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

[Lightskinsmurf]

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?

Your guess is as good as mine. I could see so many different scenarios playing out.

[Snakehead]

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?

The injury didn't seem too severe so I think he should be fine, also given that we've seen good recoveries from similar injuries and we know Rondo will be driven to hit rehab hard.

His jumper was very improved this year so no reason not to continue.

And I hope the free play of the team since his injury does change how the team thinks about Rondo and how he plays some.  It would be nice to have other players push the ball up and Rondo play off them more, which would allow him to score and be more dynamic.

[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.

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)

Who does that? I'm pretty sure most people look at everything. I always look at all the stats. Still, if my team loses I really don't care if rondo had a triple double that game.

[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.

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.

So, by this there can never be a valuable performance from a player on a bad team. We can never look at it and see how this player performed, how they help a team, how they can effect a team in the future. They lost. It is dismissed. What is the point of trying to evaluate how a player plays the game of basketball if the only metric is did the team win. A high draftee on a bottom dwelling team is not going to be on a team that wins 50 games. Is it pointless to look at their achievements and not ascribe it some value even though they players they play with are not very good?

[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.

So, by this there can never be a valuable performance from a player on a bad team. We can never look at it and see how this player performed, how they help a team, how they can effect a team in the future. They lost. It is dismissed. What is the point of trying to evaluate how a player plays the game of basketball if the only metric is did the team win. A high draftee on a bottom dwelling team is not going to be on a team that wins 50 games. Is it pointless to look at their achievements and not ascribe it some value even though they players they play with are not very good?

Never once said that. You're clearly not comprehending here. I acknowledged curry had a great game the other day. I acknowledged rondo had a great game 2....THAT BEING SAID, it was all for nothing. Why do people play the game? To win or to have good looking stats?

[celticslove]

i wonder who does better between rondo and westbrook if they are on the bobcats right now.

[D.o.s.]

i wonder who does better between rondo and westbrook if they are on the bobcats right now.

Right now? Westbrook--he's got two working ACLs.

 

[Moranis]

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*

Mario Chalmers also had by far his best game in that series in that game.

  Rondo spent quite a bit of time guarding Wade that series. The hot Heat guard in that series was generally whoever Ray was guarding.

Wade had probably his best game in that series in that game as well (although he had a few games that were all close so it is debatable).

[BballTim]

Who does that? I'm pretty sure most people look at everything. I always look at all the stats. Still, if my team loses I really don't care if rondo had a triple double that game.

  By that logic, would you care if he had a triple double and they won? Still, I think that this just comes down to semantics, if you look at stats then on some level you care what he does in losses.

[Lightskinsmurf]

Who does that? I'm pretty sure most people look at everything. I always look at all the stats. Still, if my team loses I really don't care if rondo had a triple double that game.

  By that logic, would you care if he had a triple double and they won? Still, I think that this just comes down to semantics, if you look at stats then on some level you care what he does in losses.

If we win then yeah Id care if rondo had a triple double. At the same time If we win I don't really care what the stats say, we won. I still would acknowledge and appreciate it tho. Just like if we lose ill acknowledge if pierce had a good game but at the same time I just don't care. Wins and losses is all I care about at the end of the day.

[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*

Mario Chalmers also had by far his best game in that series in that game.

  Rondo spent quite a bit of time guarding Wade that series. The hot Heat guard in that series was generally whoever Ray was guarding.

Wade had probably his best game in that series in that game as well (although he had a few games that were all close so it is debatable).

  Again, you'd have to watch the game to see who was actually getting scored on. Sometimes Rondo just guards one guy, sometimes he gets moved around to guard who's hot on the other team. I'd say overall that Wade was held in check in that series.