The Spurs show we should run it back

[Roy H.]

Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?

No. He's not injured like Curry or Gordon or Roy. An ACL tear is one discrete injury that happens. Rondo is not consistently injured.

I would agree that Rondo isn't consistently injured.  However, in referencing specifically to BBallTim's argument, it's my understanding that he's attributing most of Rondo's poorer performances in the playoffs to injuries.  Obviously, this is legit for the elbow injury.  However, with the other minor injuries, should those count against Rondo?  Or, is the caveat "Rondo is better when healthy" a fair one?  Is any player truly 100% in the playoffs?  Is it legit to play the injury card to discount sub-par performances?

[PhoSita]

I think that the OP's assumptions all along have been that a real big man would need to be acquired (and also having Sully healthy all year).

. . . .

I think folks need to keep clear that the intent of a 'run it back' is not to floor the same exact team as this last season by any means.

All good and well, but here's the problem with this line of reasoning -- where is this "real big man" going to come from?

We've got like, what, 11 guys under contract for next season, even if the China guys get waived?

To have a real chance I think this "real big man" would have to be somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Al Jefferson, or at least somebody like David West or Carl Landry.  I just have no Earthly clue how the Celtics could acquire somebody like that without breaking up the core.

[PhoSita]

Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?

No. He's not injured like Curry or Gordon or Roy. An ACL tear is one discrete injury that happens. Rondo is not consistently injured.

I would agree that Rondo isn't consistently injured.  However, in referencing specifically to BBallTim's argument, it's my understanding that he's attributing most of Rondo's poorer performances in the playoffs to injuries.  Obviously, this is legit for the elbow injury.  However, with the other minor injuries, should those count against Rondo?  Or, is the caveat "Rondo is better when healthy" a fair one?  Is any player truly 100% in the playoffs?  Is it legit to play the injury card to discount sub-par performances?

Not to mention that Parker is playing pretty great right now despite dealing with injuries to his calf.

[Celtics18]

I think that the OP's assumptions all along have been that a real big man would need to be acquired (and also having Sully healthy all year).

. . . .

I think folks need to keep clear that the intent of a 'run it back' is not to floor the same exact team as this last season by any means.

All good and well, but here's the problem with this line of reasoning -- where is this "real big man" going to come from?

We've got like, what, 11 guys under contract for next season, even if the China guys get waived?

To have a real chance I think this "real big man" would have to be somebody on the level of Josh Smith or Al Jefferson, or at least somebody like David West or Carl Landry.  I just have no Earthly clue how the Celtics could acquire somebody like that without breaking up the core.

New Zealand via Pittsburgh.

 

[BballTim]

  Thomas got more assists than Kidd. It's more like Kidd vs Payton (or a Payton that's not the defender he was) and I'd rather build my team around Kidd.

Yeah, I don't think Payton is a fair comparison.  We're talking about one guard (Parker) who is as good a scorer at the position as anybody and who has been the key guy for a title team, and helped lead his team deep into the playoffs many other times.  The other guy (Rondo), is a triple-double threat who has also led his team deep, but hasn't been able to assume that mantle as the lead scorer or crunch time shot-maker.  He relies on his teammates to close out games, even when he's grabbing rebounds, dishing out assists, and getting acrobatic layups to fall.

Rondo doesn't measure up to Kidd just as Parker doesn't quite measure up to Thomas.  But I think the analogy is mostly a fair one, even if Isiah got more assists.  Parker is not nearly as much a passer, though he's clearly shown the ability to get assists when that's what the game offers him.

My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.

  First of all I don't think you're overly familiar with Gary Payton, who was more of a scorer than you seem to realize. Also Kidd's best statistical playoffs (20/8/9) is fairly comparable to Rondo's 17/7/12 and he was a few years older than Rondo is now before he ever broke 15 ppg in the playoffs. I think Rondo measures up to Kidd much better than Parker measures up to Isiah. And Parker's a good clutch scorer, I don't know that he's really elite.
 

[BballTim]

Let's forget the counting stats because different roles result in different totals in each category.

The first thing I looked at was turnover percentage, where TP is ahead of RR for the career by a large margin, 14.0% vs. 20.4%, meaning, I think, that Rondo commits nearly 50% more turnovers per 100 possessions.

TP beats Rondo in offensive rating, 109-106.

Rondo beats TP in defensive rating, 101-104.

Interesting that it's a 3-point spread in both and a split decision, offense-defense.

So it's probably a basketball theory decision, and I'll take Parker 10 times out of 10.  Here's why.

In the final seconds with the ball, I'll take TP's better ability to score and make free throwst every time.  He can be the guy with the ball in those situations; Rondo, not so much.

Second, turnovers from the point guard position drive me nuts.  True that Rondo has a better assist/turnover ratio and more assists, but I discount Rondo 2 assists per game where he turns down a layup or easy bucket to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else.  That flattens out the discrepancy in total assists and assist/turnover, tilting toward TP's favor for
me.

  Your turnover analysis is silly. Rondo and Parker both turn the ball over at pretty much the same rate, about 1 every 12 minutes of play. Parker's better TO% is based almost entirely on his shooting the ball more often than Rondo. Also it's fairly likely that Parker turns down the occasional shot in order to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else, he'd be a pretty poor poor pg if he didn't.

[BballTim]

I have to agree with PhoSita
And the point people are making that Rondo's assists are better because teammates get wide open...lol...come on, guys. If you're a pass first PG, you're going to rack up the assists.

 Rondo averaged 11+ assists for the 3rd season in a row this year. The only players who ever averaged 11+ assists more than 3 times are Stockton, Magic and Nash. The only other player to average 11+ assists 3 times by Rondo's age was Magic. People that talk about how it's not that big a deal because "pass first pgs rack up assists" should pay more attention to what they're seeing.

I've never been a fan of Rondo sleep walking thru the regular season only to be a monster in the playoffs. Anyone on the team for that matter. Tony Parker brings it all the time, is extremely smart, is aggressive and can score -- because after all, you win a basketball game based on how many points you score.

  Rondo's led all pgs in rebounds and assists per game in each of the last 2 seasons, was 3rd team all-nba last year and has been 1st or 2nd team all defense as well as an all-star in each of the previous 4 seasons. Not bad "sleepwalking" in the grand scheme of things.

[BballTim]

  Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.

I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere?  Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating.  The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.

What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense?  That's not rhetorical.  Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much.  How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?  (Also, this isn't a factor of offensive rebounding.  Last season, for instance, San Antonio ranked 24th in offensive rebounds, but still had the most efficient offense.)

  While all the Rondo detractors made a big deal out of the team's offensive rating being slightly better (2 points) with Rondo on the bench this year when he was on the court the prior 2 years the Celts were 10 and 7 points better and in the playoffs they were 18 and 11 points better. The Spurs ORTG differential when Parker's played the last 3 years were -3, -1 and +3, in the 11 and 12 playoffs it was -9 and +6. I'm not sure you'd be correct if you're pointing to Parker for all of the Spurs offensive success.

... Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.

Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?

  I would say so. Rondo's capable of terrific play in the postseason when he's healthy. Good enough to lead a team on a deep playoff run. Most of the other great players are generally healthier, no doubt due to his size and playing style. You're more likely to get relatively healthy play from Parker, but even though Rondo gets injured quite a bit you're still more likely to get the play we saw from him last year or against the Cavs in 2010 from Rondo than Parker IMO.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

No, the Spurs show with the right coach we could have been in it all the way this year......but it would have started this time LAST year......!

[PhoSita]

  Thomas got more assists than Kidd. It's more like Kidd vs Payton (or a Payton that's not the defender he was) and I'd rather build my team around Kidd.

Yeah, I don't think Payton is a fair comparison.  We're talking about one guard (Parker) who is as good a scorer at the position as anybody and who has been the key guy for a title team, and helped lead his team deep into the playoffs many other times.  The other guy (Rondo), is a triple-double threat who has also led his team deep, but hasn't been able to assume that mantle as the lead scorer or crunch time shot-maker.  He relies on his teammates to close out games, even when he's grabbing rebounds, dishing out assists, and getting acrobatic layups to fall.

Rondo doesn't measure up to Kidd just as Parker doesn't quite measure up to Thomas.  But I think the analogy is mostly a fair one, even if Isiah got more assists.  Parker is not nearly as much a passer, though he's clearly shown the ability to get assists when that's what the game offers him.

My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.

  First of all I don't think you're overly familiar with Gary Payton, who was more of a scorer than you seem to realize. Also Kidd's best statistical playoffs (20/8/9) is fairly comparable to Rondo's 17/7/12 and he was a few years older than Rondo is now before he ever broke 15 ppg in the playoffs. I think Rondo measures up to Kidd much better than Parker measures up to Isiah. And Parker's a good clutch scorer, I don't know that he's really elite.

I disagree that Rondo is on the same level as Kidd, though I definitely agree Parker is not anywhere near as good as Isiah. 

I guess you're right that I'm not as familiar with Peyton's game.  Perhaps he would have had the same playoff success as Parker if he played with a big man like Duncan.


Anyways, the point is just that I'll take the guy who can get me 20-30 points consistently and still run the offense effectively and make the smart passes over the guy who is a triple double threat and racks up assists but isn't going to get more than 15 points or so unless he takes a ton of shots and won't be a threat to score in crunch time.

Honestly, I think the rules of the game these days really favor the former over the latter.  Teams expect to get a significant chunk of their offense from their primary ball-handler.  I know that by some metrics Rondo generates a great deal of offense, but I don't agree with the notion that assists are the same thing as points scored.