A PG comparison for Rondo's upcoming deal..

[hpantazo]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

[BballTim]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

[BballTim]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

  Parker's never had Rondo's passing ability, vision, or ability to run an offense. Comparing him to players that don't share those traits is fairly meaningless.

[Nerf DPOY]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

  Parker's never had Rondo's passing ability, vision, or ability to run an offense. Comparing him to players that don't share those traits is fairly meaningless.

I noted Parker because he's relatively slight and still one of the best players in the league at 32 years old. While not the same player as Rondo, he's a much closer comp in style than the likes of Starbury. I learned Gary Payton didn't count because while still being a great player at 34 while being a bad shooter and only weighing 180 lbs, his being 6-4 disqualified him because he was "huge" for a PG. I was running out of players.

[Eddie20]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

So you're really comparing Rondo's game to Stockton's and Nash's? You're kidding, right? It wasn't their scoring that made them effective it was their shooting and overall skill-set. Rondo has the passing, but without the shooting ability to compensate for decreased athleticism I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal at his age. Is that beyond reason to suggest? Are my thoughts unsubstantiated? If anything, you suggesting that Rondo's game will age well is only because you're a delusional fan. If he were on another team you'd likely be in agreement. However, we're discussing Rondo, who in your eyes can do no wrong.


Here's how Rondo stacks up to Stockton and Nash. No difference. None at all.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
8x all-star
2 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 3x
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Stockton-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 6x
All NBA 3rd team 3x

[Eddie20]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

  Parker's never had Rondo's passing ability, vision, or ability to run an offense. Comparing him to players that don't share those traits is fairly meaningless.

I noted Parker because he's relatively slight and still one of the best players in the league at 32 years old. While not the same player as Rondo, he's a much closer comp in style than the likes of Starbury. I learned Gary Payton didn't count because while still being a great player at 34 while being a bad shooter and only weighing 180 lbs, his being 6-4 disqualified him because he was "huge" for a PG. I was running out of players.

So I'll just do the comparison for Rondo, Kidd, and Payton, since obviously their dominance is on equal ground.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Payton-
9x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 5x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Kidd-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 5x
All NBA 2nd team 1x
All NBA 3rd team 0


C's blog is the only place on earth where Rondo gets compared with Kidd, Payton, Nash, and Stockton with a straight face.

[BballTim]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

So you're really comparing Rondo's game to Stockton's and Nash's? You're kidding, right? It wasn't their scoring that made them effective it was their shooting and overall skill-set. Rondo has the passing, but without the shooting ability to compensate for decreased athleticism I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal at his age. Is that beyond reason to suggest? Are my thoughts unsubstantiated? If anything, you suggesting that Rondo's game will age well is only because you're a delusional fan. If he were on another team you'd likely be in agreement. However, we're discussing Rondo, who in your eyes can do no wrong.


Here's how Rondo stacks up to Stockton and Nash. No difference. None at all.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
8x all-star
2 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 3x
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Stockton-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 6x
All NBA 3rd team 3x

  I'm not comparing Rondo to Nash or Stockton per se, but since you're so excited about this comparison, let's do the same one, for all three players up to the age Rondo was when he had his knee injury:


Rondo-
4x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
0x all-star
0 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 0

Stockton-
1x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 0
[/quote]

  Make them the age Rondo was at the end of the season and you add an all-star and all-nba 2nd team to Stockton and an all-star game for Nash. You could also add in all defense, 2 1st team and 2 2nd teams for Rondo, 2 2nd teams for Stockton, nothing for Nash. Why don't you comment on *that* comparison? I can't wait to hear your "unbiased" opinion on it.

[Nerf DPOY]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

  Parker's never had Rondo's passing ability, vision, or ability to run an offense. Comparing him to players that don't share those traits is fairly meaningless.

I noted Parker because he's relatively slight and still one of the best players in the league at 32 years old. While not the same player as Rondo, he's a much closer comp in style than the likes of Starbury. I learned Gary Payton didn't count because while still being a great player at 34 while being a bad shooter and only weighing 180 lbs, his being 6-4 disqualified him because he was "huge" for a PG. I was running out of players.

So I'll just do the comparison for Rondo, Kidd, and Payton, since obviously their dominance is on equal ground.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Payton-
9x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 5x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Kidd-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 5x
All NBA 2nd team 1x
All NBA 3rd team 0


C's blog is the only place on earth where Rondo gets compared with Kidd, Payton, Nash, and Stockton with a straight face.

LOL LOL only on CelticsBlog!!!

I was comparing Rondo to Kidd and Payton in terms of style and decline. You said Payton didn't count because similarities aside, Payton was 6-4. It sounds like according to you, accolades preserve the PG's body.

Much better to use Francis as a comp, a small crack smoking combo guard whose career was derailed by a number of injuries and demons.

[Eddie20]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

So you're really comparing Rondo's game to Stockton's and Nash's? You're kidding, right? It wasn't their scoring that made them effective it was their shooting and overall skill-set. Rondo has the passing, but without the shooting ability to compensate for decreased athleticism I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal at his age. Is that beyond reason to suggest? Are my thoughts unsubstantiated? If anything, you suggesting that Rondo's game will age well is only because you're a delusional fan. If he were on another team you'd likely be in agreement. However, we're discussing Rondo, who in your eyes can do no wrong.


Here's how Rondo stacks up to Stockton and Nash. No difference. None at all.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
8x all-star
2 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 3x
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Stockton-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 6x
All NBA 3rd team 3x

  I'm not comparing Rondo to Nash or Stockton per se, but since you're so excited about this comparison, let's do the same one, for all three players up to the age Rondo was when he had his knee injury:


Rondo-
4x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
0x all-star
0 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 0

Stockton-
1x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 0

  Make them the age Rondo was at the end of the season and you add an all-star and all-nba 2nd team to Stockton and an all-star game for Nash. You could also add in all defense, 2 1st team and 2 2nd teams for Rondo, 2 2nd teams for Stockton, nothing for Nash. Why don't you comment on *that* comparison? I can't wait to hear your "unbiased" opinion on it.
[/quote]


***********************************
Oh, so now you want to compare Rondo at the same age as these players, but conveniently forgetting that Rondo played 1 season in Kentucky while Nash and Stockton played all four years? You also forgot that Nash was playing behind Kidd in Phoenix.

[BballTim]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

  Parker's never had Rondo's passing ability, vision, or ability to run an offense. Comparing him to players that don't share those traits is fairly meaningless.

I noted Parker because he's relatively slight and still one of the best players in the league at 32 years old. While not the same player as Rondo, he's a much closer comp in style than the likes of Starbury. I learned Gary Payton didn't count because while still being a great player at 34 while being a bad shooter and only weighing 180 lbs, his being 6-4 disqualified him because he was "huge" for a PG. I was running out of players.

So I'll just do the comparison for Rondo, Kidd, and Payton, since obviously their dominance is on equal ground.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Payton-
9x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 5x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Kidd-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 5x
All NBA 2nd team 1x
All NBA 3rd team 0


C's blog is the only place on earth where Rondo gets compared with Kidd, Payton, Nash, and Stockton with a straight face.

  I'll do some of the same for Kidd and Payton. At the age Rondo had the knee injury Kidd was a 3 time all-star and twice all-nba 1st team, Payton was a 2 time all-star with a 2nd and 3rd team all-nba. It's worth pointing out that you're doing more to kill your argument than anyone else in the thread when you start listing all-time greats and all of their accompllishments, most of which came when they were older than Rondo.

[Eddie20]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

You can include Kidd, and Payton for the matter, if you'd like. Both are 3 inches taller than Rondo, and considered huge for the position, which is why they were excluded. Players that are big at their spot tend to do better as they age because of their size advantage over others. Rondo is average in size for the position and arguably the worst shooter out of anyone I mentioned (Kidd and Payton included).

How about Tony Parker? He turned 32 this year. He's certainly not substantially bigger than Rondo. He's a better shooter, but not a great one.

There were many other factors that likely contributed to the fall of Marbury. To heap all his baggage on Rondo strikes me as being disingenuous.

Parker still has his speed, that's his main weapon. He also hasn't had ACL surgery, and is a much better shooter than Rondo.

  Parker's never had Rondo's passing ability, vision, or ability to run an offense. Comparing him to players that don't share those traits is fairly meaningless.

I noted Parker because he's relatively slight and still one of the best players in the league at 32 years old. While not the same player as Rondo, he's a much closer comp in style than the likes of Starbury. I learned Gary Payton didn't count because while still being a great player at 34 while being a bad shooter and only weighing 180 lbs, his being 6-4 disqualified him because he was "huge" for a PG. I was running out of players.

So I'll just do the comparison for Rondo, Kidd, and Payton, since obviously their dominance is on equal ground.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Payton-
9x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 5x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Kidd-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 5x
All NBA 2nd team 1x
All NBA 3rd team 0


C's blog is the only place on earth where Rondo gets compared with Kidd, Payton, Nash, and Stockton with a straight face.

LOL LOL only on CelticsBlog!!!

I was comparing Rondo to Kidd and Payton in terms of style and decline. You said Payton didn't count because similarities aside, Payton was 6-4. It sounds like according to you, accolades preserve the PG's body.

Much better to use Francis as a comp, a small crack smoking combo guard whose career was derailed by a number of injuries and demons.

When you're a star the caliber of Kidd and Payton, and have their size to boot, it's much easier to slip and still by pretty good. When you're a player the caliber of Rondo, and you slip you becomes average. Average and max money is not a combination I want on the C's.

[BballTim]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

So you're really comparing Rondo's game to Stockton's and Nash's? You're kidding, right? It wasn't their scoring that made them effective it was their shooting and overall skill-set. Rondo has the passing, but without the shooting ability to compensate for decreased athleticism I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal at his age. Is that beyond reason to suggest? Are my thoughts unsubstantiated? If anything, you suggesting that Rondo's game will age well is only because you're a delusional fan. If he were on another team you'd likely be in agreement. However, we're discussing Rondo, who in your eyes can do no wrong.


Here's how Rondo stacks up to Stockton and Nash. No difference. None at all.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
8x all-star
2 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 3x
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Stockton-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 6x
All NBA 3rd team 3x

  I'm not comparing Rondo to Nash or Stockton per se, but since you're so excited about this comparison, let's do the same one, for all three players up to the age Rondo was when he had his knee injury:


Rondo-
4x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
0x all-star
0 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 0

Stockton-
1x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 0

  Make them the age Rondo was at the end of the season and you add an all-star and all-nba 2nd team to Stockton and an all-star game for Nash. You could also add in all defense, 2 1st team and 2 2nd teams for Rondo, 2 2nd teams for Stockton, nothing for Nash. Why don't you comment on *that* comparison? I can't wait to hear your "unbiased" opinion on it.

Oh, so now you want to compare Rondo at the same age as these players, but conveniently forgetting that Rondo played 1 season in Kentucky while Nash and Stockton played all four years?
[/quote]

  It's much fairer than comparing their entire careers. But go ahead and start the comparison at the age Stockton and Nash were when they entered the league. Little if anything will change. But still, after you were so smug about comparing their career achievements, I'd still like to hear your unbiased commentary on the same comparison at Rondo's age.

[Eddie20]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

So you're really comparing Rondo's game to Stockton's and Nash's? You're kidding, right? It wasn't their scoring that made them effective it was their shooting and overall skill-set. Rondo has the passing, but without the shooting ability to compensate for decreased athleticism I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal at his age. Is that beyond reason to suggest? Are my thoughts unsubstantiated? If anything, you suggesting that Rondo's game will age well is only because you're a delusional fan. If he were on another team you'd likely be in agreement. However, we're discussing Rondo, who in your eyes can do no wrong.


Here's how Rondo stacks up to Stockton and Nash. No difference. None at all.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
8x all-star
2 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 3x
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Stockton-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 6x
All NBA 3rd team 3x

  I'm not comparing Rondo to Nash or Stockton per se, but since you're so excited about this comparison, let's do the same one, for all three players up to the age Rondo was when he had his knee injury:


Rondo-
4x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
0x all-star
0 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 0

Stockton-
1x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 0

  Make them the age Rondo was at the end of the season and you add an all-star and all-nba 2nd team to Stockton and an all-star game for Nash. You could also add in all defense, 2 1st team and 2 2nd teams for Rondo, 2 2nd teams for Stockton, nothing for Nash. Why don't you comment on *that* comparison? I can't wait to hear your "unbiased" opinion on it.

Oh, so now you want to compare Rondo at the same age as these players, but conveniently forgetting that Rondo played 1 season in Kentucky while Nash and Stockton played all four years?

  It's much fairer than comparing their entire careers. But go ahead and start the comparison at the age Stockton and Nash were when they entered the league. Little if anything will change. But still, after you were so smug about comparing their career achievements, I'd still like to hear your unbiased commentary on the same comparison at Rondo's age.
[/quote]

Again, listen to yourself. Be objective. Try it out for a change. Nash was behind Kidd in Phoenix and Stockton was stellar from the start. Those players achieved much more than Rondo and to even be putting him in the conversation of two of the all time greats borders on blasphemy. But again, you're that horse that won't drink the water. Firmly enriched that Rondo is to be compared with the greats, when he has difficulty ranking in top 10 at present.

[coffee425]

this escalated quickly

[BballTim]

Lin is more along the lines of 8M so I'll exclude him from the discussion. The key thing to me is the ages.  Paul and Williams are roughly Rondo's age and in Williams' case he has really fallen off (Paul has declined ever so slightly too). So I don't mind paying Rondo the same amount as Wall, Westbrook, Irving, etc. if he were approximately the same age. However, we'll be paying Rondo on past performance if we reward him with a 5 year deal at max, or near max, money. He simply won't fulfill that contract with his play especially during the later years of the deal. His athletically reliant game isn't one that ages well and unlike other PG's, who can compensate with any decreased athleticism with their shooting, Rondo can't.

I would love to see a chart on how athletically dependent players say 6-3 and under have performed during ages 29-34, which is more or less the age Rondo will be with a 5 year deal. Iverson, Marbury, Lever, KJ, Pack, Hardaway, Tiny, and Francis are a few that immediately come to mind. Trying to think of others.

First one that comes to mind is Chauncey Billups, who basically doubled himself as a player at Rondo's age.  If Rondo does that it would be a bargain to have him locked up at 20 million for 5 years.

Billups wasn't ever an athletically reliant player and he could really shoot. If Rondo could shoot like that I would have no problem whatsoever giving him a 5 year deal, but unfortunately he can't. I'm still hoping that he can reach that elusive 65% FT mark for a season.

  Haha. So Billups doesn't work in the list because there's a difference between his game and Rondo's (shooting). Yet your list is fine because, as far as you know, there's no discernible difference between the way Rondo plays and the way those players played?

I just assumed the list had the height cutoff at 6-3 to eliminate Kidd as a comparison. Much better to compare Rondo to Marbury, a shoot first guard with a lack of dedication who was likely a drug addict throughout his career.

  Obviously he's tailoring his list or some reason. Couple that with a nebulous term like "athletically dependent" and he can include or exclude anyone he wants. Including Rondo, who's "athletically dependent" because he'll be unable to do things he was capable of doing while recovering from a knee injury if he slows down a little as he ages. Nothing to see here...

Wall, Westbrook, etc. are other players that are athletically dependent and will also suffer as they get older/lose that athleticism. Other types of players, with strong shooting skillsets, tend to age better as history has shown. Your Rondo love is so strong that it blinds you from being slightly objective. Put down the pom pom's for one thread, man.

   At some point in time you should think about growing up a little and dispense with the childish insults every time someone notices one of the largish holes in your arguments.

  As for your main point, you've claimed that Rondo's athletically dependent but you haven't shown it. You've claimed it will stop him from getting past his man. If that's the case, why don't you explain why he was able to get into the lane so much last year, even though he was recovering from a knee injury? Why don't you explain why his best skills (vision and passing) will suddenly be rendered useless if he loses a half a step? Because trying to convince people that he's the same kind of player as AI or Francis or KJ isn't working.

  It makes more sense to compare him to other players who share his best skill than people who don't. Look at players like Nash and Stockton. It's true they were good shooters, but they were able to remain effective players when their scoring waned because of their passing. The same will hold true for Rondo, unless you can explain why it won't.

  If you're looking to group Rondo with other point guards, I wouldn't go with size, I'd go with players who were top players at his position despite a lack of scoring. How about point guards that went to 3 or more all-star games without averaging as much as 15 ppg in any of those years? That seems reasonable to me. Because Rondo's been seen among the top pgs in the league for years despite his lack of scoring, and you haven't demonstrated that he'll be less effective at anything other than scoring over the next few years (and that's being generous, you haven't really demonstrated a decrease in scoring either).

So you're really comparing Rondo's game to Stockton's and Nash's? You're kidding, right? It wasn't their scoring that made them effective it was their shooting and overall skill-set. Rondo has the passing, but without the shooting ability to compensate for decreased athleticism I wouldn't want to give him a 5 year deal at his age. Is that beyond reason to suggest? Are my thoughts unsubstantiated? If anything, you suggesting that Rondo's game will age well is only because you're a delusional fan. If he were on another team you'd likely be in agreement. However, we're discussing Rondo, who in your eyes can do no wrong.


Here's how Rondo stacks up to Stockton and Nash. No difference. None at all.

Rondo-
3x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
8x all-star
2 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 3x
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 2x

Stockton-
10x all-star
All NBA 1st team 2x
All NBA 2nd team 6x
All NBA 3rd team 3x

  I'm not comparing Rondo to Nash or Stockton per se, but since you're so excited about this comparison, let's do the same one, for all three players up to the age Rondo was when he had his knee injury:


Rondo-
4x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 1x

Nash-
0x all-star
0 MVP awards
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 0
All NBA 3rd team 0

Stockton-
1x all-star
All NBA 1st team 0
All NBA 2nd team 2x
All NBA 3rd team 0

  Make them the age Rondo was at the end of the season and you add an all-star and all-nba 2nd team to Stockton and an all-star game for Nash. You could also add in all defense, 2 1st team and 2 2nd teams for Rondo, 2 2nd teams for Stockton, nothing for Nash. Why don't you comment on *that* comparison? I can't wait to hear your "unbiased" opinion on it.

Oh, so now you want to compare Rondo at the same age as these players, but conveniently forgetting that Rondo played 1 season in Kentucky while Nash and Stockton played all four years?

  It's much fairer than comparing their entire careers. But go ahead and start the comparison at the age Stockton and Nash were when they entered the league. Little if anything will change. But still, after you were so smug about comparing their career achievements, I'd still like to hear your unbiased commentary on the same comparison at Rondo's age.

Again, listen to yourself. Be objective. Try it out for a change. Nash was behind Kidd in Phoenix and Stockton was stellar from the start. Those players achieved much more than Rondo and to even be putting him in the conversation of two of the all time greats borders on blasphemy. But again, you're that horse that won't drink the water. Firmly enriched that Rondo is to be compared with the greats, when he has difficulty ranking in top 10 at present.
[/quote]

  I'm guessing you think I'm not objective because you're not very knowledgeable about what we're talking about. Nash was behind Kidd in Phoenix, for his first two years in the league. What about the next 3 in Dallas when he wasn't making any all-star games or all-nba teams? And Stockton was so stellar from the start that it he couldn't beat out an aging Ricky Green for the starting pg spot until he was in his 4th year.

  You're talking about me being firmly entrenched and intractable, but listen to yourself. You started this conversation, lording Nash and Stockton's achievements over anyone who disagreed with you. But you pretty much have a conniption fit when a more apples to apples comparison is made (the same comparison, mind you). You'd rather chew glass than admit the fairly obvious point that Rondo had achieved more than either of them at the same age, or take any stance on any point other than "those guys are Gods and Rondo's crap". The fact that you consider yourself to be at all unbiased is fairly sad.

  By the way, you can stop frothing at the mouth. Nobody in this thread has said Rondo's going to have a better career than Nash or Stockton. But, again, don't make these comparisons in the first place if you're going to flip out if the numbers don't go the way you expected them to.