nate is much better than rondo

[CelticHooligan3]

stats shows that nate played a few minutes per game that s why we cannot compare nate with rondo-  but thanks to him we beat orlando- if he plays as a starter he will be much better than rondo
for me rondo is overrated

Nate had a couple of okay games in the playoffs.  Rondo was a huge reason why we got past Cleveland, and why we beat Chicago in last year's playoffs.  He's gotten it done over entire seasons, and then the playoffs.  Nate has shined only in spots.

Question:  if Nate is as good as you think, why did the Knicks dump him for Eddie House and Bill Walker?

I'm one of Nates biggest supporters but this post is just silly. Nates a better shooter and pure scorer than Rondo and that's about it. You need a lot more than that from your point guard. And that's why I think Nates in the perfect situation for himself. He is a better passer than most on this board think he is (I've seen him make some inlet passes where kg had his man completely sealed off and just layed the ball in. So I know the ability there it's just a matter of focus and execution) but that's just not his game. He's most dangerous when you take
 the reigns off and let him free lance a little. He plays at a frenetic pace that is hard to keep up with and match energy wise. In short spurts that's ideal for a backup one. His defense has greatly improved from what it once was on the Knicks. And that's what's gonna get him on the floor. A training camp will really help him even more I think. His defense will hopefully improve even more.

To get to your point Mr. Hobbs  I think Nate was given away for pennies on the dollar basically because he didn't see eye to eye with coach Mike D'Antoni and had become a disruption. Who's shoulders that breakdown in communication falls on is anyones guess. I've heard a mixed reaction and both sides finger pointing. But he was also on the last year of his deal so i think the knicks expected him to chase the money in free agency but instead he stayed. That to me shows maturity and intelligence to recognize this is the best situation for your career but not neccasarilly the most monetary value. His strength is he always plays with a chip on his shoulder or little man syndrome. And it's helped him succeed at this level. I love that fire and passion from players and I think it will ultimately give him the edge this upcoming season to prove all his doubters wrong. Keep an eye open for those Knicks games. I'm expecting fireworks!

[EJPLAYA]

rondo shooting percentaje is under 40%

Rondo actually shoots over 50% from the field, and led all point guards in FG% last year.  His jump shot needs significant work, but as an overall shooter, he's very efficient.

if doc can trust nate as he trusts rondo- nate will be even better

Roy, obviously Rajon is a lot better player than Nate, however I disagree with your comment that as an overall shooter he is very efficient. As an overall shooter he is HORRIBLE. He probably hits about 30% of his outside shots (too lazy to look it up). Horrible #. That puts him at only hitting about 65% of his layups to get to that 50% #. That is also a horrible percentage point blank at the rim. A good buddy of mine, who was a phenomenal pg in his day, has made comments to me the last couple years asking why Rondo misses so many layups. I agree. He is so concerned with not getting fouled and sent to the line that he goes away from contact and ends up taking a much harder shot which lowers his percentage. Sure he will come up with a highlight reel layup with some serious spin on it off the glass most nights, but there are 3-4 that he misses too because he wouldn't go all the way to the rim/backboard.

I think that every other part of Rondo's game is either excellent or above average, however his shooting efficiency isn't even close.

Again, he ranked #1 among all point guards, so he must be doing *something* right; he can't be "horrible" as both an outside shooter and a finisher, and still lead the league overall.

Rondo's shots are split about 50/50 between jump shots and inside shots.  He hits only 37.4% of his jumpers (poor to very poor) but he makes 64.4% of his inside shots (excellent).  For perspective, that inside shooting percentage is higher than that of Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, or Tony Parker (the four penetrating point guards I looked up.)

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

[ozman]

i love Nate, he could be a starter elsewhere just not on a contender. I agree his passing is much under rated, and we all know he can score the ball. But his defense is average. Its not from a lack of effort, he definitely tries on defense. Obviously he is not going to learn anything on defense in New York, and his size doesn't help. Maybe under the Celtics, with a full pre season his defense will improve.

is he, will he ever be better then rondo? no

[BballTim]

rondo shooting percentaje is under 40%

Rondo actually shoots over 50% from the field, and led all point guards in FG% last year.  His jump shot needs significant work, but as an overall shooter, he's very efficient.

if doc can trust nate as he trusts rondo- nate will be even better

Roy, obviously Rajon is a lot better player than Nate, however I disagree with your comment that as an overall shooter he is very efficient. As an overall shooter he is HORRIBLE. He probably hits about 30% of his outside shots (too lazy to look it up). Horrible #. That puts him at only hitting about 65% of his layups to get to that 50% #. That is also a horrible percentage point blank at the rim. A good buddy of mine, who was a phenomenal pg in his day, has made comments to me the last couple years asking why Rondo misses so many layups. I agree. He is so concerned with not getting fouled and sent to the line that he goes away from contact and ends up taking a much harder shot which lowers his percentage. Sure he will come up with a highlight reel layup with some serious spin on it off the glass most nights, but there are 3-4 that he misses too because he wouldn't go all the way to the rim/backboard.

I think that every other part of Rondo's game is either excellent or above average, however his shooting efficiency isn't even close.

  Rondo's got one of the highest inside shooting percentages of any point guard in the league. Ask your friend if he ever took it to the rim against nba centers. It's probably a little harder than he realizes.

[arctic 3.0]

funny!
haven't seen a thread this amusing since high5forlife waxed poetic about gerald green.

[banty19]

Props to anybody even giving this troll the time of day.

[CelticHooligan3]

Well I'm one of Nates biggest fans and even I think the whole concept is rubbish. It's not even worth the debate but any Nate topic I gotta post and put my two cents in. Gotta love a little man with the "syndrome".

[RAcker]

I go away for 24 hours and this is what happens?

[EJPLAYA]

rondo shooting percentaje is under 40%

Rondo actually shoots over 50% from the field, and led all point guards in FG% last year.  His jump shot needs significant work, but as an overall shooter, he's very efficient.

if doc can trust nate as he trusts rondo- nate will be even better

Roy, obviously Rajon is a lot better player than Nate, however I disagree with your comment that as an overall shooter he is very efficient. As an overall shooter he is HORRIBLE. He probably hits about 30% of his outside shots (too lazy to look it up). Horrible #. That puts him at only hitting about 65% of his layups to get to that 50% #. That is also a horrible percentage point blank at the rim. A good buddy of mine, who was a phenomenal pg in his day, has made comments to me the last couple years asking why Rondo misses so many layups. I agree. He is so concerned with not getting fouled and sent to the line that he goes away from contact and ends up taking a much harder shot which lowers his percentage. Sure he will come up with a highlight reel layup with some serious spin on it off the glass most nights, but there are 3-4 that he misses too because he wouldn't go all the way to the rim/backboard.

I think that every other part of Rondo's game is either excellent or above average, however his shooting efficiency isn't even close.

  Rondo's got one of the highest inside shooting percentages of any point guard in the league. Ask your friend if he ever took it to the rim against nba centers. It's probably a little harder than he realizes.

It is when you are scared of getting contact that will send you to the free throw line.

As far as that line goes, a 5'9" pg in college taking it up against 6'10" guys isn't that big of a drop off of Rondo taking it in the lane against NBA guys. You either have the confidence in your free throws or you don't. Justifiably Rondo doesn't, but that leads to him taking tougher shots or just not going to the basket like we saw a lot in the Finals.

[jarufu]

Nate is much better than Rondo . . .

- at making a cheese souffle
- and then he wakes up
- at walking in heels
- on my xbox
- at being under 6 feet tall

Etc

[Roy H.]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

[StartOrien]

Nate is much better than Rondo . . .

- at making a cheese souffle

Whoa, Rondo's last Fondew party disagrees

[scaryjerry]

The more I think of it, the more I realize this has to be a disguised Derrick Rose fan.

Anyways, yeah i'm sure Nate could barely find the court until late in the eastern conference finals, because doc knows hes better than rondo

[Prof. Clutch]

funny!
haven't seen a thread this amusing since high5forlife waxed poetic about gerald green.

"waxed poetic" is certainly one description for High54life's unyielding support of Gerald.   

[Fafnir]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.