Trade Idea: Rondo to Utah

[Chris]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

[wdleehi]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

[ManUp]

You're defending the wrong thing though BBAll Tim. I'm not saying Rondo isn't a high level passer. I am saying that a player like Deron Williams is also a high level passer but ALSO an amazing scorer. If he were in that starting position instead of Rondo think how honest the defenses would have to play him and how much more open and efficient that the other guys would be because of it. You can't tell me you honestly believe that DW at the point isnn't going to make us a better team! I would put all my eggs in the chase of DW looking to get him on board and then trade Rondo for a big. We would be a lot better team and have a lot brighted future. Rondo is very good. DW is great. He can do everything at an extremely high level.

  He doesn't pass as well as Rondo, defend as well as Rondo or rebound as well as Rondo. He's definitely a great player though. I'd say he's somewhat better than much of what we see from Rondo but isn't as good as what we saw from Rondo before the injuries kicked in  in mid-december. If Chris Paul's knee is healthy going forward then we'd be better with Paul. We'd probably be better with Rose as well although that depends on whether Rondo plays at his early season level or not. I'm not sold on Deron. I think people overestimate the effect Rondo's shooting has on the offense compared to his contributions to the offense. If you just look at their numbers in the playoffs over the last few years Deron probably gets you 4-5 more points a game and 3-4 fewer rebounds, and you downgrade your defense to boot. How much does defenses covering Deron more closely affect the offense compared to how Rondo's passing and running of the offense is an interesting question.

Williams has proven to be a better floor general then Rondo, IMO. This is Rondo's first season cracking double digit assists while playing 4 seasons with the big 3. This just happens to be the season where he started with the best supporting cast of his career. Williams has been upwards of 9 assists since his sophmore year playing with a fringe-star and middling role players. You can maybe say they are equal, but there isn't really an argument for Rondo being a better passer than Williams.

This D.Williams is a shoot first point guard and can't pass like Rondo is all Celtic fan/Tommy Heinson propaganda, IMHO.

[BballTim]

There is an 8 point per game difference between Rajon Rondo and Deron Williams in the playoffs.

  True, but Rondo went for 17 a game in 09, 16 a game in 2010 and was averaging 17 a game before he was injured this year, so I'd expect his scoring to be based more on that than his 2008 levels.

24.3, 20.2, 21.6, 19.2 per game out of Williams. His last two playoff appearances he had the highest assist per game average.

  In other words, similar to what my estimate was?

If you want to exclude Deron Williams' best year and Rajon Rondo's two worst years, sure.

  I didn't exclude Deron's best year. I also didn't exclude this year for Rondo, just the three games he was playing with a dislocated elbow. If you somehow feel that Rondo's scoring in 2008 and his scoring with a dislocated elbow would have a significant impact on what you'd expect from him going forward, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

There's a 7 point per game difference between the two's best scoring playoff. There is a significant gap between the two offensively, and in my opinion a much smaller gap between them defensively (in favor of Rondo).

Deron Williams is a much better player.

  Ok, there's a 7 point per game difference between their best scoring playoffs, there's also a difference between their best playoffs of 1 steal a game for Rondo as well as 5.4 rebounds a game for Rondo. However you want to chop it, when you include defense and rebounding the gap shrinks considerably. Williams is arguably better based on his scoring, Rondo is arguably better based on his all-around game.

[Chris]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

[StartOrien]

Ok, there's a 7 point per game difference between their best scoring playoffs, there's also a difference between their best playoffs of 1 steal a game for Rondo as well as 5.4 rebounds a game for Rondo. However you want to chop it, when you include defense and rebounding the gap shrinks considerably. Williams is arguably better based on his scoring, Rondo is arguably better based on his all-around game.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I don't think they're close.

If I'm ranking PG's I got:

Chris Paul
Derek Rose
Deron Williams
---
Rajon Rondo
Russell Westbrook

[wdleehi]

I to have Rondo 4th in the NBA list of PGs. 



With at least two young PG capable of passing him in the near future (Westbrook and Wall) 

[StartOrien]

I to have Rondo 4th in the NBA list of PGs. 



With at least two young PG capable of passing him in the near future (Westbrook and Wall) 

Ya, agreed. With Westbrook and Wall I could see them jumping up that invisible tier between the elite and the rest (moreso Wall than Westbrook), but I think Rondo's always going to be a little on the outside.

[BballTim]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

[Chris]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

Again, I hate stats.  I stand by my analysis.

[BballTim]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

Again, I hate stats.  I stand by my analysis.

  Ok, they're your ratings. But something closer to the stats would probably put Rondo close to or in second instead of fourth. Hence the difference in our opinions of Rondo.

[Chris]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

Again, I hate stats.  I stand by my analysis.

  Ok, they're your ratings. But something closer to the stats would probably put Rondo close to or in second instead of fourth. Hence the difference in our opinions of Rondo.

The problem with stats is they are highly influenced by the team the guys are playing on (particularly assists and defensive stats).  They also involve heavy interpretation by the people looking at them.

You look at the stats and think they make your case, and I look at the exact same stats, and feel that they make my case. 

[BballTim]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

Again, I hate stats.  I stand by my analysis.

  Ok, they're your ratings. But something closer to the stats would probably put Rondo close to or in second instead of fourth. Hence the difference in our opinions of Rondo.

The problem with stats is they are highly influenced by the team the guys are playing on (particularly assists and defensive stats).  They also involve heavy interpretation by the people looking at them.

You look at the stats and think they make your case, and I look at the exact same stats, and feel that they make my case. 

  Interesting take. I agree stats are influenced by teams and interpretations. But if you have stats that make your case I would generally expect that they don't make my case and I'd have to show why they *didn't* make your case. For instance, the rebounds. If Rondo gets 35% or so more rebounds than Deron or Rose, or if Rondo's 3rd or so in rebounding for pgs and they're down around 20th, how would that make your case that they're all excellent rebounders? I'd think you'd have to refute the stats somehow, show that they don't make either case.

[Chris]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

Again, I hate stats.  I stand by my analysis.

  Ok, they're your ratings. But something closer to the stats would probably put Rondo close to or in second instead of fourth. Hence the difference in our opinions of Rondo.

The problem with stats is they are highly influenced by the team the guys are playing on (particularly assists and defensive stats).  They also involve heavy interpretation by the people looking at them.

You look at the stats and think they make your case, and I look at the exact same stats, and feel that they make my case. 

  Interesting take. I agree stats are influenced by teams and interpretations. But if you have stats that make your case I would generally expect that they don't make my case and I'd have to show why they *didn't* make your case. For instance, the rebounds. If Rondo gets 35% or so more rebounds than Deron or Rose, or if Rondo's 3rd or so in rebounding for pgs and they're down around 20th, how would that make your case that they're all excellent rebounders? I'd think you'd have to refute the stats somehow, show that they don't make either case.

Can you give me the exact stats you are referring to?  I can't refute vague allusions to stats.

[BballTim]

I hate stats.  So, instead, I am going to used completely arbitrary ratings of skills from 1-10, based purely on my own, unprofessional opinion, from watching these guys play.

In these ratings, 10 is best in the league at the position, 5 is average for their position, 0 is Scalabrine.

Passing: Rondo - 10, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 9
Defense: Rondo - 9, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 8
Long range shooting: Rondo - 3, Rose - 6, Paul - 8, Williams - 7
Mid range shooting: Rondo - 4, Rose - 7, Paul - 10, Williams - 8
Finishing at the basket: Rondo - 6, Rose 10, Paul -8, Williams - 8
Rebounding: Rondo - 8, Rose - 8, Paul - 8, Williams - 7 (yes, they are all excellent rebounders)

So, here are their averages: Rondo - 6.7, Rose - 7.2, Paul - 8.3, Williams - 7.8

And that is my completely biased and unscientific way of explaining why I will take the more complete games of Paul and Williams over Rondo's any day.

I think you down played Paul's passing.  Alot of assist, little TOs.

Good point.  I was just trying to give in to a little homerism there, and not blow Rondo that far out of the water.

  Rose and Williams aren't excellent rebounders. Rondo's career rate is about 35%-45% better than those two. Rondo probably has the highest fg% at the basket of the 4 players over the last 3 years as well. I'd also rate Williams the worst defender.

Again, I hate stats.  I stand by my analysis.

  Ok, they're your ratings. But something closer to the stats would probably put Rondo close to or in second instead of fourth. Hence the difference in our opinions of Rondo.

The problem with stats is they are highly influenced by the team the guys are playing on (particularly assists and defensive stats).  They also involve heavy interpretation by the people looking at them.

You look at the stats and think they make your case, and I look at the exact same stats, and feel that they make my case.  

  Interesting take. I agree stats are influenced by teams and interpretations. But if you have stats that make your case I would generally expect that they don't make my case and I'd have to show why they *didn't* make your case. For instance, the rebounds. If Rondo gets 35% or so more rebounds than Deron or Rose, or if Rondo's 3rd or so in rebounding for pgs and they're down around 20th, how would that make your case that they're all excellent rebounders? I'd think you'd have to refute the stats somehow, show that they don't make either case.

Can you give me the exact stats you are referring to?  I can't refute vague allusions to stats.

  Here's a link to their career stats,where Rondo's rebounding numbers are clearly better in terms of rebound% or rebounds per game. I don't think it's really worth your time, but I didn't want to not provide stats I claimed to have. I think I took your statement "You look at the stats and think they make your case, and I look at the exact same stats, and feel that they make my case" a little too literally.

http://bkref.com/tiny/hkS3h