Author Topic: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?  (Read 18629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #120 on: November 15, 2012, 11:38:17 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I think this discussion is complicated by people's irritation at how Paul and Deron Williams have been regularly rated above Rondo, even though neither one has been able to win at the level you'd expect from the "best point guard in the league".

Mike

Which would make a ton of sense if basketball were an individual sport, sadly it is a team sport.

  By the same token the "team sport" aspect is at the heart of many of the pro Rondo arguments. Rondo impacts the game in so many ways that his contribution to the team is generally greater than many players that put up better stats than him.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #121 on: November 15, 2012, 11:38:33 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Player A:  14.3 points, 4.9 rebounds, 12.5 assists, 2.1 steals, 3.1 turnovers,.526 eFG%, .534 TS%, 38.9 minutes, leads 14th rated offense in NBA

Player B:  17.0 points, 3.3 rebounds, 10.3 assists, 2.3 steals, 2.1 turnovers, .522 eFG%, .617 TS%, 32.6 minutes, leads 4th rated offense in NBA

Player A:  11.6 assists, 2.9 turnovers per 36 minutes
Player B:  11.3 assists, 2.3 turnovers per 36 minutes

Statistically, you've got to give it to Player B by a slim margin thus far.  He scores more (in fewer minutes), scores more efficiently, and gets assists at about the same rate (while having fewer turnovers).


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #122 on: November 15, 2012, 11:44:29 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34022
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
I think this discussion is complicated by people's irritation at how Paul and Deron Williams have been regularly rated above Rondo, even though neither one has been able to win at the level you'd expect from the "best point guard in the league".

Mike

Which would make a ton of sense if basketball were an individual sport, sadly it is a team sport.

  By the same token the "team sport" aspect is at the heart of many of the pro Rondo arguments. Rondo impacts the game in so many ways that his contribution to the team is generally greater than many players that put up better stats than him.


While that is true about Rondo, it is also true about Paul. 

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #123 on: November 15, 2012, 11:49:32 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

Who cares what two different players stats would look like if they played the same amount of time.  Being able to be on the court for more minutes is a "talent" in and of itself.  Conversely, it could very easily be argued that if the player who plays less minutes tried to play more they would become a net negative on-court.  Ths also assumes the player they are being replaced with s contributing at least as much, which is totally unreliable.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #124 on: November 15, 2012, 11:52:20 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I think this discussion is complicated by people's irritation at how Paul and Deron Williams have been regularly rated above Rondo, even though neither one has been able to win at the level you'd expect from the "best point guard in the league".

Mike

Which would make a ton of sense if basketball were an individual sport, sadly it is a team sport.

  By the same token the "team sport" aspect is at the heart of many of the pro Rondo arguments. Rondo impacts the game in so many ways that his contribution to the team is generally greater than many players that put up better stats than him.


While that is true about Rondo, it is also true about Paul.

  More true about Paul than any other pg Rondo's compared to, but less true (IMO) than it is about Rondo, especially in the playoffs.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #125 on: November 15, 2012, 11:53:35 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
I think this discussion is complicated by people's irritation at how Paul and Deron Williams have been regularly rated above Rondo, even though neither one has been able to win at the level you'd expect from the "best point guard in the league".

Mike

Which would make a ton of sense if basketball were an individual sport, sadly it is a team sport.

  By the same token the "team sport" aspect is at the heart of many of the pro Rondo arguments. Rondo impacts the game in so many ways that his contribution to the team is generally greater than many players that put up better stats than him.


While that is true about Rondo, it is also true about Paul.

  More true about Paul than any other pg Rondo's compared to, but less true (IMO) than it is about Rondo, especially in the playoffs.

I'd disagree with that, both in the season and the playoffs, but I guess that can be subjective since it is impossible to truly quantify.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #126 on: November 15, 2012, 11:54:57 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

Who cares what two different players stats would look like if they played the same amount of time.  Being able to be on the court for more minutes is a "talent" in and of itself.  Conversely, it could very easily be argued that if the player who plays less minutes tried to play more they would become a net negative on-court.  Ths also assumes the player they are being replaced with s contributing at least as much, which is totally unreliable.

That's not a talent, that's a bad rotation.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #127 on: November 15, 2012, 11:56:08 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

Who cares what two different players stats would look like if they played the same amount of time.  Being able to be on the court for more minutes is a "talent" in and of itself.  Conversely, it could very easily be argued that if the player who plays less minutes tried to play more they would become a net negative on-court.  Ths also assumes the player they are being replaced with s contributing at least as much, which is totally unreliable.

That's not a talent, that's a bad rotation.

Yeah, there are a multitude of reasons that one player might play more minutes than another other than the "talent" to do so.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #128 on: November 15, 2012, 12:14:21 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

I disagree.  When players play roughly equal minutes, it's a good comparison tool to show how much a guy is producing per minute.

They're less relevant when comparing, say, a guy who plays 8 minutes per night versus another playing 38, because in that case you're extrapolating minutes to a guy who may not be capable of playing them.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #129 on: November 15, 2012, 12:28:33 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

I disagree.  When players play roughly equal minutes, it's a good comparison tool to show how much a guy is producing per minute.

They're less relevant when comparing, say, a guy who plays 8 minutes per night versus another playing 38, because in that case you're extrapolating minutes to a guy who may not be capable of playing them.

You're still comparing extrapolated numbers, just to a lesser degree.  They're meaningless.

A player who consistently plays about 6-8 minutes per game more than another player is giving their team something the othe rplayer can not.  It's quite likely that if the player who plays less tried to play more their contribution in the addtional minutes would be less significant.

Being able to play more minutes is definitely a "plus", for a variety of reasons.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #130 on: November 15, 2012, 12:32:22 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

Who cares what two different players stats would look like if they played the same amount of time.  Being able to be on the court for more minutes is a "talent" in and of itself.  Conversely, it could very easily be argued that if the player who plays less minutes tried to play more they would become a net negative on-court.  Ths also assumes the player they are being replaced with s contributing at least as much, which is totally unreliable.

That's not a talent, that's a bad rotation.

Yeah, there are a multitude of reasons that one player might play more minutes than another other than the "talent" to do so.

When it is consistent that one player plays significantly more minutes, it is almost always due to ability to do so, generally a result of better conditioning.  This is a attribute of atheletic ability, thus a "talent" in the sense that any atheletic attribute would be.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #131 on: November 15, 2012, 12:34:47 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34022
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

I disagree.  When players play roughly equal minutes, it's a good comparison tool to show how much a guy is producing per minute.

They're less relevant when comparing, say, a guy who plays 8 minutes per night versus another playing 38, because in that case you're extrapolating minutes to a guy who may not be capable of playing them.

You're still comparing extrapolated numbers, just to a lesser degree.  They're meaningless.

A player who consistently plays about 6-8 minutes per game more than another player is giving their team something the othe rplayer can not.  It's quite likely that if the player who plays less tried to play more their contribution in the addtional minutes would be less significant.

Being able to play more minutes is definitely a "plus", for a variety of reasons.


Or the team is controlling the minutes a player plays.



I know a lot of posters on here who want to see Rondo's minutes reduced for health and energy reasons.  It doesn't mean he is less of a player.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #132 on: November 15, 2012, 12:39:32 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
I must say, per 36 min or per 48 min adjusted stats are absolute garbage.

Who cares what two different players stats would look like if they played the same amount of time.  Being able to be on the court for more minutes is a "talent" in and of itself.  Conversely, it could very easily be argued that if the player who plays less minutes tried to play more they would become a net negative on-court.  Ths also assumes the player they are being replaced with s contributing at least as much, which is totally unreliable.

That's not a talent, that's a bad rotation.

Yeah, there are a multitude of reasons that one player might play more minutes than another other than the "talent" to do so.

When it is consistent that one player plays significantly more minutes, it is almost always due to ability to do so, generally a result of better conditioning.  This is a attribute of atheletic ability, thus a "talent" in the sense that any atheletic attribute would be.

Well, considering Rondo played 0.5 and 1.2 minutes more than CP3 over the last two years, and CP3 played 1.4 minutes more the year prior, I'd say that isn't really a measure of one player's talent over the other.

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #133 on: November 15, 2012, 12:48:21 PM »

Online scaryjerry

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2872
  • Tommy Points: 175
Lol@ the clippers not having a good enough roster to make the finals.
Watching the clippers Chris Paul hardly pops off the screen after watching rondo regularly, sorry


It is unknown at this point.  It depends on the growth of Griffin. 


He still has to get past two players that would be considered top 5 players with a lot more talent.  (Durrant and Howard)  Not to mention the West version of the Celtics, the Spurs. 



I guess we should knock Rondo for the same thing.  Since he became the star he is, the Celtics haven't won a title.  Haven't been to the Finals.

? Another myth. The celtics made the finals in 2010 and rondo was there best player in the playoffs and outplayed lebron in the cavaliers series with one of the most epic games of the era...and had a triple double in game 1 of the finals and the lakers were keyed on stopping rondo to behead the celtics. In 2007 he was a role player.


Fact, the Celtics defense creamed all the top swingmen that season.  (Lebron and Kobe) 


The differences in the Celtics winning and losing was the talent level of the other team's big man.

Grasping for straws I see...we made it past the best big man in the league that year to make the finals and rondo was the best Celtic in that series as well


No.  Both Lebron and Kobe played well under their averages against the Celtics.  I have pointed this out in the past when posters would use Lebron's numbers (which were better then Kobe) vs. the Celtics in the playoffs as evidence that he quit. 



And no where did I say Rondo didn't play great and was an important piece of the puzzle.  Rondo is just better now.

I don't see how pointing out hes much better now then he was when he was a top 3 player on a finals team and our best playoff performer helps your case....and I agree the thibodeau defensive schemes was key as well..what's the point

Re: Chris Paul Still better than Rondo?
« Reply #134 on: November 15, 2012, 12:58:10 PM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
People will continue to make excuses for Paul and continue to state that Rondo gets to play with 3 HOF even though said HOF's were certainly past their prime.

Clippers were supposedly title contenders last year and then fell flat on their face and people made excuses. Now clippers are supposedly title contenders this year but everyone is already lining up excuses for them.

Paul apparently turns his team into a title contender but at the same time has little chance of making a playoff run due to his supporting cast. My god that's laughable

They made it the 2nd round?  How is it falling on their face?



And just because Paul is a better player, how is that a slight at Rondo who is a top 5 PG?

Ok the clips barely made into the second round (with homecourt?) And then had about as an embarrassing second round as you can have. To a team that pretty much got smoked in the WCF.

Are the clippers a title contending team this year? It seems many people think they are including several people you quoted in this thread (for some unknown reason). So how well should a title contending team with Paul do?