Author Topic: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)  (Read 24183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #90 on: March 04, 2013, 06:14:28 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yeah, the league's chock full of scoring point guards who haven't had more success than Rondo. Not to mention we've had too much success in the postseason with him running the team for these "he's the wrong kind of pg to win with" claims to gain much traction.

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #91 on: March 04, 2013, 06:16:16 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
My list goes like this:

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

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

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

Those are still great players.

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

And that's because PG is the shortest position. The taller the height, the less people with that height. More people = more potential for talent.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #92 on: March 04, 2013, 06:47:01 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
My list goes like this:

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

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

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

Those are still great players.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #93 on: March 04, 2013, 06:51:48 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
My list goes like this:

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

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

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

Those are still great players.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #94 on: March 04, 2013, 06:56:17 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
And the previous era, SGs were where it was at, I believe.

Kobe
Allen
TMac
Carter
Miller
[I don't know the rest, hey! I'm young!]
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #95 on: March 04, 2013, 07:00:24 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
The pundits will never have him in the top 3 because he doesnt score as much as other guards who are really 2 guards playing the point. In true fashion of a PG Rondo is top 3  in the league.

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

Top PGs are scorers.

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

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

Yeah KGsKnee, I think you misunderstood my point.

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

 
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #96 on: March 04, 2013, 07:22:39 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58470
  • Tommy Points: -25640
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.

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

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

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


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

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #97 on: March 04, 2013, 07:23:32 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
Quote
There's something I've been struggling with.  For years I was under this belief that your point guard shouldn't be a scorer, but should just be someone who gets a lot of assists.

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

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

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

When you're good at scoring *and* passing, I think that makes you a superstar ;)
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #98 on: March 04, 2013, 07:46:21 PM »

Offline Greenback

  • NCE
  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 734
  • Tommy Points: 63
  • Take away love and the earth is a tomb. ~ Browning
Assists leader? 

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

Where is Greivis Vasquez on that list?  He is active assist leader neck and neck with Chris Paul.  But the New Orleans Hornets have a terrible win loss record.
Everyone wants truth on his side, not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #99 on: March 04, 2013, 07:55:40 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #100 on: March 04, 2013, 08:14:52 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit:  Too snarky. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 11:26:19 PM by Celtics18 »
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #101 on: March 04, 2013, 08:21:27 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  People talk about the "formula" for winning titles, but don't seem to realize that it pretty much starts and ends with individual performers. Whatever OKC's formula is has a chance of working with Durant, no formula that they could come up with would work on that team without him. Same for the Spurs with Duncan, who had different types of teams around him when the Spurs won. Acquiring players based on the "formula" without that superstar talent is like building a car without an engine. Building a team with the supporting cast for a superstar when you don't have a way of getting one quickly is just plain silly.

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #102 on: March 05, 2013, 12:19:53 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
6th seems about right to me.  And depending how next year goes, I could see him drop to 7th or 8th...  Lots of young point guards coming up and D-Will is due for a bounce-back season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #103 on: March 05, 2013, 12:24:48 AM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
I just don't get how you can have the league leader for Assists that high (or low, either way you say it) if we are ranking the PG position.

Oh well though.
Didn't Andre Miller lead the league in assists when he wasn't even top 6?

Re: The NBA's top 10 PG's according to SI (Rondo is number 6)
« Reply #104 on: March 05, 2013, 12:31:41 AM »

Offline wayupnorth

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1109
  • Tommy Points: 141
All validity goes out the window when someone calls Russell Westbrook a better POINT GUARD than Rondo.

Seriously, by any measure of a point guard, Rondo is clearly superior. He even scores more efficiently.