"Sometimes the best team doesn't win"

[Birdbrain]

The funniest thing is that Tony Parkers career is very similar to Rondo’s. And claiming that he’s overrated because he’s playing with a good team...

Tony look around, everything your saying has been said about you.

Actually, I agree with this, though I don't know if you are looking at it the way I am.  Both point guards wouldn't be able to make a team a championship level squad as "the man" like a Deron Williams or Steve Nash would, but both players are stars that happen to have great players around them, which imo makes them.  Now Rondo is by far a better passer and rebounder than Parker, but Parker is a better shooter and is/was a better scorer.  I also will give him that Williams and Paul are more of a challenge to guard.  LA isn't putting Kobe on him to shut Rajon down but to put Kobe on the weakest outside offensive player so he doesn't expand as much energy on that side of the court.  

However I could care what Parker has to say.  I feel the Celtics are the better team and have proven it thus far with who they've beat in the playoffs.  

Steve Nash and Deron Williams have never made anyone a championship team as "the man" either.

Maybe I'm off, but I see Steve Nash (today) to be pretty spectacular.  I recognize he has mileage, but if we had Nash over Rondo I think we'd be unstoppable offensively.

And we're going to start rebuilding pretty soon anyhow.

Any team can lose on a given night.  In many regards it's a game of statistics.  Roll poorly too many times and you're out, regardless of how good you are.  (0-13??)

I think it's fair to argue that Rondo is better than Tony Parker.  I do not think so about Deron Williams or Steve Nash (barring future projection).

Anyway, off work, good luck tonight!

  If the Suns made it to the finals most people would have seen pg as a big matchup in out favor.

Ultimately, I think this is a tough argument, since both of these players are perfect fits for their teams.  I think Rondo is nearly perfect for what the C's need.  He brings them the defense, rebounding, and passing that they really need from that position, and because they have so many other shooters, his lack of shooting is not that important.  

And Nash is the same way.  They win by outscoring their opponent, and Nash is absolutely perfect at running the show on that team.  His combination of ballhandling, shooting, and passing drives that team to be much better than they would be without him.

I think if you put Nash on the Celtics, they would be worse, and if you put Rondo on the Suns, they would be worse (he cannot single-handedly make them a defensive team, and his offense is not good enough without a better outside shot to outscore anyone).

To me, Rondo and Nash are both on the same level of flawed star.  Meaning they are just below that top tier, because they have a flaw that can be exploited, particularly if they do not have players around them to hide that weakness.

The biggest difference between Rondo and Nash's careers is that the Celtics have been able to hide Rondo's weakness by surrounding him with shooters and skilled offensive players, so even if he is not able to attack the rim and break down the defense, they can still survive offensively, and allow him to be effective on defense and fast breaks.  The Suns on the other hand have not hid Nash's weakness.  Instead, they built a team weakness around it, and it has been their achilles heal.  If they surrounded Nash with guys who can play defense the way the C's play offense around Rondo, they would be great as well.  But since they haven't, he is stuck in (relative) mediocrity.

And lets be clear, this is not to bash Rondo.  There are maybe 3-4 players in the league who are good enough, and have a complete enough game to not fall in this category (or lower), but I think this shows how well this team was put together.

Thank the Heavens he's only 24 and he has chance to get better. 

[BballTim]

To me, Rondo and Nash are both on the same level of flawed star.  Meaning they are just below that top tier, because they have a flaw that can be exploited, particularly if they do not have players around them to hide that weakness.

  I'm also curious if you would put other point guards who don't shoot from the outside any better than Rondo in that same "flawed star" category. How about HOFers like Magic and DJ?

[Chris]

To me, Rondo and Nash are both on the same level of flawed star.  Meaning they are just below that top tier, because they have a flaw that can be exploited, particularly if they do not have players around them to hide that weakness.

  I'm also curious if you would put other point guards who don't shoot from the outside any better than Rondo in that same "flawed star" category. How about HOFers like Magic and DJ?

DJ?  Absolutely.  Magic?  No. 

That is for a few reasons.  First, Magic was a better shooter than Rondo.  He also was an excellent free throw shooter.  He also had more weapons than Rondo because of his size compared to other PG's.  And finally, his flaw was not nearly as easy to exploit, mainly because the game was different when he played.  Defenses were not as advanced as they are now, and zones were not allowed.  The way some teams defend Rondo would have been illegal defense. 

But I think DJ is a fair comparison.  While I think Rondo still has a little ways to go to be on DJ's level (and I think he will ultimately surpass him), I think they are similar in that they both are very good to great players, but they are not the elite stars. 

I don't think there are many people who would put DJ on the same plane as Magic and Bird.  And I don't think you can put Rondo on the same plane as Lebron and Kobe. 

[Bankshot]

LOL at Tony Parker.  He's obviously jealous of Rondo and the Celtics.

Parker does have more jewelry than Rondo. Maybe Rondo trash talked him during a game or something and he took it personally.

I think he's jealous of Rondo because people are debating whether Rondo is in the top 3 or 5 point guards and Parker has barely been mentioned in that class.  And if Rondo gets another ring....

[Jon]

In basketball, the best team seldom loses.  Unlike baseball, where the best teams only win about 60% of their games, in basketball it isn't uncommon to see the best teams win 75-80%.  I mean the C's had a subpar year and won 50 games.  Double that over an 162 game baseball season, and you have 100 wins, something the Sox have yet to do with this current team.  

In football, teams can do that, but it's a 1 game playoff, meaning anyone can win.  The Patriots certainly weren't the better team in '02 and the Giants weren't the better team in '08.  The only time I can think of in the past 30 years where the vastly better team didn't win was in '04 when the Pistons beat the Lakers.  Other than that, the best team (or darn close to the best team) has won every year in my opinion.  

[Simulacra]

In basketball, the best team seldom loses.  Unlike baseball, where the best teams only win about 60% of their games, in basketball it isn't uncommon to see the best teams win 75-80%.  I mean the C's had a subpar year and won 50 games.  Double that over an 162 game baseball season, and you have 100 wins, something the Sox have yet to do with this current team.  

In football, teams can do that, but it's a 1 game playoff, meaning anyone can win.  The Patriots certainly weren't the better team in '02 and the Giants weren't the better team in '08.  The only time I can think of in the past 30 years where the vastly better team didn't win was in '04 when the Pistons beat the Lakers.  Other than that, the best team (or darn close to the best team) has won every year in my opinion.  

Isnt the NHL similar in terms of that if a goalie gets hot the team can ride that? Thats why 3-0 isn't a given series win. That was at least my perspective when talks of the Cs blowing their lead against Orlando was brought up. That it had no chance of being like the Bruins this year, you cant ride one hot player as was evidenced in game 5.

Sometimes as well I think that much like the O-line and D-line in NFL games you can tell which team is going to win in the NBA by how they dominate the line of scrimmage. In this case its defense and rebounding as the series progresses. Ive been pretty confident since game 2 the Cs would win this series when I look at the games from this perspective. The Lakers have had a lack of will on the defensive end especially in the fourth quarter.

Will is the intangible that makes a team or a player, the best. I think someone alluded to talent as being the word Tony is looking for which is skill without will and I understand his line of logic, but to me will and imposing it is a perhaps the most important talent in regards to championship success. Plenty of talented guys lighting it up on playground courts around the world that will never be on a grand stage making fat loot due to a lack of will. Parker is an idiot if he thinks otherwise.

Tonight's game is really going to come down to if someone other than Kobe possess this trait, I didn't believe the Lakers had this characteristic before this series and I haven't seen it yet. And I don't believe I will.

[JBone4eva]

Tony is salty because Rondo has a great opportunity to do what he did, in winning two rings within his first 4 years in the league.

I think he's very aware of that, and the fact that their situations are very similar.

[wiley]

In basketball, the best team seldom loses.  Unlike baseball, where the best teams only win about 60% of their games, in basketball it isn't uncommon to see the best teams win 75-80%.  I mean the C's had a subpar year and won 50 games.  Double that over an 162 game baseball season, and you have 100 wins, something the Sox have yet to do with this current team.  

In football, teams can do that, but it's a 1 game playoff, meaning anyone can win.  The Patriots certainly weren't the better team in '02 and the Giants weren't the better team in '08.  The only time I can think of in the past 30 years where the vastly better team didn't win was in '04 when the Pistons beat the Lakers.  Other than that, the best team (or darn close to the best team) has won every year in my opinion.  

You said that once before about that Pistons team not being as good as that Laker team.....I wonder what makes you feel that way....

Sheed and Ben Wallace in their prime.  Billups in his prime.  And Prince and Hamilton.  A team that won a ton of games year after year.....(their cockiness caused them not to repeat imo, not their skill level).  Rarely have I seen a team move the ball and play 100 percent team ball as that Piston's team, which is backed up by them having no (1?) all starts when they won it....To meet it seems like you're looking at their rosters on paper and deciding who was better, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.....

Sorry if you've aready explained it before but just wondering if you could clarify....

[BballTim]

To me, Rondo and Nash are both on the same level of flawed star.  Meaning they are just below that top tier, because they have a flaw that can be exploited, particularly if they do not have players around them to hide that weakness.

  I'm also curious if you would put other point guards who don't shoot from the outside any better than Rondo in that same "flawed star" category. How about HOFers like Magic and DJ?

DJ?  Absolutely.  Magic?  No. 

That is for a few reasons.  First, Magic was a better shooter than Rondo.  He also was an excellent free throw shooter.  He also had more weapons than Rondo because of his size compared to other PG's.  And finally, his flaw was not nearly as easy to exploit, mainly because the game was different when he played.  Defenses were not as advanced as they are now, and zones were not allowed.  The way some teams defend Rondo would have been illegal defense. 

But I think DJ is a fair comparison.  While I think Rondo still has a little ways to go to be on DJ's level (and I think he will ultimately surpass him), I think they are similar in that they both are very good to great players, but they are not the elite stars. 

I don't think there are many people who would put DJ on the same plane as Magic and Bird.  And I don't think you can put Rondo on the same plane as Lebron and Kobe. 

  Magic was a better free throw shooter than Rondo clearly. But he wasn't really a better outside shooter until he was older. It's true that they didn't play zones back then but it's also true that teams frequently left Magic alone when he didn't have the ball. It did affect the offense, just not as much.

  Beyond that, while I disagree with your claim that Rondo can't carry a team, I'd agree with the statement that Rondo's not on a plane with Kobe and LeBron.

[Fafnir]

The Suns on the other hand have not hid Nash's weakness.  Instead, they built a team weakness around it, and it has been their achilles heal.  If they surrounded Nash with guys who can play defense the way the C's play offense around Rondo, they would be great as well.  But since they haven't, he is stuck in (relative) mediocrity.

This is true of this year's Suns team, but back when the Suns had Raj Bell and Shawn Marion (and those players were younger) they hid Nash on defense very effectively.

Mike D'Antoni's Suns teams weren't nearly as bad on defense as their reputation indicated.

[openairmovie]

Listen....ill care about what Tony Parker has to say about the celtics when we are facing Tony Parker  but since we are not  Tony Parker, Dewayne Wade, Magic Johnson, Eric Montross, Leon "POW", and especially Charles Barkley's opinions mean NOTHING to me so ESPN should keep these losers off the air because it does nothing and in all honesty the only people that care about what he has to say is people from Texas

[Jon]

In basketball, the best team seldom loses.  Unlike baseball, where the best teams only win about 60% of their games, in basketball it isn't uncommon to see the best teams win 75-80%.  I mean the C's had a subpar year and won 50 games.  Double that over an 162 game baseball season, and you have 100 wins, something the Sox have yet to do with this current team.  

In football, teams can do that, but it's a 1 game playoff, meaning anyone can win.  The Patriots certainly weren't the better team in '02 and the Giants weren't the better team in '08.  The only time I can think of in the past 30 years where the vastly better team didn't win was in '04 when the Pistons beat the Lakers.  Other than that, the best team (or darn close to the best team) has won every year in my opinion.  

You said that once before about that Pistons team not being as good as that Laker team.....I wonder what makes you feel that way....

Sheed and Ben Wallace in their prime.  Billups in his prime.  And Prince and Hamilton.  A team that won a ton of games year after year.....(their cockiness caused them not to repeat imo, not their skill level).  Rarely have I seen a team move the ball and play 100 percent team ball as that Piston's team, which is backed up by them having no (1?) all starts when they won it....To meet it seems like you're looking at their rosters on paper and deciding who was better, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.....

Sorry if you've aready explained it before but just wondering if you could clarify....

Don't get me wrong, I loved that team and cheered heartily for them to win.  However, I don't think they have the star power to stack up with the other great teams of the past 30 years.  Yes, this year is proving that you don't have to have the best team to win the NBA title; however, let's not overlook that the C's have three first ballot Hall of Famers plus Rondo.  Is there even anyone on that Piston's team that belongs in the Hall of Fame?  I think there's a definite argument for Billups and Wallace, but I'd hardly say it's a done deal (Wallace had a heck of a run for a few years, but he was a late bloomer and dropped off quickly...only 4 All Star teams).  

I also think they took advantage of a very, very weak Eastern Conference, and even then they only made it out twice, losing to good, but not great NJ team in '03, a much weaker Cleveland team than we saw in '08 or '10 in '06, Miami in '07 and to us in '08.  Once the East started getting elite teams, it became clear they couldn't really keep up.  

Also, let's not forget that that LA team had Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton.  The problem was that the team never gelled.  However, I think it's safe to say that they're the stronger team.  

I liked that Detroit team, as I said above, they played in many ways like we play now. I think in many ways they were a less talented version of our team this year.  

However, I really feel had they been in the Western Conference, they would've had trouble making in out of the first or second round most years and likely never would've won a title.  

[Yakmanev]

You don't have to have the best team to win. You just have to have the team that plays the best basketball. And there is a difference.

[wiley]

In basketball, the best team seldom loses.  Unlike baseball, where the best teams only win about 60% of their games, in basketball it isn't uncommon to see the best teams win 75-80%.  I mean the C's had a subpar year and won 50 games.  Double that over an 162 game baseball season, and you have 100 wins, something the Sox have yet to do with this current team.  

In football, teams can do that, but it's a 1 game playoff, meaning anyone can win.  The Patriots certainly weren't the better team in '02 and the Giants weren't the better team in '08.  The only time I can think of in the past 30 years where the vastly better team didn't win was in '04 when the Pistons beat the Lakers.  Other than that, the best team (or darn close to the best team) has won every year in my opinion.  

You said that once before about that Pistons team not being as good as that Laker team.....I wonder what makes you feel that way....

Sheed and Ben Wallace in their prime.  Billups in his prime.  And Prince and Hamilton.  A team that won a ton of games year after year.....(their cockiness caused them not to repeat imo, not their skill level).  Rarely have I seen a team move the ball and play 100 percent team ball as that Piston's team, which is backed up by them having no (1?) all starts when they won it....To meet it seems like you're looking at their rosters on paper and deciding who was better, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.....

Sorry if you've aready explained it before but just wondering if you could clarify....

Don't get me wrong, I loved that team and cheered heartily for them to win.  However, I don't think they have the star power to stack up with the other great teams of the past 30 years.  Yes, this year is proving that you don't have to have the best team to win the NBA title; however, let's not overlook that the C's have three first ballot Hall of Famers plus Rondo.  Is there even anyone on that Piston's team that belongs in the Hall of Fame?  I think there's a definite argument for Billups and Wallace, but I'd hardly say it's a done deal (Wallace had a heck of a run for a few years, but he was a late bloomer and dropped off quickly...only 4 All Star teams).  

I also think they took advantage of a very, very weak Eastern Conference, and even then they only made it out twice, losing to good, but not great NJ team in '03, a much weaker Cleveland team than we saw in '08 or '10 in '06, Miami in '07 and to us in '08.  Once the East started getting elite teams, it became clear they couldn't really keep up.  

Also, let's not forget that that LA team had Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton.  The problem was that the team never gelled.  However, I think it's safe to say that they're the stronger team.  

I liked that Detroit team, as I said above, they played in many ways like we play now. I think in many ways they were a less talented version of our team this year.  

However, I really feel had they been in the Western Conference, they would've had trouble making in out of the first or second round most years and likely never would've won a title.  

Hmmmm...Thanks for the reply I guess I disagree about that team...I think they didn't repeat due to boredom/overconfidence/fat and happiness way too soon, and in the end they'd just been together too long to keep it going....and I think the Celtics are clearly the best team in the league during these playoffs.  Cavs and Orlando in 6, and the games won by the Lakers represented a brand of basketball that is unwatchable...kind of aberration almost....

[BballTim]

 Yes, this year is proving that you don't have to have the best team to win the NBA title;

  No, it isn't.