Appreciate the clarification... I didn't realize, though, that a guy who has a unique skill set is now "polarizing". 
it's not that having a unique skillset necessarily makes you polarizing, but that players like Tebow / Rondo have been polarizing, primarily as a result of their unique skillsets. they defy our expectations of what a good starting player at their position should be / do, and yet they succeed.
there have been arguments made that they are just a product of the team that's around them, and other arguments, equally well made, that they are truly special.
also, i think i'd be a little bit remiss in the context of the NBA if i didn't note that both Rubio and Jimmer are white, and white players in the NBA that succeed, especially despite a lack of athleticism or defensive ability, tend to be polarizing (kevin love, steve nash are recent examples).
Who said Rubio can't play defense?
Btw, there are plenty of black players who can shoot but can't play defense like Jimmer. Perhaps the problem is the frequency at which white players fit that description.
i never said rubio can't play defense, just that's it's unclear at this point if he can or not.
as for the white / black thing, i never said it was rational or fair, but i do think people are quicker to write off white athletes who are all offense and no defense, especially if they aren't especially athletic.
kevin love and blake griffin both played on losing teams last year that weren't very good offensively or defensively, and they both put up gaudy stats, but only kevin love gets labeled as a product of the lack of talent around him. the main difference between blake and k-love? griffin is the most spectacular dunker in the league, and love plays below the rim.