The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wdleehi]

i dont think tony parker is better than rondo.

Why?



21 points

7.6 assists

.533 FG %

.379 3 FG %

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


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




What is there not to like?

how is it fair to exclude rebounding from the comparison when that is one of rondos strengths?

OK.

3.1 rebounds a game.


Don't see that as a big issue. 


He still has the numbers, the success and the hardware that he can easily be argued number 2 in terms of PGs and better then Rondo. 

[Snakehead]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CelticsFan9]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great post.  TP

[Lightskinsmurf]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BballTim]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lightskinsmurf]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lightskinsmurf]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, I acknowledged paul was one of the best point guards in the league but his team wasn't going anywhere so at the end of the day that doesn't mean much.

[Snakehead]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Got it.

[BballTim]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lightskinsmurf]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well yeah I agree with most of this. Still, the hawks took us to game 7 in our championship year. What have they done since then?

[ssspence]

This thread has past the point of no return.

[CelticsFan9]

To get back on topic, how do you guys think Rondo will be next season as far as style of play?

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

Will his jumper be improved?

How will he perform against other top PGs?

[CelticG1]

Even Acie Earl scored 40 points once...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[D.o.s.]

I would also say that Rondo probably has the most unique game out of all those guys on this list, and is the most irreplaceable--which is why I don't want him gone from the team, even if I don't think he's the best PG in the league.