Author Topic: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul  (Read 85148 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #180 on: August 23, 2011, 06:42:26 PM »

Offline deekhead

  • Lonnie Walker IV
  • Posts: 67
  • Tommy Points: 7
Is everyone forgetting that Chris Paul played on the USA gold medal winning basketball team? That he led that team in assists? A team over flowing with stars who shot 55% from the floor as a team? A team of players known for having to have the ball in their hands like Melo, Lebron, Kobe, and Wade?

It seems to me that if Rondo can efficiently run this offense with the players on this team then Chris Paul's experience in the Olympics, getting the ball to star players so they can most efficiently score, qualifies him as being able to do the job of running the Celtics offense as well as Rondo.

  Every time I see a Team USA game my first thought is "the Celts could beat the snot out of that team". Last year they won a gold having an offense that largely consisted of getting the ball to Durant. Also, if you've got a team with Melo, Lebron, Kobe, and Wade, you're going to get a ton of transition baskets. Take those baskets out and that FG% is less impressive, considering the level of talent on that team and the level of defense they faced.


This is too much of a stretch; no doubt you're just downplaying all of CP3's accomplishments while exaggerating Rondo's at this point.

  Too much of a stretch how? I don't see how anybody can watch Team USA and be truly impressed by their half court offense. A healthy Celts starting five would easily dispatch them.


The one with Durant? Probably.

The one with CP3/Kobe/Lebron/Melo/Howard with Wade off the bench? With a TRUE PG on it, unlike the Heat?

You're only making a case for the Celtics over that Team USA to make Rondo look better than CP3, but either way, there's no point in me trying to fathom the Celtics as favorites.

yeah but if I'm not mistaken it was Wade off the bench who carried team USA. I'm not real sure why Paul was even brought up as being the leader of that team? Team USA played mostly transition basketball, there were no constant play calling. Yes Cp3 help them, but he definitely wasn't the leader.

I didn't imply that CP3 was the leader, I just said he was a true PG, something that Durant's Team USA in the 2010 Worlds didn't have.

Actually TEAM USA had a true PG in 2010 until Rondo decided to quit the team to avoid being cut.

Go figure.


DH

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #181 on: August 23, 2011, 07:00:22 PM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #182 on: August 23, 2011, 09:31:42 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

  Vince Carter's a borderline HOF player that's never been known as a winner.

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #183 on: August 23, 2011, 09:41:10 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 63102
  • Tommy Points: -25462
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

  Vince Carter's a borderline HOF player that's never been known as a winner.

Yeah, but flip the argument.  If a player had the same athleticism as Vince Carter does intangibles (i.e., none), while having insane intangibles, he'd be nowhere close to the HOF.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER... AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!

KP / Giannis / Turkuglu / Jrue / Curry
Sabonis / Brand / A. Thompson / Oladipo / Brunson
Jordan / Bowen

Redshirt:  Cooper Flagg

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #184 on: August 23, 2011, 10:50:07 PM »

Offline cman88

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5530
  • Tommy Points: 397
I think it's also something to more that rondo has improved each season. There's no really telling what his ceiling is because he's an anomaly already. His jumpers slowly improving and imo once he can hit that consistently while being contested he's going to be a top player.

I think it's unfair to look at his scoring stats versus chris paul because both players are being asked to play different times fire their teams.we've seen in the past like against cleveland or against the magic when garnett was out that he can pick up the scoring slack and take over games.

Rondo was good last year while having his worst injury year.i can't wait to see what a healthy rondo can do this year if he continues to make leaps in his game. And he's going to have to with the big 3 getting older

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #185 on: August 24, 2011, 02:41:12 AM »

Offline soap07

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Tommy Points: 145
Quote
  Every time I see a Team USA game my first thought is "the Celts could beat the snot out of that team". Last year they won a gold having an offense that largely consisted of getting the ball to Durant. Also, if you've got a team with Melo, Lebron, Kobe, and Wade, you're going to get a ton of transition baskets. Take those baskets out and that FG% is less impressive, considering the level of talent on that team and the level of defense they faced.

See folks, you have to realize something with BballTim - assists/setting up teammates for easy shots only count when Rondo does it. When another (better) point guard does it, you can say things like 'Take those baskets out and that FG% is less impressive'.

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #186 on: August 24, 2011, 03:59:17 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6987
  • Tommy Points: 411

  Opinions vary. I'm not sold that CP3 would be a top 5 pg if he shot like Rondo from the line and the field but I'd also say that, if you ignore shooting, he has the 2nd best all-around game of all the pgs.

if CP3 shot like Rondo from the line and from the field, he wouldn't be in this conversation. Why trade Rondo to get Rondo-with-a-different-face? Besides, if we want to ignore the shooting, for me Rondo plays better D and rebounds better, but at an inconsequential difference. For me, they are equally clutch, equally unselfish and are equally good in playmaking. It's really the shooting that is the biggest difference and we can't just "ignore it". take away Dirk's height and shooting, and i'd wager BBD is a better player.

there's more to an offense than "Rondo being brilliant". it's also about the coach's schemes and also having the proper personnel knowing what to do and having the ability to carry it out. i would wager that Pierce, Allen, and KG are among the most intelligent players in the league (and the most talented as well), up there with the Kobe's, Gasol's, Lebron's, etc. etc. Guys who just have a great knack of playing the game. Add Shaq into that list as well (though his abilities have diminished).

  It's true that there's more to the offense than Rondo, it's also true that the offense is significantly worse when Rondo's not in the game. Paul and Ray and KG and Shaq (among others) all had the most or nearly most efficient scoring seasons of their careers last year. Rondo's a big part of that. He's better at spotting open players and hitting them with the right pass at the right time than anyone else in the league.

yes, this is true because Rondo is very good. Rondo > Delonte/Nate/Marbury/Cassell/House, clearly. but saying things like "like anyone else in the league" goes back to my point of not watching CP3 (or any other PG) except when you see them on sportscenter. Rondo is very good though. If Rondo were trash or average, then the notion of trading him for CP3 is just absurd. It's like trading Big Baby for Dirk.

however, when Rondo's vastly superior teammates are brought up, "extreme Rondo backers" are quick to bring up his individual stellar playoff performances or how well Rondo has carried the team, or even how the Hornets' personnel is pretty close to the C's (yes, i've been told this by someone here on CB, i just forget who, but i bet the moment someone makes a thread saying "let's trade Ariza and Bellinelli for Pierce and Allen", they would get laughed off the board by likely the same people.) for me, this is unfair. they criticize CP3 for his individual efforts, but praise Rondo for it. They disregard CP3's stats and praise Rondo's lack of stats purely based on the good ol' eye test.

  You're doing a fairly poor job of condensing other people's arguments. You're also missing the one about how Rondo's superior teammates limit his overall production. Put him on a team like NO and he'll be a bigger part of the offense  and control the ball more. Clearly we've seen that he's fully capable of scoring more than he does, but his lack of scoring is the biggest knock against him.

actually, i'm not. i just brought up that part because it's what was relevant. i did say in a previous post however that CP3's production is also taken against him and people say that he's all about stats or that stats aren't the whole picture. And in a similar vein, CP3's losses (notably playoff ones) are taken against him as well. Why can Rondo enjoy being lauded as a winner and play the victim in the stats game while CP3 can't be lauded as a stat monster but play the victim when his team loses? if anything, at least CP3 plays the right way and makes the right plays. He isn't Corey Maggette.

the biggest knock against Rondo isn't the scoring. it's the shooting and spacing. I think that's a big reason why our offense has to work so hard. And this is why i think CP3 is the superior option. We lose a little of Rondo's extra D and offensive rebounding and gain a lot of spacing and shooting. Plus, CP3 has the "name" to lure a bigtime FA like Dwight (imo).

  They talk about Rondo's amazing growth and progress, as a player and as a person, when it's highly likely that they haven't watched and followed CP3 and the Hornets as closely as they watched Rondo and the C's. maybe at most they 4-8 Hornets games a year for CP3 plus whatever garbage ESPN spits out about MVP talks or whatever vs. watching every Celtics game in the playoffs and season plus Rondo's progress in the offseason and practices from almost every credible Celtics source out there. 

  You're pretty much right about this. I watch some non-Celts games but I don't watch nearly as many games of CP3 or Rose or Williams or Westbrook or anyone else as I do of Rondo. I watch most of the Celts games and at least 3-4 times a week I'll see Rondo make a play that I won't see from any other guard all year, and I base my opinions on that. But I also think that a lot of people who see Rondo play all the time just assume that other players can do what he does. I don't think that's the case.

this is where we have to disagree. i think at some point, gifted passers are just all at that upper echelon level. i see this in Rondo, D-Will, CP3, Nash, Kidd and Lebron *vomit*. they just have a terrific feel for the game, not in terms of scoring, but just knowing where their teammates are and having the ability and daringness to make that pass. Pierce, as intelligent as he is, can't make the passes Rondo makes. Neither can Westbrook nor D-Rose, as great as they are.

- LilRip

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #187 on: August 24, 2011, 04:04:03 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6987
  • Tommy Points: 411
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

  Vince Carter's a borderline HOF player that's never been known as a winner.

Yeah, but flip the argument.  If a player had the same athleticism as Vince Carter does intangibles (i.e., none), while having insane intangibles, he'd be nowhere close to the HOF.

like Scal? :P

Scal is smart, unselfish, plays all out, boxes out, sets good picks, is in the right spot on the floor, gives hard fouls, et al but unfortunately, can't run fast, can't jump high, can't shoot all that well, etc. etc..

hmm... so Scal in his prime? or VC in his prime?
- LilRip

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #188 on: August 24, 2011, 08:15:58 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

  Vince Carter's a borderline HOF player that's never been known as a winner.

Yeah, but flip the argument.  If a player had the same athleticism as Vince Carter does intangibles (i.e., none), while having insane intangibles, he'd be nowhere close to the HOF.

I'd argue that a better example than Vince (because he's never won a title, which, I personally believe incorrectly, invalidates the success of his career to some people) is actually Kobe.

I think Kobe lacks 'intangibles.' He has been statistically proven over and over to be far worse than average in the clutch; statistically proven to hurt his team's production down the stretch by selfish hero ball. He does not make his teammates better; they all produced just as well without him, they just get more positive attention when on Kobe's team because it's LA and because when all of them are together, yes, they are going to be a very good team. But with Kobe I really don't see the classic "intangibles." I see an extremely talented and effective for 46 minutes player, who, along with his team, is good enough to win most games by enough of a margin that "clutch" time is not a frequent determinant of the success of the overall season, such that his detrimental, low efficiency play rarely makes or breaks the outcome of a season.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 08:32:26 AM by Fan from VT »

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #189 on: August 24, 2011, 12:11:15 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Quote
  Every time I see a Team USA game my first thought is "the Celts could beat the snot out of that team". Last year they won a gold having an offense that largely consisted of getting the ball to Durant. Also, if you've got a team with Melo, Lebron, Kobe, and Wade, you're going to get a ton of transition baskets. Take those baskets out and that FG% is less impressive, considering the level of talent on that team and the level of defense they faced.

See folks, you have to realize something with BballTim - assists/setting up teammates for easy shots only count when Rondo does it. When another (better) point guard does it, you can say things like 'Take those baskets out and that FG% is less impressive'.

  Or, you have to realize that soap07's opinions of who's a (better) player or (better) passer or (better) anything is based almost entirely on comparing their stats from websites such as basketballreference or 82games. That makes him a little sensitive when people claim that statistics don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do.

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #190 on: August 24, 2011, 12:14:40 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

  Vince Carter's a borderline HOF player that's never been known as a winner.

Yeah, but flip the argument.  If a player had the same athleticism as Vince Carter does intangibles (i.e., none), while having insane intangibles, he'd be nowhere close to the HOF.

like Scal? :P

Scal is smart, unselfish, plays all out, boxes out, sets good picks, is in the right spot on the floor, gives hard fouls, et al but unfortunately, can't run fast, can't jump high, can't shoot all that well, etc. etc..

hmm... so Scal in his prime? or VC in his prime?

  Scal has nothing going for him aside from intangibles, I'll grant you that, but I don't think he has an *insane* level of intangibles.

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #191 on: August 24, 2011, 12:45:35 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
there's more to an offense than "Rondo being brilliant". it's also about the coach's schemes and also having the proper personnel knowing what to do and having the ability to carry it out. i would wager that Pierce, Allen, and KG are among the most intelligent players in the league (and the most talented as well), up there with the Kobe's, Gasol's, Lebron's, etc. etc. Guys who just have a great knack of playing the game. Add Shaq into that list as well (though his abilities have diminished).

  It's true that there's more to the offense than Rondo, it's also true that the offense is significantly worse when Rondo's not in the game. Paul and Ray and KG and Shaq (among others) all had the most or nearly most efficient scoring seasons of their careers last year. Rondo's a big part of that. He's better at spotting open players and hitting them with the right pass at the right time than anyone else in the league.

yes, this is true because Rondo is very good. Rondo > Delonte/Nate/Marbury/Cassell/House, clearly. but saying things like "like anyone else in the league" goes back to my point of not watching CP3 (or any other PG) except when you see them on sportscenter.

  A few points:

  1) Watching sportcenter generally gives someone an overly high opinion of a player, not an overly low opinion of that player. They tend to show all of the best or most exciting plays someone makes.

  2) It's fairly smug to go around claiming that the reason people disagree with your opinion is because they only see the player on sportscenter.

  3) I don't watch very much sportscenter. My opinion of CP3 comes from seeing him play in games. True, I don't see him play 90 or so times a year like I do with Rondo, but IMO I see enough of his play to form a reasonable opinion of his skillset.

  For the record, I never said that CP3 wasn't the best pg in the game or that CP3 wouldn't improve our offense. I just feel the improvement will be smaller than many people expect.


 They talk about Rondo's amazing growth and progress, as a player and as a person, when it's highly likely that they haven't watched and followed CP3 and the Hornets as closely as they watched Rondo and the C's. maybe at most they 4-8 Hornets games a year for CP3 plus whatever garbage ESPN spits out about MVP talks or whatever vs. watching every Celtics game in the playoffs and season plus Rondo's progress in the offseason and practices from almost every credible Celtics source out there.  

  You're pretty much right about this. I watch some non-Celts games but I don't watch nearly as many games of CP3 or Rose or Williams or Westbrook or anyone else as I do of Rondo. I watch most of the Celts games and at least 3-4 times a week I'll see Rondo make a play that I won't see from any other guard all year, and I base my opinions on that. But I also think that a lot of people who see Rondo play all the time just assume that other players can do what he does. I don't think that's the case.

this is where we have to disagree. i think at some point, gifted passers are just all at that upper echelon level. i see this in Rondo, D-Will, CP3, Nash, Kidd and Lebron *vomit*. they just have a terrific feel for the game, not in terms of scoring, but just knowing where their teammates are and having the ability and daringness to make that pass. Pierce, as intelligent as he is, can't make the passes Rondo makes. Neither can Westbrook nor D-Rose, as great as they are.


  Yes, agree to disagree I suppose. Again, using Rondo as an example, in 09-10 he was clearly an upper echelon level passer and floor general. Last season (when he was healthy) he was definitely better at these things and it clearly showed in how well the team was playing and how efficiently the team was scoring. So IMO the gulf between players in your upper echelon can be at least as great as the difference in Rondo's play from those two years. People who either don't see a difference between the players or don't think that difference matters much in the game (like yourself) have a lower opinion of Rondo, people who feel otherwise have a higher opinion of Rondo. I don't think either of us will budge much on this.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 02:16:47 PM by BballTim »

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #192 on: August 24, 2011, 01:20:27 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
90% intangibles?


No I'd say it's more like 90% talent.

  Meaning the intangibles a player brings is unrelated to their talent level?


What intangibles are you talking about? Talent absolutely trumps intangibles. That's why a guy like Vince Carter is a borderline HOF player and probably doesn't have an ounce of any intangibles I would find valuable

  Vince Carter's a borderline HOF player that's never been known as a winner.

Yeah, but flip the argument.  If a player had the same athleticism as Vince Carter does intangibles (i.e., none), while having insane intangibles, he'd be nowhere close to the HOF.

  I'd say one of the best examples of intangibles is DJ in the mid-late 80s. Not much of an athlete, a poor shooter, not exactly leading the league in passing or rebounding. Based only on his play during those years he probably wouldn't be a HOFer, but I (and probably you) would be much happier with him on a team than VC in his prime.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 02:17:15 PM by BballTim »

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #193 on: August 24, 2011, 04:45:15 PM »

Offline soap07

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Tommy Points: 145
Here's one thing that Tim wrote:


Quote
  Or, you have to realize that soap07's opinions of who's a (better) player or (better) passer or (better) anything is based almost entirely on comparing their stats from websites such as basketballreference or 82games. That makes him a little sensitive when people claim that statistics don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do.

Here's another thing that Tim wrote:


Quote
  It's true that there's more to the offense than Rondo, it's also true that the offense is significantly worse when Rondo's not in the game. Paul and Ray and KG and Shaq (among others) all had the most or nearly most efficient scoring seasons of their careers last year. Rondo's a big part of that.

My guess is he got those numbers using these new-fangled stats that "don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do."

And not to beat a dead horse, Rondo was also a big part of leading a mediocre offense with four All Stars in the starting line up.

Re: I hate to admit it but getting Howard means trading Rondo for Chris Paul
« Reply #194 on: August 24, 2011, 05:28:06 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Here's one thing that Tim wrote:


Quote
  Or, you have to realize that soap07's opinions of who's a (better) player or (better) passer or (better) anything is based almost entirely on comparing their stats from websites such as basketballreference or 82games. That makes him a little sensitive when people claim that statistics don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do.

Here's another thing that Tim wrote:


Quote
  It's true that there's more to the offense than Rondo, it's also true that the offense is significantly worse when Rondo's not in the game. Paul and Ray and KG and Shaq (among others) all had the most or nearly most efficient scoring seasons of their careers last year. Rondo's a big part of that.

My guess is he got those numbers using these new-fangled stats that "don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do."
 

  Haha.

  Here's the point though:

  he got those numbers using these new-fangled stats that "don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do."

  Most people realize this, but it's not that there are "new-fangled" stats that don't tell the whole story or don't always show what people claim they do. It's true of stats in general, old and new. Is the player who averages the most assists the best passer in the league? Not always. If you put that player on another team, would they average the same number of assists? Not necessarily.