Ideal Competitive Core

[arctic 3.0]

so according to this theory Al Jefferson's lack of D is nothing to worry about.
if rondo can get it into his head to average 15-17 points a game (totally possible) and we can acquire AJ for Ray we'll be a dead eye shooter away from competing.

Well, no.  That's like saying that your team needs the type of player described as high scoring, dynamic 2 guards like Kobe Bryant (but also some 3s, like Grant Hill), then going out and getting Corey Maggette.

It's a combination of players that will lead you to tend to over-perform, relative to the team's actual talent level, but you're not likely to be a championship-caliber team if Al Jefferson is one of your "Big 3".

thats a brutally funny  comparison, could turn out be accurate, they have similar career tracks
so far (tons of potential, good numbers, team's have not done well with them).
I still think AJ has the chance to be a real star: he's been on some bad teams where the've asked him to be the #1 option, his defense is (apparently world class) bad. but there are many examples of flawed players who have bounced around before finding a home and succeeding.

z randolph was dismissed,
chancy billups didn't put it together until Detroit.
pau put up great numbers in memphis and failed in the first round. (pau was so underrated on this blog that when i proposed a perk for pau trade i was shouted down as a lunatic.)
even pierce, who thankfully didn't need to leave to succeed, was under rated before the GPA era began. by the way i remember several Pierce for Magette trade ideas in the early days of celticsblog.

my biggest concern with al jeff is his slow low post game, rondo would tear his hair out watching big al dribble away assists.

i guess my point is i believe we can make a deal that both improves our chances this year and helps build for the future. we need to look for undervalued bigs who compliment our lineup.
big al
varejao (out 4 weeks, cleveland looking to tank)
j thompson (not so much)
IMO if we can improve our rebounding we have a shot at squeaking into the conference finals

[PosImpos]

  That wasn't my point. You need to consider that these basketball "experts" think that Rondo, Rose and Westbrook are similar players.

It's not quite as ridiculous as you seem to be suggesting. The only real difference between Rondo and the other two is that Rondo lacks the scoring ability of the other two. All three are PGs with elite athleticism, (at least) fairly high usage rates this year and vaguely similar defensive stats. If Rondo were a scorer rather than a passer, he'd be Westbrook or Rose. I think the point is mostly that you couldn't have Rondo and Rose or Westbrook on the same team and expect it to go as well as having say Rondo and Kevin Love on the same team, which is fairly obvious.

The difference you're brushing over -- that Rose and Westbrook are scorers while Rondo is more of a distributor -- is pretty significant.

[mqtcelticsfan]

  That wasn't my point. You need to consider that these basketball "experts" think that Rondo, Rose and Westbrook are similar players.

It's not quite as ridiculous as you seem to be suggesting. The only real difference between Rondo and the other two is that Rondo lacks the scoring ability of the other two. All three are PGs with elite athleticism, (at least) fairly high usage rates this year and vaguely similar defensive stats. If Rondo were a scorer rather than a passer, he'd be Westbrook or Rose. I think the point is mostly that you couldn't have Rondo and Rose or Westbrook on the same team and expect it to go as well as having say Rondo and Kevin Love on the same team, which is fairly obvious.

The difference you're brushing over -- that Rose and Westbrook are scorers while Rondo is more of a distributor -- is pretty significant.

I suppose, but I just don't see it as that crazy of a statement. They're all ultra-athletic PGs who are at their best when they have the ball in their hands. None of them are guys who thrive on getting shots of screens or working the post. They're similar enough to diminish the value of having two of them on the same team. Is that really such a stretch?

[PosImpos]

  That wasn't my point. You need to consider that these basketball "experts" think that Rondo, Rose and Westbrook are similar players.

It's not quite as ridiculous as you seem to be suggesting. The only real difference between Rondo and the other two is that Rondo lacks the scoring ability of the other two. All three are PGs with elite athleticism, (at least) fairly high usage rates this year and vaguely similar defensive stats. If Rondo were a scorer rather than a passer, he'd be Westbrook or Rose. I think the point is mostly that you couldn't have Rondo and Rose or Westbrook on the same team and expect it to go as well as having say Rondo and Kevin Love on the same team, which is fairly obvious.

The difference you're brushing over -- that Rose and Westbrook are scorers while Rondo is more of a distributor -- is pretty significant.

I suppose, but I just don't see it as that crazy of a statement. They're all ultra-athletic PGs who are at their best when they have the ball in their hands. None of them are guys who thrive on getting shots of screens or working the post. They're similar enough to diminish the value of having two of them on the same team. Is that really such a stretch?

Nobody was talking about the "all three on the same team" thing.  BBallTim was just pointing out that those three players are not all really similar.

Yes, of course having 3 top point guards on the same team would be redundant.

[BballTim]

  That wasn't my point. You need to consider that these basketball "experts" think that Rondo, Rose and Westbrook are similar players.

It's not quite as ridiculous as you seem to be suggesting. The only real difference between Rondo and the other two is that Rondo lacks the scoring ability of the other two. All three are PGs with elite athleticism, (at least) fairly high usage rates this year and vaguely similar defensive stats. If Rondo were a scorer rather than a passer, he'd be Westbrook or Rose. I think the point is mostly that you couldn't have Rondo and Rose or Westbrook on the same team and expect it to go as well as having say Rondo and Kevin Love on the same team, which is fairly obvious.

  Did you read the article? They're classifying players by things like scoring and passing point guards. Not knowing that Rondo and Westbrook are completely different types of players seems fairly troubling.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Nobody was talking about the "all three on the same team" thing.  BBallTim was just pointing out that those three players are not all really similar.

Yes, of course having 3 top point guards on the same team would be redundant.

The thing is that the only point that sentence was making was that the three of them are similar enough to diminish the effectiveness of having them on the same team. That is absolutely the only point the authors were making by saying that. Rondo, Westbrook and Rose are never again mentioned in the article. It was merely an example used to illustrate the point that three such players would not be effective together.

To that end, I think it's totally fair to call them similar for the reasons I listed above. They're players that would not fit in well together because they play the same position and more importantly both thrive when running the offense. The article never expands upon that point any further, and to that degree it seems valid.

I'll concede that they could have done a slightly better job in their example by putting someone such as Kyrie Irving instead of Rajon, but I don't think it's particularly wrong to use Rondo.

[Marcus13]

Chris Paul-Ray Allen-Dwight Howard

[PosImpos]

Nobody was talking about the "all three on the same team" thing.  BBallTim was just pointing out that those three players are not all really similar.

Yes, of course having 3 top point guards on the same team would be redundant.

The thing is that the only point that sentence was making was that the three of them are similar enough to diminish the effectiveness of having them on the same team. That is absolutely the only point the authors were making by saying that. Rondo, Westbrook and Rose are never again mentioned in the article. It was merely an example used to illustrate the point that three such players would not be effective together.

To that end, I think it's totally fair to call them similar for the reasons I listed above. They're players that would not fit in well together because they play the same position and more importantly both thrive when running the offense. The article never expands upon that point any further, and to that degree it seems valid.

I'll concede that they could have done a slightly better job in their example by putting someone such as Kyrie Irving instead of Rajon, but I don't think it's particularly wrong to use Rondo.

Even in the context you mention, they said specifically that those are three very similar players.  I think it's fair to criticize the author for saying so, because it's a fairly silly statement, regardless of context.  They're only really similar in that they're All-Star point guards.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Even in the context you mention, they said specifically that those are three very similar players.  I think it's fair to criticize the author for saying so, because it's a fairly silly statement, regardless of context.  They're only really similar in that they're All-Star point guards.

I suppose. I just think Rondo is more similar to those two than say Billups or Curry, because of his effectiveness with the ball in his hands. None of the guys could ever work together because they need to dominate the ball to be at their best. A PG like Billups or Curry would possibly work to a degree because they're able to spot up for three. Rose and Westbrook are like Rondo in that they wouldn't be effective off guards.

[LooseCannon]

Even in the context you mention, they said specifically that those are three very similar players.  I think it's fair to criticize the author for saying so, because it's a fairly silly statement, regardless of context.  They're only really similar in that they're All-Star point guards.

If you compare them to all possible combinations of three players in their sample, Rose-Westbrook-Rondo will come out as very similar compared to other trios.  The author sorts players into 14 categories and I think those three point guards would probably be found in the upper tier of the same category.  For the purposes of the paper, they are similar.

[BballTim]

Even in the context you mention, they said specifically that those are three very similar players.  I think it's fair to criticize the author for saying so, because it's a fairly silly statement, regardless of context.  They're only really similar in that they're All-Star point guards.

I suppose. I just think Rondo is more similar to those two than say Billups or Curry, because of his effectiveness with the ball in his hands. None of the guys could ever work together because they need to dominate the ball to be at their best.

  By that criteria you could say that Rondo, Kobe and LeBron are very similar players.

[guava_wrench]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/38016/you-me-synergy-the-big-2-and-the-big-3


According to a paper presented at the MIT Sloan Sports Conference this week, the ideal 2 player combination for the core of an NBA team is "a versatile, 3-point shooting wing with a high-scoring, high-rebounding center."  The best 3 player combination is the same wing-and-center combination with a "high-scoring, high-usage point guard."

Essentially, it sounds like the perfect 3 player combo would be Derrick Rose, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwight Howard.

Melo is not a good 3pt shooter.

While I have not read the paper, I wonder how large their sample size is and I am curious about the constructs involved. For example, how do they define their variable for success? The 3 player example seems to match the Spurs, but not many other championship teams that pop into my head right away, so I expect they are talking about a simple correlation to wins. Unfortunately I don't have time to read the article.

Perhaps Duncan and Shaq (and Kobe) skew the 2 player numbers?

[LooseCannon]

The study compared wins to talent level as measured by an efficiency formula used at NBA.com, with data from 1977.  So, a combination would be judged positively if it was determined to have over-performed on a 20-win team, relative to its talent level.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Even in the context you mention, they said specifically that those are three very similar players.  I think it's fair to criticize the author for saying so, because it's a fairly silly statement, regardless of context.  They're only really similar in that they're All-Star point guards.

I suppose. I just think Rondo is more similar to those two than say Billups or Curry, because of his effectiveness with the ball in his hands. None of the guys could ever work together because they need to dominate the ball to be at their best.

  By that criteria you could say that Rondo, Kobe and LeBron are very similar players.

Well, that's a little extreme. Just by sheer size difference, Kobe and LeBron would provide a different look to the offense than any PG. However, I think it is more than fair to say that Rondo would not be the best fit with either of those players. I'd think a PG that can consistently spot up for 3 is the best fit offensively for a team with Kobe or LeBron. Defensively, all 3 PGs are going to fit the same role for a team, so for half of the game, you're looking at similar players, while with Rondo and LeBron would be entirely different.

[clover]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/38016/you-me-synergy-the-big-2-and-the-big-3


According to a paper presented at the MIT Sloan Sports Conference this week, the ideal 2 player combination for the core of an NBA team is "a versatile, 3-point shooting wing with a high-scoring, high-rebounding center."  The best 3 player combination is the same wing-and-center combination with a "high-scoring, high-usage point guard."

Essentially, it sounds like the perfect 3 player combo would be Derrick Rose, Carmelo Anthony, and Dwight Howard.


Interesting stuff.  I would have thought that "dominant center" and "pass-first point guard" would have been the best 2 player combo.  I suppose there haven't actually been too many great teams in league history that followed that formula, though.

  You'd have to wonder about these guys when you see this near the beginning of the report:

"Suppose there was a team whose three best players were Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo, three very good, and very similar players."

  Raise your hand if you think that those are very similar players.

Wasn't their entire methodology to define 13 distinct "positions", or types of players, as part of their analysis?  And in that analysis, didn't they classify Rondo as a passing PG, distinct from the other two as high-scoring PGs?