Would you trade Rondo for Griffin straight up?

[PosImpos]

Having a great big man is more likely to lead to success because baskets inside are the highest efficiency shots you can take.  If you have a guy on your team who can get 20-25 points in the paint at a high percentage (50+) every single game, you are in a great position to win.  On top of that, if you have a great rebounder, you get more chances to score and your opponent gets fewer chances.

Basketball is a pretty simple game...whoever gets the most chances to shoot the ball and also shoots it with efficiency is probably going to win, and no type of player makes it easier to do those two things than a dominant big man.

Transcendent point guards are great, but the fact is this is becoming more and more a guard-heavy league.  It's always been hard to find great big men, and it is harder now than ever.  It's not that hard to find a point guard who can run things tolerably well.  Also, if you get a great big man, even a merely decent point guard can look great (e.g. Felton). 

So yes, given the chance, I would trade a great point guard for a great big man, even assuming equal talent.  In this case, I don't think there should be any question that Griffin is an all-time talent - a true franchise cornerstone.  Barring major injuries, he should be in the top 10 players in the league, if not top 5 (he may already be top 10).  

I wouldn't be altogether shocked if Rondo never cracked the top 10, due to his being a somewhat limited player.

[KCattheStripe]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

A) Thomas wasn't undisputedly the best player on any of his championship teams, not with Joe D playing right next to him. It wasn't until the last few titles that Magic was even the best player on his team.

  I'm on a conference call and I still chuckled out loud when I read this. Pierce was closer to better than KG than Dumars was to Isaiah, in fact Ray Allen probably was as well.

  Haha, re-reading it, I just noticed the "Magic wasn't the best player on his team" part. I stopped when I saw the Joe D part earlier. Wow.

I'm sorry, Kareem wasn't the reason they won at least the first 3?

[Chris]

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.

[BballTim]

Basketball is a pretty simple game...whoever gets the most chances to shoot the ball and also shoots it with efficiency is probably going to win, and no type of player makes it easier to do those two things than a dominant big man.

  I'd say what goes on at the other end of the court is pretty important as well. I'd have to see a few more of Griffin's games to really say he fits the scoring bill. Does he have a great post game? LeBron scores a ton of points in the paint but that breaks down in the playoffs against good defenses.

[Edgar]

Basketball is a pretty simple game...whoever gets the most chances to shoot the ball and also shoots it with efficiency is probably going to win, and no type of player makes it easier to do those two things than a dominant big man.

  I'd say what goes on at the other end of the court is pretty important as well. I'd have to see a few more of Griffin's games to really say he fits the scoring bill. Does he have a great post game? LeBron scores a ton of points in the paint but that breaks down in the playoffs against good defenses.

He have a fast post game, as long as hes healthy thats enough

and about him playing good defenses , yes he wont be a finals MVP unless he develops a reliable jumpshot... wait thats rondo, wait thats both, wait ahhh you get me.

[BballTim]

Dominant PF's of the last 30 years:

Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
Dennis Rodman
Shawn Kemp ( If Payton counts Kemp has to)

You cannot win a title in the NBA with out an all NBA 4 or 5 unless your team has Michael Jordan. You can, however win with Derek Fischer, a young Rajon Rondo, Sean Elliot, Kenny Smith.

  First of all, in the last 30 years, you've listed one power forward that was the undisputed best player on his team, two if you count KG. Magic and Isaiah match that. Secondly, you're grouping two positions and comparing to one to make your argument. How many teams won without a good-great 1 or 2 on their teams? We've seen fewer of those teams than teams that have won without a dominant power forward. Doesn't that prove a good guard is more important than a goof pf?

Duncan, KG, Barkley were all undisputedly the best player on every team they played on with the exception of the the teams at the tail end of their careers. ( KG and Duncan now, Barkley on the Rockets)

I added in the four because as the game has gotten more athletic in the past 30 years, great PFs have become an interchangeable with great centers in importance.  But the history, and the present, of the NBA tells us that All NBA calibre bigs are infinitely more important to winning championships than All NBA calibre Point Guards.

yes, Tony Parker won a finals MVP, but would that team have made it without Duncan? No. Could they have done it without Parker, probably.

  You listed 6 power forwards that you considered to be dominant in the last 30 years. Four of them never led their team to a title and another of them (KG)never got to the Finals until he was getting into the tail edge of his prime. Rodman won titles, but was never considered the best player on those teams. So, again, 2 power forwards have won titles in the last 30 years as one of the two best players on their teams. An equal number if pgs have done this, more if you like Billups.

A) Thomas wasn't undisputedly the best player on any of his championship teams, not with Joe D playing right next to him. It wasn't until the last few titles that Magic was even the best player on his team.

  I'm on a conference call and I still chuckled out loud when I read this. Pierce was closer to better than KG than Dumars was to Isaiah, in fact Ray Allen probably was as well.

  Haha, re-reading it, I just noticed the "Magic wasn't the best player on his team" part. I stopped when I saw the Joe D part earlier. Wow.

I'm sorry, Kareem wasn't the reason they won at least the first 3?

  Was that the same Kareem that didn't always bother to run up the court and defend? The first one, clearly. By the mid-80s that was *clearly* Magic's team.

[Roy H.]

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.

[BballTim]

Basketball is a pretty simple game...whoever gets the most chances to shoot the ball and also shoots it with efficiency is probably going to win, and no type of player makes it easier to do those two things than a dominant big man.

  I'd say what goes on at the other end of the court is pretty important as well. I'd have to see a few more of Griffin's games to really say he fits the scoring bill. Does he have a great post game? LeBron scores a ton of points in the paint but that breaks down in the playoffs against good defenses.

He have a fast post game, as long as hes healthy thats enough

  According to 82games he takes 41% of his shots in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock and hits 62% of them. After that he hits for about 46%. While he'll probably improve as a player over time, those numbers don't translate well into playoff success.

[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.

  At the minimum you really want to have a very good defensive big man.

[Chris]

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 think in the vast majority of instances you need a very good big man and a very good perimeter player at the very least.  There are always exceptions to every rule (Jordan), but for the most part, there are very few teams that have won a championship without that balance.  

Unless your best player is the best player ever, you really need to have a balanced lineup, and whether you win or not will be based on whether your lineup is better than the other teams.  

The team with the best Big man does not always win, just like the team with the best perimeter player does not always win.  But generally, the team with the best combination does.

[Chris]

As for the original question, I would do that trade in a heartbeat.  Not because Griffin is a big man, and Rondo is a PG, but because Griffin's game is more complete at this stage of his career, I think he will ultimately have fewer holes in his game, and is more likely to be a true superstar.  IMO Rondo still has some major holes in his game that he needs to fill, that would be exploited if he were not surrounded by such good players.

[Celtics4ever]

I think you are selling the athletes of the 60s short.  Bill Russell was 6-9 and a half and had a 48" vertical leap.  He could get quarters off the top of the backboard and his timing was superb.  Wilt high jumped 6 foot 6 inches at 7-2.  His 440 time was 49 seconds so Wilt's.   Dennis Rodman was fast but not that fast and he could jump but not that high.  These guys were surefire HoF first ballot.  Dennis still isn't in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWFsL4Y8RVA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8

Yes the league was more run and gun in the 60's.  Possessions have changed a lot.  A team would have like 152 possessions in the 60's.  Today its in the 105 range for possessions.  Thus taking this into account Bill Russell would have averaged 15.5 RPG and Wilt  15.8 RPG to Rodman's 13.1 RPG.   Taking Dennis back to their era and he would have 18.9  still short of the 22.5 of Russell and 22.9 of Wilt.  He is the best rebounder ever under 6-8.

http://www.insidehoops.com/shooting-121503.shtml

This explains where I got this data.  They shoot about the same percentage as they did back then as today.  43% FG today and 42.6% in the 60's.   I don't have exact stats on the 90's but it was lower scoring than the 80's with defensive minded teams.  

Rodman was a great one on one defender.  But Russell and Wilt were way better team defenders than Rodman.  One could argue that they were better man to man too.   Both of them scored more than Dennis did too and were not just one trick ponies.  Of Course, they were centers and he was a PF but he often played center.  Russell would have been a PF today too.   He is a great player and worthy of the hall of fame.  But he isn't the greatest rebounder ever by the numbers or stats only in some minds.  Some of you had to have rooted for the Bulls in the 90's I know I did not.

These could play today and they would do really well.

Sure we would do the trade but they would not.  This will never happen Rondo, and I love the kid doesn't have that kind of trade value.

[BballTim]

I think you are selling the athletes of the 60s short.  Bill Russell was 6-9 and a half and had a 48" vertical leap.  He could get quarters off the top of the backboard and his timing was superb.  Wilt high jumped 6 foot 6 inches at 7-2.  His 440 time was 49 seconds so Wilt's.   Dennis Rodman was fast but not that fast and he could jump but not that high.  These guys were surefire HoF first ballot.  Dennis still isn't in.

Yes the league was more run and gun in the 60's.  Possessions have changed a lot.  A team would have like 152 possessions in the 60's.  Today its in the 105 range for possessions.  Thus taking this into account Bill Russell would have averaged 15.5 RPG and Wilt  15.8 RPG to Rodman's 13.1 RPG.   Taking Dennis back to their era and he would have 18.9  still short of the 22.5 of Russell and 22.9 of Wilt.  He is the best rebounder ever under 6-8.

http://www.insidehoops.com/shooting-121503.shtml

This explains where I got this data.  They shoot about the same percentage as they did back then as today.  43% FG today and 42.6% in the 60's.   I don't have exact stats on the 90's but it was lower scoring than the 80's with defensive minded teams.  

  I don't think the rebounding argument was based on comparing how certain players would fare if you put them in other eras. It was comparing how players fared compared  to their contemporaries. Even if you just go by your era translations Rodman's 18.9 would be easily 3rd best of all time. But Rodman didn't become a top rebounder until he was 28 or so. So over his entire career he wasn't the best.

   But for 7-8 years he was probably the most dominant ever. If you look at the total rebounds per team in the 60s you'd generally get over 5000 per team per year, sometimes closer to 6000. Both Wilt and Russell topped out at around 2000 rebounds in a season, so less than 40% of their team's rebounds or under 20% of the total rebounds available. In Rodman's best year he got about 1500 rebounds when the average team got about 3500. So just over 21% of the available rebounds. On top of that, those are total rebounds per team and player and Rodman played 10%-20% fewer minutes than WC/BR, so he's getting a higher percentage of the available rebounds for a total game in fewer minutes on the court.

  Rodman had 7 straight years where he got more than 24% of the available rebounds when he was on the court. Wilt And Russell may have had years where they played many less minutes and approached that rate, but neither of them likely came within 20% of reaching that rate in their best rebounding years.

  BTW, all of my info comes from basketballreference. It looks like the've been keeping track of rebounding rate since the late 60s, and Rodman has the top 7 years. He has 3 years where his rebounding rate was more than 10% higher than anyone else has had in any season in the last 40 years, including 1 year that's 25% higher than anyone's had in that time.

  Just to put that in perspective, MJ had the highest single season scoring rate in that time, just over 37 ppg. He'd need another 7.3 ppg to outdo the 2nd best by that margin. Stockton's 14.1 assists would have to be 17.3 to match that margin. It's not just that he's dominated rebounding compared to other rebounders, he's dominated it by a much larger margin than other people have dominated any other category.

[LarBrd33]

You would absolutely have to trade Rondo for Griffin.  Griffin is incredible.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Let's think of it this way:  Would the Clippers trade Griffin straight up for Rondo?  No way in heck. 

Personally I'd trade Rondo for Griffin anyday.