Would you trade Rondo for Griffin straight up?

[Celtics4ever]

Russell played with better bigs than Rodman therefore he has less chance to haul in a larger percentage.   So of course, Rodman will have a higher percentage of team rebounds because aside from Pippen his bigs sucked at rebounding.  These are career averages.

Hiensohn at 8.8 ( 5.9 adjusted to present time possessions per game)RPG  smokes Luke Longley's 4.9 ( 7 adjusted to 1960 possesions per game).   Both Pippen and Jordan were good rebounders for their positions  6.2 (8.9) RPG for Jordan and 7.6 (10.9) RPG for Pippen.  But a lot of Celtics were this good rebounders from their era, Havlicek was 6.3 (4.2) RPG, Sanders was 9.4  6.3 adjusted) RPG, Sam Jones 6.4 (4.3) RPG, Cousy was 5.2 (3.5) RPG.  In fact, both teams  were awesome team rebounders.   But Bigs have an decided advantage at rebounding as they are closer to ball more often than not.  Rodman's other bigs during the Bulls era were duds aside from Pippen.  You can't say that of Russell who had competent rebounders all around him.  Its far easier to compile stats when others around you can't perform.

All Rodman had to do was rebound and defend one big.  He wasn't the center of the team defense that Bill Russell had to be all the time.   Rodman was great, I don't argue that, but I think many simply discount the past.

[BballTim]

Russell played with better bigs than Rodman therefore he has less chance to haul in a larger percentage.   So of course, Rodman will have a higher percentage of team rebounds because aside from Pippen his bigs sucked at rebounding.  These are career averages.

Hiensohn at 8.8 ( 5.9 adjusted to present time possessions per game)RPG  smokes Luke Longley's 4.9 ( 7 adjusted to 1960 possesions per game).   Both Pippen and Jordan were good rebounders for their positions  6.2 (8.9) RPG for Jordan and 7.6 (10.9) RPG for Pippen.  But a lot of Celtics were this good rebounders from their era, Havlicek was 6.3 (4.2) RPG, Sanders was 9.4  6.3 adjusted) RPG, Sam Jones 6.4 (4.3) RPG, Cousy was 5.2 (3.5) RPG.  In fact, both teams  were awesome team rebounders.   But Bigs have an decided advantage at rebounding as they are closer to ball more often than not.  Rodman's other bigs during the Bulls era were duds aside from Pippen.  You can't say that of Russell who had competent rebounders all around him.  Its far easier to compile stats when others around you can't perform.

All Rodman had to do was rebound and defend one big.  He wasn't the center of the team defense that Bill Russell had to be all the time.   Rodman was great, I don't argue that, but I think many simply discount the past.

  Rodman got a significantly larger percentage of the available rebounds than Russell ever did when he was playing in Detroit with players like Laimbeer, Polynice and Terry Mills. He did the same thing in San Antonio playing with David Robinson and Terry Cummings.

  I'm not discounting what Russell did. I'm not saying Rodman is anywhere near the player Russ was. Rodman won two DPOY awards and was almost always 1st team all-defense, and I'm not saying he was anywhere near the defender that Russell was. But you're completely discounting how good a rebounder was. Again, the 2nd best player in rebounding rate over the last 40 years is closer to 12th place than first, and he had multiple seasons that were much better than anything that's been done since they started keeping the stats. His best rebounding rate looks like it's close to 50% better than Russell's was in his best rebounding year.

 

[KCattheStripe]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another.  

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together.  

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

that would be a dumb trade.

[Celtics Fan]

No because Griff can't run the point bro straight up. He is nice and all but naw, I pass.

[PosImpos]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another. 

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together. 

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

Doesn't have to be, but it helps.  If Gasol wasn't better than Kobe in the playoffs this last year they wouldn't have beaten us.  In '08 Gasol was worse than Kobe and they lost to us. 

[Mogreen17]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another. 

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together. 

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

Doesn't have to be, but it helps.  If Gasol wasn't better than Kobe in the playoffs this last year they wouldn't have beaten us.  In '08 Gasol was worse than Kobe and they lost to us. 

Very true. This can open up a whole new argument about KG vs Griffin. The immediate response would be that Griffin is no match for KG on the defensive end. However offensively, it could be a toss-up at this point.

When do we play the Clips? 

[Celtics4ever]

Who is the Bulls great PG?   Ron Harper?  Because he was marginal as a PG.  Pippen played point forward, correct?   So a great PG is not something you need always.   Dennis Johnson, and I love him dearly was not a pure PG.

I think all this talk of Blake winning a title is premature.   Up to now beside the 40+ game all he has done is dunk a lot.  I think he has oodles of potential. But he has done it largely on one end of the floor.

But the fact is you need a team to win a title.  Not a good big, not a good PG but a team.  Those PG and bigs are components of a good team.  I think all good title teams played solid defense.  I think that is more important than the PG or C.  There is no set formula folks.   Jordan had no team with post offense really unless he was posting up.  A team will always beat a few good players just ask LeBron.

[BballTim]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another. 

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together. 

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

Doesn't have to be, but it helps.  If Gasol wasn't better than Kobe in the playoffs this last year they wouldn't have beaten us.  In '08 Gasol was worse than Kobe and they lost to us. 

  Gasol had some good games and some bad games last year. Ray was 22-42 on threes in 2008, 12-41 last year. That was probably a bigger factor.

[Moranis]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another. 

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together. 

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

Doesn't have to be, but it helps.  If Gasol wasn't better than Kobe in the playoffs this last year they wouldn't have beaten us.  In '08 Gasol was worse than Kobe and they lost to us. 

  Gasol had some good games and some bad games last year. Ray was 22-42 on threes in 2008, 12-41 last year. That was probably a bigger factor.

bynum actually played last year, he didn't play at all in 2008.  That was the biggest factor.

[Fafnir]

bynum actually played last year, he didn't play at all in 2008.  That was the biggest factor.

KG's decline compared to the title year was bigger than both of those.

[BballTim]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another. 

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together. 

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

Doesn't have to be, but it helps.  If Gasol wasn't better than Kobe in the playoffs this last year they wouldn't have beaten us.  In '08 Gasol was worse than Kobe and they lost to us. 

  Gasol had some good games and some bad games last year. Ray was 22-42 on threes in 2008, 12-41 last year. That was probably a bigger factor.

bynum actually played last year, he didn't play at all in 2008.  That was the biggest factor.

  Didn't we win the game (or games) that Bynum was most productive?

[Moranis]

I absolutely hate the argument that one position is more important than another. 

You know what wins championship?  Having players that are better than the other teams players, and players who fit well together. 

Whether your best player is a PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, it doesn't really matter.  What matters is how much better is that player than the other teams best player, and how good are the players you have at the other positions compared to the other teams.

Yes and no.  I'm not sure that position matters all that much in terms of a team's best player.  I think that history shows that dominant players, regardless of position, can win championships.  PGs (Magic, Isiah), SGs (Jordan, Kobe), SFs (Larry), PFs (Duncan, etc.), or Cs (Shaq, Hakeem, etc.) can all be the best players on their championship teams.

However, I do think that historically it's very important to have a very good big man if you want to win.  The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years without an all-star caliber big man was the first Bulls three-peat squad.  Even in that case, I think Horace Grant probably was a better player than a lot of the PGs who have won titles.

I don't think your all NBA big has to be your best player, you just have to have one. look at Gasol with Kobe.

Doesn't have to be, but it helps.  If Gasol wasn't better than Kobe in the playoffs this last year they wouldn't have beaten us.  In '08 Gasol was worse than Kobe and they lost to us. 

  Gasol had some good games and some bad games last year. Ray was 22-42 on threes in 2008, 12-41 last year. That was probably a bigger factor.

bynum actually played last year, he didn't play at all in 2008.  That was the biggest factor.

  Didn't we win the game (or games) that Bynum was most productive?

Bynum takes pressure off of Gasol and Odom and greatly strengthens the bench of the Lakers (by putting Odom on it).

[wiley]

I'm surely tied with a few others in the category of biggest Rondo supporter on the blog, but if they call and offer Griffin for Rondo, the answer has to be yes.  Some nights we'd suffer for it, but overall I think we'd come out ahead, especially down the road.  I think we're talking about a bigger Lebron James (fewer ball control skills but who cares, he doesn't need to be PG-like) with a better attitude, intangibles......

Just out of curiosity, would he come off the bench for huge minutes or start next to KG?

[Chris]

bynum actually played last year, he didn't play at all in 2008.  That was the biggest factor.

KG's decline compared to the title year was bigger than both of those.

Agreed.  Basically, Pierce/Allen/Rondo cancelled out Kobe and his crew.  So, it came down to KG versus Gasol.  In 2008, KG won the battle, but in 2010, KG was a shadow of his former self, and Gasol took it.