Not only is Paul better than Rondo, I think he's significantly so. Rondo is a top five PG, but there's still a large gap between the two players. I expect there will be until Rondo becomes a competent shooter on his jumper and free throws. Paul is also more consistent in terms of bringing his "A" game.
But what if you put Rondo on a team without the big three so he's more of a focal point of the offense? If he's getting 18-19 points and 11 or so assists and Paul's getting 21/11 with Rondo still playing great defense and rebounding well is it still a significant gap? Also, it's a lot easier to appear to bring your "A" game more often if you're the focus of the offense every night.
Paul's a better free throw shooter, which is important. But while he's clearly a better outside shooter Rondo seems to be much better at getting to the hoop. One stretches the floor, but the other can be devastating, as the Cavs will tell you.
and if you are the focus of your offense, you are also the focus of the defense and thus are double teamed more often and the guys guarding you are brining their "A" game.
I see this in every discussion about Rondo but it doesn't really happen. When Rondo's been a bigger part of the offense (mainly due to injuries) he's picked up his scoring without any dropoff in his scoring efficiency.
Paul is better then Rondo. It isn't close, you seem to acknowledge this, but yet seem to argue you'd still rather have Rondo which really doesn't make any sense.
Paul may be better than Rondo but it's probably closer than you think. Again, put Paul on the Celts and his numbers will drop. Put Rondo on a team without the big three and his numbers go up. Put him on a team with 2-3 younger/more athletic players that are good in the transition game and he's in the argument for the best pg in the league.
Oh, and you also have to factor in Paul's injury history, and the fact that Rondo's still improving.
