Rondo for Steve Nash

[BballTim]

To be honest, I think Nash does more with what he has to work with than Rondo does.

I think Nash on the Celtics would be absolutely unbelievable offensively, as he has arguably the best court vision in the NBA and is a knock-down shooter around talented, unselfish players.

His defense obviously isn't very good, but with the guys we have behind him, his deficiencies would be masked. What's the difference between Rondo gambling unsuccessfully for a steal thus letting his man penetrate and Nash simply getting blown by?

 One difference is Rondo rarely lets his man penetrate because he gambled on a steal but Nash would always susceptible to getting blown by. Another difference is that Rondo's a big part of our transition defense (when those guys *aren't* behind him) and Nash wouldn't be that great at that. Also, Rondo's ball pressure causes opposing offenses to set up later in the shot clock, that goes out the window with Nash. Rondo's a much better perimeter defender as well.

You are overrating Rondo's defense. I can't count how many times he's made scrubs like Fisher look like ballers.

  I'm not overrating Rondo's defense. Maybe you don't have any idea how often other point guards made "scrubs like Fisher look like ballers", or maybe you don't notice that *every* point guard gets beat off the dribble at times, most more often than Rondo.

And that game against Rose was embarrassing.

  Did you actually watch the game? It wasn't Rondo's best game, but his defense wasn't awful.

But as for the transition defense... with Nash, there won't be all that many fast break opportunities because the opposition will be inbounding the ball more times than not.

  Haha.

Obviously Rondo is a good defender and Nash isn't, but this team is about team defense over individual. What makes us so good is how well we rotate and recover. We'd make Nash look competent.

  Sure, in the half court he *might* do a credible job. How about transition defense? Oh, I forgot, we'll score almost every time so there won't be any transition baskets. How about in the playoffs when Rondo pressures the ball and creates havoc on defense? Will the "system" do that for Nash as well?

[Finkelskyhook]

Obviously Rondo is a good defender and Nash isn't, but this team is about team defense over individual. What makes us so good is how well we rotate and recover. We'd make Nash look competent.

Nobody would make Los Nash look remotely competent defensively.  He does not care about that part of the court.  Never has.  The only positioning Los Nash has ever cared about on the defensive end is the position of his greasy hair.

[Change]

Obviously Rondo is a good defender and Nash isn't, but this team is about team defense over individual. What makes us so good is how well we rotate and recover. We'd make Nash look competent.

Nobody would make Los Nash look remotely competent defensively.  He does not care about that part of the court.  Never has.  The only positioning Los Nash has ever cared about on the defensive end is the position of his greasy hair.

thanks for the laughter. brighten my morning. One Greasy TP heading your way.

[BballTim]

 But shooting's his only advantage over Rondo. Knock his scoring down and you basically have the same scoring and assist numbers that you get from Rondo without the defense or the rebounding. He scores more efficiently but Rondo generates more possessions through steals and rebounds so that's basically a wash.

Shooting is not his only advantage over Rondo. Passing is as well.

  Back in your time machine, I see. He's better than Rondo was a few years ago, not as good as Rondo was last year.

Again, with this. What are you talking about? Which guy led the NBA in assists and assists percentage last year while having significantly worse teammates? Which guy had the better turnover percentage? Which point guard led his team top a top-10 NBA offense?

The answer to all of those questions is Steve Nash.

Oh wait, he put up those numbers because he had bad teammates...or something? Because it's easier to put up assist numbers as a point guard when you have teammates who are less adept at scoring....or something? I'm confused.

  One thing I forgot to mention. You keep talking about Nash's teammates being poor scorers. This is obviously false. Carter, Richardson, Brooks, Warrick, Hill and the like are all good scorers and were all good scorers before they played with Nash. Same with Frye, decent scorer but not really more prolific than he was on the Knicks. Most of them are good three point shooters as well. They aren't bad/mediocre players because they can't score, but because that's all most of them really do.

  Edit: Digging deeper, compare the people who scored the most baskets aside from Nash and Rondo. For the Suns it was Hill, Gortat, Frye and Dudley. For the Celts it was RA/KG/PP/Baby. The career fg% for the Suns were in the same order, .485, .554, .450 and .470. For the Celts foursome, .452, .448, .498 and .449. So in terms of getting assists, the Suns shooters were more likely to make the shots that they take than the Celts players. Also, the Celts group averaged 1 assist for every 4.75 fga while the Suns group averaged 1 assist for every 6.35 fga. So the group Nash was passing to were both more likely to shoot the ball when he gave it to them and also more likely to make a basket when they took those shots, and yet Nash barely edged out Rondo for assists.

  Note: Stating that the Suns players were more likely to make shots is based solely on career fg%, and doesn't reflect their ability to score. But we're talking assists, and you don't get higher assists if the player hits a three point shot and you don't get an assist if the player gets fouled and makes free throws. Higher fg% doesn't necessarily mean better scorer.

[spelz]

Just a bad, bad idea to trade away a young talented player for an old player.  Not sure if it makes you better in the next year or two, but I know it makes you worse in the future.

[soap07]

So the group Nash was passing to were both more likely to shoot the ball when he gave it to them and also more likely to make a basket when they took those shots, and yet Nash barely edged out Rondo for assists.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Nash consistently put them in a position to be open and shoot the ball whereas with Rondo, the team has to often cover for the fact that Rondo can't shoot and sometimes doesn't even have to be guarded.

  This is comical. Truly. But, okay. Rondo had 760 assists and 160 passing turnovers, so he had 4.8 assists for every bad pass. Nash had 855 assists and 194 passing turnovers, so he had 4.4 assists for every bad pass. When you're trying to make a case that Nash is a better passer, PASSING TURNOVERS are important, not assist/turnover, turnover percentages, or whatever you were rambling on about above.

Do other turnovers not relate to passing or what? Rondo being called for more charges doesn't affect the number of total assists he has? The fact that he has more ballhandling turnovers? The fact that he has poorer teammates?

  One thing I forgot to mention. You keep talking about Nash's teammates being poor scorers. This is obviously false. Carter, Richardson, Brooks, Warrick, Hill and the like are all good scorers and were all good scorers before they played with Nash. Same with Frye, decent scorer but not really more prolific than he was on the Knicks. Most of them are good three point shooters as well. They aren't bad/mediocre players because they can't score, but because that's all most of them really do.

Are you under the impression that the collection of those five players are as offensively skilled at this point in their respective careers as Pierce, Ray and KG? Is there a single All Star caliber scorer in the group you just mentioned? Yeah, those players' best trait is scoring, but that just speaks to the weaknesses of the rest of their games and as players in general.

Just as an FYI, Hakim Warrick and Channing Frye's combined career PPG is, I believe, less than what Paul averaged last year.

[BballTim]

So the group Nash was passing to were both more likely to shoot the ball when he gave it to them and also more likely to make a basket when they took those shots, and yet Nash barely edged out Rondo for assists.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Nash consistently put them in a position to be open and shoot the ball whereas with Rondo, the team has to often cover for the fact that Rondo can't shoot and sometimes doesn't even have to be guarded.

  The players aren't scoring any more prolifically with Nash than they did before they played with Nash. Similarly, when I said that they were more likely to make baskets, I was talking about their career fg% averages, not just with Nash. I didn't check but it's likely that the big three were farther above their career averages playing with Rondo than the Suns players were playing with Nash.

  And here's what you don't get. The big three were all at or near their career best for scoring efficiency this year. So even though you claim that teams don't cover Rondo (an overblown claim btw) he's *still* able to get them in a position to be open and shoot the ball on a level with Nash and the Suns. One would have to assume that Rondo's superior passing is enough to make up for the nuisance of the "added defender".

  Edit: in case you misunderstood the part of the post you quoted, I wasn't saying that the Suns players were more likely to make their baskets because they were getting better passes from Nash or that he was getting them in position to make open shots more than Rondo does for the Celts. I was basing that on their career fg%.

 This is comical. Truly. But, okay. Rondo had 760 assists and 160 passing turnovers, so he had 4.8 assists for every bad pass. Nash had 855 assists and 194 passing turnovers, so he had 4.4 assists for every bad pass. When you're trying to make a case that Nash is a better passer, PASSING TURNOVERS are important, not assist/turnover, turnover percentages, or whatever you were rambling on about above.

Do other turnovers not relate to passing or what? Rondo being called for more charges doesn't affect the number of total assists he has? The fact that he has more ballhandling turnovers? The fact that he has poorer teammates?

  I would assume that Rondo's called for more charges because he takes it to the rim in traffic more than Nash. How does that have anything to do with passing?

 One thing I forgot to mention. You keep talking about Nash's teammates being poor scorers. This is obviously false. Carter, Richardson, Brooks, Warrick, Hill and the like are all good scorers and were all good scorers before they played with Nash. Same with Frye, decent scorer but not really more prolific than he was on the Knicks. Most of them are good three point shooters as well. They aren't bad/mediocre players because they can't score, but because that's all most of them really do.

Are you under the impression that the collection of those five players are as offensively skilled at this point in their respective careers as Pierce, Ray and KG? Is there a single All Star caliber scorer in the group you just mentioned? Yeah, those players' best trait is scoring, but that just speaks to the weaknesses of the rest of their games and as players in general.

Just as an FYI, Hakim Warrick and Channing Frye's combined career PPG is, I believe, less than what Paul averaged last year.

  I'm not sure where you're going with this. The Celts had 4 players on their roster that averaged more than 15 points per 36 minutes, the Suns had 8. I don't see how having balanced scoring makes it harder for Nash to get assists. And another FYI, Warrick and Frye combined averaged 31 points per 36 minutes last year, PP averaged just under 20. KG's points per 36 is about identical to Warrick's, Ray's number is lower.

[BballTim]

So the group Nash was passing to were both more likely to shoot the ball when he gave it to them and also more likely to make a basket when they took those shots, and yet Nash barely edged out Rondo for assists.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Nash consistently put them in a position to be open and shoot the ball whereas with Rondo, the team has to often cover for the fact that Rondo can't shoot and sometimes doesn't even have to be guarded.

  Just to put a finer point on this, out of the top 7 scorers (ppg) aside from Rondo, KG had his 3rd best season for fg%, Baby had his second best, and PP/RA/Shaq/Green/Krstic all had the best seasons of their careers by significant margins. For the Suns, Dudley had his best fg% season, Gortat and Brooks their 2nd best (only 4 seasons total for each though), Jrich had his 3rd best, and Frye (5th), Hill (9th) and Carter (13th) all had seasons with their fg% in the bottom half of their careers. So in spite of Rondo not being guarded almost everyone playing with him had the easiest time scoring baskets (or close to the easiest) of their careers. He made the scorers around him better, Nash had muddled results.

   Talk all you want about Rondo's shooting woes, but playing with Rondo didn't make it harder for his teammates to get good shots, playing with Rondo made it *easier* for his teammates to score. All the talk about replacing Rondo with another point guard is based on "forget about the hit on defense, forget about the hit in rebounding, getting rid of Rondo will help our offense". I think that changing our pg would have a different result than many people would expect.

[soap07]

Okay, let me start over again because now I'm getting lost.


Which point guard, for the most part, plays with more offensively skilled players at their current levels?

[soap07]

All the talk about replacing Rondo with another point guard is based on "forget about the hit on defense, forget about the hit in rebounding, getting rid of Rondo will help our offense". I think that changing our pg would have a different result than many people would expect.

Let me try this. Do you believe that Rondo is the best point guard in the league?

If you don't, are there any point guards that you believe are better than Rondo that would not improve the Celtics in place of Rondo?

[Finkelskyhook]

Okay, let me start over again because now I'm getting lost.


Which point guard, for the most part, plays with more offensively skilled players at their current levels?

It's a straw-man agrument.  Because Los Nash is so grossly deficient defensively that it cancels out any advantage he may have offensively. 

For the record, I don't think Los Nash is that much better offensively anyway. 

I'd rather win a game 94-85 than lose one 115-110.  That, IMHO, If they were playing with the same roster, is the on-the-court difference between Rondo and Los Nash.   

[Finkelskyhook]

All the talk about replacing Rondo with another point guard is based on "forget about the hit on defense, forget about the hit in rebounding, getting rid of Rondo will help our offense". I think that changing our pg would have a different result than many people would expect.

Let me try this. Do you believe that Rondo is the best point guard in the league?

If you don't, are there any point guards that you believe are better than Rondo that would not improve the Celtics in place of Rondo?

Very hard to say.  We've seen Rondo play with a roster with this diversified a set of teammates.  We haven't seen it from the "better" PGS.  The only two, IMHO, better PGS are Williams and Paul. 

But I doubt that either would improve the C's.  Adding another 20+ppg scorer to the roster would mean less touches for Paul, Kevin and Ray.  Ray already doesn't get enough as it is.  Neither Paul or Williams is the defender Rondo is.  Paul gets more steals but gets burned more.

[BballTim]

All the talk about replacing Rondo with another point guard is based on "forget about the hit on defense, forget about the hit in rebounding, getting rid of Rondo will help our offense". I think that changing our pg would have a different result than many people would expect.

Let me try this. Do you believe that Rondo is the best point guard in the league?

If you don't, are there any point guards that you believe are better than Rondo that would not improve the Celtics in place of Rondo?

  I think that CP3 is the best pg in the league. Getting him would make the Celts somewhat but not terrifically better. Other point guards are better individual talents but don't necessarily have more of a positive impact on a team, especially if you consider how Rondo was playing before he was injured this year. Stick in Nash, you lose defense and rebounding. You gain outside shooting but leave opponents without a big need to protect the paint. Add Rose and you gain scoring but lose passing and running the offense, plus some defense and rebounding. (clearly you lose less defense with Rose than Nash). We'd be better in the long run with Rose but we won't be getting him. Westbrook doesn't really make us better and I'm less of a fan of Williams than many here.

[KungPoweChicken]

  But shooting's his only advantage over Rondo. Knock his scoring down and you basically have the same scoring and assist numbers that you get from Rondo without the defense or the rebounding. He scores more efficiently but Rondo generates more possessions through steals and rebounds so that's basically a wash.

Shooting is not his only advantage over Rondo. Passing is as well.

  Back in your time machine, I see. He's better than Rondo was a few years ago, not as good as Rondo was last year.

Again, with this. What are you talking about? Which guy led the NBA in assists and assists percentage last year while having significantly worse teammates? Which guy had the better turnover percentage? Which point guard led his team top a top-10 NBA offense?

The answer to all of those questions is Steve Nash.

Oh wait, he put up those numbers because he had bad teammates...or something? Because it's easier to put up assist numbers as a point guard when you have teammates who are less adept at scoring....or something? I'm confused.

  Haha. You're right about being confused The rest was, well, confusing. Nash led the league in assists because Rondo's play tailed off late in the season due to injury. Before that he was well better than Nash. He also had a better assist percentage until then. So unless you're claiming that a healthy Rondo is a better passer than Nash, or that Rondo was the better passer until late in the season and suddenly Nash became better those stats don't help as much as you think. If you're going to bring turnovers into the argument, it's worth pointing out that Rondo has a *better* assist to bad pass ratio than Nash. So that doesn't really help you either.

  And, just to help clear things up, Rondo's teammates pass the ball more often than Nash's teammates. To put it another way, Nash's teammates are more likely to shoot it when they get it than Rondo's. So the fact that they don't shoot as well is somewhat balanced off by the fact that they're more likely to shoot the ball when they get the pass. And, just for fun, I'll point out that Rondo's teammates getting more assists than Nash's has *something* to do with Nash's higher assist%.

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

[KungPoweChicken]

Rondo's defense is grossly overrated by inflated steal stats (gambling too much), playing with good/great defensive players, and playing with veterans who understand and are willing to commit to the team defense concept. Rondo's man defense is underwhelming. I can name off at least seven point guards who are better defensively than Rondo.