantage over Rondo. Knock his scoring down and you basically have the same scoring and assist numbers that you get from Rondo without the defense or the rebounding. He scores more efficiently but Rondo generates more possessions through steals and rebounds so that's basically a wash.

[wiley]

Ah, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where everything was reducible to statistics?  Sadly, more and more of us believe in precisely such a world, and are busy constructing exactly such a future.  One day soon, when your child comes to you for a goodnight hug, you'll ask the computer to do a quick calibration of how good little Johnny, or Sally, had been that day, and you would calibrate your affection accordingly.  In the brave new world we are creating, numbers substitute for reality.  Sports fans are doing their part to create that world.

Do you think I'm talking bs?   Ok, fine, but note that every single time most folks talk about sports, virtually all they talk about are statistics, and now that we have 'advanced statistics', it's become a profound delusion.  See, back when we only had a few reference numbers to work with, we were forced to recognize that they offered, at best, a rough approximation.  Today, most people are convinced that their advanced statistics alone more than adequately substitute for reality.   Anytime two players are to be compared, 'advanced statistics' are considered to close the case, if basic stats haven't already done it.

But, of course, when it comes to Rondo, everyone agrees that basic statistics alone clearly demonstrate that Rondo is inferior to any pg who can pass AND shoot.  Thus we clearly should trade Rondo for Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, John Wall, and pretty much any guard that can pass AND shoot.  The result would be basketball heaven and a dynasty within whatever years the Big Three can eak out.

It's hard to understand why Danny hasn't pulled the Rondo trade trigger before, what with all of this being so very obvious.  Perhaps he sees what almost no Celtic fans and media seem to see:  the Celtic offense stalls when it slows down.  When Rondo starts walking the ball up and standing around, the offense sputters and eventually stalls.   When the Cs attack on offense, they have one of the best, if not the best offense in the league.  It's not Rondo's shooting that we should worry about.  It's the way he stalls out the offense.    If that can be changed, we should NEVER trade him.  If it can't ... well, maybe we should.

But even with this major flaw - not his shooting, but his notorious inconsistency - I think Rondo has kept the Big Three at the top longer than they would have been otherwise.  As much as we love KG, PP and Ray Ray, I think we should recognize that their age would be showing a lot more without Rondo.  I think he has a superior ability to make everyone around him better, more even than Paul or Nash.

excellent post.  I'm wondering if some of the inconsistency you mention with regards to playing attack basket is due to injury/minutes......

If you include the playoffs, has any player in the league besides Kobe played more minutes than Rondo in the last 4 years?

[CelticsFanNC]

But even with this major flaw - not his shooting, but his notorious inconsistency - I think Rondo has kept the Big Three at the top longer than they would have been otherwise.  As much as we love KG, PP and Ray Ray, I think we should recognize that their age would be showing a lot more without Rondo.  I think he has a superior ability to make everyone around him better, more even than Paul or Nash.

  I agree with this completely.  What is the main reason Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett have had some of their most efficient seasons of their careers in the past two?  It's not because they are getting better it is because of Rajon Rondo's ability to get them easy looks right in their sweet spots.

 When he turns up the pressure on opposing ball handlers it effectively takes up to ten or more seconds off of the shot clock, ten plus seconds the rest of the team doesn't have to defend.  Once they do get into their half court sets they are in a rush and many times in complete disarray.  It makes the entire team defense better and lessons the burden on the BIg Three.

  His inconsistency is his biggest flaw.  He seemed to have finally over come it in the 1st half of last season only to revert in the second half.  Hopefully that was more due to mounting injuries then anything else and he can be that player all season next year.

  When Rondo is playing his best basketball the Celtics even with the Aging Three have been all but unbeatable regardless of his inability to consistently know down perimeter shots.  We cannot know for sure if that would be the case with any other PG.  

[Finkelskyhook]

 I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.

Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.

And leading the league in assists with that roster around him is impressive. He did not play with a single other All Star. Was there one player on that team that drew a double other than Nash?

He's a stat padder all right....A stat padder for opposing point guards.

The one thing Los Nash has in common with Iverson is that Phoenix, like Philly to Iverson, have completely revamped the roster time-after-time around Los Nash.  Trying to come up with a combination that works.  Unless they get Dwight Howard it'll never work.  Because Los Nash has a complete disregard for the defensive end of the floor. 

I have no idea what soap07 is watching to say Los Nash plays defense but is weak and slow. 

To say Los Nash, particularly for the Celtics, is a better player than Rondo, is laughable.  Los Nash would be a better player than Rondo in New York, Golden State or Phoenix.  Where the focus is to make the playoffs. 

I would hope that Danny has higher aspirations than to simply make the playoffs.

Nash for Rondo is  good idea.

If you a Suns fan.

Brilliant post of few words by timepiece.

[KungPoweChicken]

 I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.

Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.

  I didn't say Nash was a stat padder at any point in time. You keep claiming that it's impressive that he had better individual numbers than Rondo with worse teammates, I was explaining that his numbers were good because he played with worse teammates.

If this is true, how many players have averaged over 11 assists a game while not playing with a single all star?

[BballTim]

 I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.

Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.

  I didn't say Nash was a stat padder at any point in time. You keep claiming that it's impressive that he had better individual numbers than Rondo with worse teammates, I was explaining that his numbers were good because he played with worse teammates.

If this is true, how many players have averaged over 11 assists a game while not playing with a single all star?

  I'll check when I get a chance. But, to flip it, how many players have averaged 11 assists playing with 3 all-stars? I'll guess it's *at least* as unlikely as what Nash did.


  Edit: Looks like Mark Jackson did it with the Nuggets (assists with no all-stars). Let me know when you find another case like Rondo's.

[KungPoweChicken]

 I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.

Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.

  I didn't say Nash was a stat padder at any point in time. You keep claiming that it's impressive that he had better individual numbers than Rondo with worse teammates, I was explaining that his numbers were good because he played with worse teammates.

If this is true, how many players have averaged over 11 assists a game while not playing with a single all star?

  I'll check when I get a chance. But, to flip it, how many players have averaged 11 assists playing with 3 all-stars? I'll guess it's *at least* as unlikely as what Nash did.

It may be just as unlikely. But is as unlikely simply because there have been few teams in history that have had the luxury of having 4 all star players on one team. But there are 14 scrub teams a year. The fact that there have been hundreds and hundreds of teams that have only had one all star player on it, compared to maybe a few that have had four on it, does little to prove your point.

[KungPoweChicken]

The sample size for teams with four all stars is what...four or five teams in history? The sample size of teams with only one all star on it is what...hundreds upon hundreds? 

[BballTim]

 I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.

Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.

  I didn't say Nash was a stat padder at any point in time. You keep claiming that it's impressive that he had better individual numbers than Rondo with worse teammates, I was explaining that his numbers were good because he played with worse teammates.

If this is true, how many players have averaged over 11 assists a game while not playing with a single all star?

  I'll check when I get a chance. But, to flip it, how many players have averaged 11 assists playing with 3 all-stars? I'll guess it's *at least* as unlikely as what Nash did.

It may be just as unlikely. But is as unlikely simply because there have been few teams in history that have had the luxury of having 4 all star players on one team. But there are 14 scrub teams a year. The fact that there have been hundreds and hundreds of teams that have only had one all star player on it, compared to maybe a few that have had four on it, does little to prove your point.

  You don't need 4 all-stars for my scenario, just three all-stars and a pg. There have been quite a few teams with 3 or more all-stars, and I'll take your post to mean that you can't find a single one where a pg playing with 3 all-stars averaged 11 assists a game. My point, by the way, is that people frequently talk about how easy it is to get a ton of assists when you're playing with 3 "HOFers" without having the slightest idea whether it's a reasonable claim or not.

  Oh, I also noticed a couple of things with the quick check that I did. Rondo averaged 11 assists a game at 24, Nash never did before he was 30. Nash is also the oldest player to do it, so don't be surprised if he doesn't keep it up.

[BballTim]

The sample size for teams with four all stars is what...four or five teams in history? The sample size of teams with only one all star on it is what...hundreds upon hundreds? 

  GO ahead and figure it out, but both of those numbers are probably wrong.

[Fan from VT]

 I didn't say every single stat goes up when you play with worse players. I'd say that from watching them play that Nash does dominate the ball more than Nash. You could also notice that Nash has the highest usage rate for the top 6 Suns in terms of minutes played this year while Rondo has the lowest usage rate for the top 6 for the Celts.

Are you implying that Steve Nash is a stat padder? He has consistently inflated the stats of good players as well (Amare Stoudemire, Marion, Boris Diaw). This isn't Mike James putting up numbers on a bad team because he's getting the ball more. He's a great point guard and certainly better than Rondo.

  I didn't say Nash was a stat padder at any point in time. You keep claiming that it's impressive that he had better individual numbers than Rondo with worse teammates, I was explaining that his numbers were good because he played with worse teammates.

This is just not true in any way. The "good stats bad teammates" is a myth that gets uses to argue against players soemone doesn't like, just as the "he put up good stats because he's on a good team" (an argument that many use against Rondo unfairly, or used, ironically, for many of Nash's teammates in the '05 era) is equally flawed, unproven, and unreplicable.

  Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. Look at the big three's stats before and after they joined forces. Look at the stats of the Miami guys, Kobe and Pau, AI and Melo or other situations where players that are the focal points of offenses are put with more talented players. Their stats almost always take a hit.

It's completely random and variable; hence the exact opposite logic is used equally to express whichever view the arguer wants to argue.

People say "oh, without the Big 3, rondo wouldn't look this good" or "without nash, stoudemire would be nothing, because 'nash makes others better'" or "Nash put up good stats last year because he's on a bad team."

Fact is, it's totally untrue. Most of the time, the statistical impact is not more or less, but simply changed: usually decreased absolute values (due to sharing the load/focus) with increased efficiency. This is what happened (largely) with boston's big three: decreases in points and usage, with increases in scoring efficiency.

But somehow you've convinced yourself that Nash had good stats last year because he was on a bad team, despite the fact that that very same player put up BETTER numbers when surrounded by Amare/Marion/Joe Johnson! That is absolute proof of your erroneous logic in this case. Nash puts up good stats because he's good. Rondo puts up good stats because he's good. That's it. Zach Randolph puts up good stats for years because he's good; This year it's the Narrative surrounding him that has changed, when in reality he brought the exact same stuff he always has: size, elite post scoring, elite rebounding, to a team that was actually good around him.

[17wasEZ]

Ah, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where everything was reducible to statistics?  Sadly, more and more of us believe in precisely such a world, and are busy constructing exactly such a future.  One day soon, when your child comes to you for a goodnight hug, you'll ask the computer to do a quick calibration of how good little Johnny, or Sally, had been that day, and you would calibrate your affection accordingly.  In the brave new world we are creating, numbers substitute for reality.  Sports fans are doing their part to create that world.

Do you think I'm talking bs?   Ok, fine, but note that every single time most folks talk about sports, virtually all they talk about are statistics, and now that we have 'advanced statistics', it's become a profound delusion.  See, back when we only had a few reference numbers to work with, we were forced to recognize that they offered, at best, a rough approximation.  Today, most people are convinced that their advanced statistics alone more than adequately substitute for reality.   Anytime two players are to be compared, 'advanced statistics' are considered to close the case, if basic stats haven't already done it.

But, of course, when it comes to Rondo, everyone agrees that basic statistics alone clearly demonstrate that Rondo is inferior to any pg who can pass AND shoot.  Thus we clearly should trade Rondo for Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, John Wall, and pretty much any guard that can pass AND shoot.  The result would be basketball heaven and a dynasty within whatever years the Big Three can eak out.

It's hard to understand why Danny hasn't pulled the Rondo trade trigger before, what with all of this being so very obvious.  Perhaps he sees what almost no Celtic fans and media seem to see:  the Celtic offense stalls when it slows down.  When Rondo starts walking the ball up and standing around, the offense sputters and eventually stalls.   When the Cs attack on offense, they have one of the best, if not the best offense in the league.  It's not Rondo's shooting that we should worry about.  It's the way he stalls out the offense.    If that can be changed, we should NEVER trade him.  If it can't ... well, maybe we should.

But even with this major flaw - not his shooting, but his notorious inconsistency - I think Rondo has kept the Big Three at the top longer than they would have been otherwise.  As much as we love KG, PP and Ray Ray, I think we should recognize that their age would be showing a lot more without Rondo.  I think he has a superior ability to make everyone around him better, more even than Paul or Nash.

excellent post.  I'm wondering if some of the inconsistency you mention with regards to playing attack basket is due to injury/minutes......

If you include the playoffs, has any player in the league besides Kobe played more minutes than Rondo in the last 4 years?

Although I would rather keep Rondo because he is very good and the team chemistry would stay the same, I have to say Deron Williams with the Big 3 would also be great.  The guy goes to the basket with that wide body and usually finishes and sometimes has a 3-point play opportunity.

Could you imagine how lethal the pick-and-roll and pick-and-pop would be with Deron and any member of the Big 3?  No way that offense stalls in the 4th quarter no matter who is the 5th guy on the floor.

[snively]

Nash and Gortat is the only deal I'd consider.  Nash by himself doesn't make us any better than we would be with Rondo.  More likely a bit worse.  Besides his justly maligned defense, his minutes limitations would be a major blow to the team: 40 minutes of Rondo is a lot better than 30 minutes of Nash. Factor in that Rondo should have at least 8 good years left in him against maybe 1 or 2 with Nash and a straight Nash/Rondo swap is clearly a raw deal for Boston.