Rubio > Rondo, right?

[Bahku]

If Rubio leads his team to a Championship in his first season as a starter, (and his defense, rebounding, physicality, willingness to take a beating, resiliency, confidence, floor vision, etc., is comparable), then I will start to consider this, (the comparison, not the trade idea) ... PG leadership and vision and success is about much more than numbers. It might be an considerable comparison if you're talking about scoring alone, but Rubio's got a long way to go to be in the same bracket as Rajon as a complete player. Great young baller, but no way would I trade Rondo for him at this point.

Um, how exactly did Rondo "lead" the Celtics to a championship?

I know you know what I meant by that, but I'll explain anyway:

He was the starting point guard, and the PG is the guy who is the "floor general" and the leader on the court ... the ball is in his hands the majority of the time, he sets up and calls most of the plays, he directs traffic on the offensive end, and generally has those responsibilities throughout the game.

Rondo in particular had an immense amount of responsibility in just his second season, with the organization having done an incredible amount of trading to acquire Ray and KG in order to give us the best chance of winning a championship.

Rarely in the history of the game has a young player been put in a position of such responsibilty so early in their career, and done so to the point of winning it all. This kid is exceptional in many ways ... ways which Rubio is a long way from proving his comparability.

Look, what Rondo did was indeed remarkable, but I think it's seriously a stretch to say that the role he played on the '08 team meant that he "lead" the team to a championship.  He was a role-player (albeit a very solid one) on the '08 team.  He no more "led" the team to a title than Perk did.

If the Heat win the championship this year, would you say that Mario Chalmers "led" the team to a title and therefore he's got more credibility as a winning player than a guy like, say, Chris Paul, who's never even made it to the conference finals?  Of course not. 

Pointing to what a player has won in a team context is not particularly convincing evidence for whether they're better than another player or not.  The only time it's relevant, in my opinion, is when you have two players who are statistically similar who are surrounded by a similar level of talent.

He was the "leader" on the floor, (I already explained the extra responsibilities required to do so), and a critical component to the team winning a chmapionship.

And of course it's convincing evidence, (or should be) ... it's proven, not heresay or conjecture or based on ability or the first few games of the season.

Having talent and ability is one thing, taking on the responsibility of what is required to be the starting PG of a championship team is something that isn't afforded anyone until they do it.

I'm not arguing the talent Rubio is blessed with, or that he has a promising career, just that there's a lot more for him to prove in order for me to put him in the same category as Rondo.

[celtsfan84]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team.  

It is proven, not hearsay or conjecture, to say that he actually had the ball in his hands the 4th most on the team.  Saying the ball was in his hands the majority of the time means you must have missed the majority of 2008.

The characterization that he was the leader is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

[Bahku]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team. 

The characterization is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

I thought this was a thread comparing Rubio to Rondo, not the semantics of the word "leader" ... I'll be careful not to use the word to describe PGs again, (even though it's a widely accepted term when talking about the game of basketball, and the starting PG being the "floor leader").

He helped to lead the team to a championship, much as Paul or Ray or KG or Perk. Better?

[PosImpos]

If Rubio leads his team to a Championship in his first season as a starter, (and his defense, rebounding, physicality, willingness to take a beating, resiliency, confidence, floor vision, etc., is comparable), then I will start to consider this, (the comparison, not the trade idea) ... PG leadership and vision and success is about much more than numbers. It might be an considerable comparison if you're talking about scoring alone, but Rubio's got a long way to go to be in the same bracket as Rajon as a complete player. Great young baller, but no way would I trade Rondo for him at this point.

Um, how exactly did Rondo "lead" the Celtics to a championship?

I know you know what I meant by that, but I'll explain anyway:

He was the starting point guard, and the PG is the guy who is the "floor general" and the leader on the court ... the ball is in his hands the majority of the time, he sets up and calls most of the plays, he directs traffic on the offensive end, and generally has those responsibilities throughout the game.

Rondo in particular had an immense amount of responsibility in just his second season, with the organization having done an incredible amount of trading to acquire Ray and KG in order to give us the best chance of winning a championship.

Rarely in the history of the game has a young player been put in a position of such responsibilty so early in their career, and done so to the point of winning it all. This kid is exceptional in many ways ... ways which Rubio is a long way from proving his comparability.

Look, what Rondo did was indeed remarkable, but I think it's seriously a stretch to say that the role he played on the '08 team meant that he "lead" the team to a championship.  He was a role-player (albeit a very solid one) on the '08 team.  He no more "led" the team to a title than Perk did.

If the Heat win the championship this year, would you say that Mario Chalmers "led" the team to a title and therefore he's got more credibility as a winning player than a guy like, say, Chris Paul, who's never even made it to the conference finals?  Of course not. 

Pointing to what a player has won in a team context is not particularly convincing evidence for whether they're better than another player or not.  The only time it's relevant, in my opinion, is when you have two players who are statistically similar who are surrounded by a similar level of talent.

He was the "leader" on the floor, (I already explained the extra responsibilities required to do so), and a critical component to the team winning a chmapionship.

And of course it's convincing evidence, (or should be) ... it's proven, not heresay or conjecture or based on ability or the first few games of the season.

Having talent and ability is one thing, taking on the responsibility of what is required to be the starting PG of a championship team is something that isn't afforded anyone until they do it.

I'm not arguing the talent Rubio is blessed with, or that he has a promising career, just that there's a lot more for him to prove in order for me to put him in the same category as Rondo.

The only thing it proves is that Rondo has been put in a winning situation and has been able to fill a significant role on a championship team.  Rubio has not yet had such an opportunity.  It's impossible to say whether or not he would rise to such an occasion.

What we can say is that Rubio is putting up excellent numbers and showing great poise and feel for the game as a rookie.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that at the same point in his career Rondo could not do the same things that Rondo is doing. 

As I've already said, I don't think Rubio is a better player than Rondo right now, but I don't think it's silly to say that they are very similar players who produce in similar ways.  Rubio happens to be better earlier in his career than Rondo was (more NBA-ready, you could say), and he's already a considerably better shooter.

[PosImpos]

He helped to lead the team to a championship, much as Paul or Ray or KG or Perk. Better?

Yes, that is a much more accurate statement.  Rondo was a role player on the '08 team.  If we're debating what another player could or could not have done in the same situation, we should be talking about filling a similar role, not holding a player to the lofty standard of being the "leader" of a championship team.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I personally thought we won the 2008 championship in spite of having Rondo as a PG. He was inconsistent and unreliable. Had some good games and various bad ones, he was simply good enough for the team we had that year.

[Brendan]

draft 100 or so PGs over a year or two and one will end up good.

[ms.ball]

If Rubio leads his team to a Championship in his first season as a starter, (and his defense, rebounding, physicality, willingness to take a beating, resiliency, confidence, floor vision, etc., is comparable), then I will start to consider this, (the comparison, not the trade idea) ... PG leadership and vision and success is about much more than numbers. It might be an considerable comparison if you're talking about scoring alone, but Rubio's got a long way to go to be in the same bracket as Rajon as a complete player. Great young baller, but no way would I trade Rondo for him at this point.

Um, how exactly did Rondo "lead" the Celtics to a championship?

I know you know what I meant by that, but I'll explain anyway:

He was the starting point guard, and the PG is the guy who is the "floor general" and the leader on the court ... the ball is in his hands the majority of the time, he sets up and calls most of the plays, he directs traffic on the offensive end, and generally has those responsibilities throughout the game.

Rondo in particular had an immense amount of responsibility in just his second season, with the organization having done an incredible amount of trading to acquire Ray and KG in order to give us the best chance of winning a championship.

Rarely in the history of the game has a young player been put in a position of such responsibilty so early in their career, and done so to the point of winning it all. This kid is exceptional in many ways ... ways which Rubio is a long way from proving his comparability.

Look, what Rondo did was indeed remarkable, but I think it's seriously a stretch to say that the role he played on the '08 team meant that he "lead" the team to a championship.  He was a role-player (albeit a very solid one) on the '08 team.  He no more "led" the team to a title than Perk did.

If the Heat win the championship this year, would you say that Mario Chalmers "led" the team to a title and therefore he's got more credibility as a winning player than a guy like, say, Chris Paul, who's never even made it to the conference finals?  Of course not. 

Pointing to what a player has won in a team context is not particularly convincing evidence for whether they're better than another player or not.  The only time it's relevant, in my opinion, is when you have two players who are statistically similar who are surrounded by a similar level of talent.

And what exactly was Rondo's Role again?  Did he or did he not run the offense? Doc trusted him, Danny trusted him and his team mates trusted him. The difference between Rondo and Chalmers is Rondo actually make plays, call out sets, gets him teammates easy buckets. Chamlers don't have the ball anywhere near as Rondo does. Most of their plays are set up by James and Wade.

[Bahku]

If Rubio leads his team to a Championship in his first season as a starter, (and his defense, rebounding, physicality, willingness to take a beating, resiliency, confidence, floor vision, etc., is comparable), then I will start to consider this, (the comparison, not the trade idea) ... PG leadership and vision and success is about much more than numbers. It might be an considerable comparison if you're talking about scoring alone, but Rubio's got a long way to go to be in the same bracket as Rajon as a complete player. Great young baller, but no way would I trade Rondo for him at this point.

Um, how exactly did Rondo "lead" the Celtics to a championship?

I know you know what I meant by that, but I'll explain anyway:

He was the starting point guard, and the PG is the guy who is the "floor general" and the leader on the court ... the ball is in his hands the majority of the time, he sets up and calls most of the plays, he directs traffic on the offensive end, and generally has those responsibilities throughout the game.

Rondo in particular had an immense amount of responsibility in just his second season, with the organization having done an incredible amount of trading to acquire Ray and KG in order to give us the best chance of winning a championship.

Rarely in the history of the game has a young player been put in a position of such responsibilty so early in their career, and done so to the point of winning it all. This kid is exceptional in many ways ... ways which Rubio is a long way from proving his comparability.

Look, what Rondo did was indeed remarkable, but I think it's seriously a stretch to say that the role he played on the '08 team meant that he "lead" the team to a championship.  He was a role-player (albeit a very solid one) on the '08 team.  He no more "led" the team to a title than Perk did.

If the Heat win the championship this year, would you say that Mario Chalmers "led" the team to a title and therefore he's got more credibility as a winning player than a guy like, say, Chris Paul, who's never even made it to the conference finals?  Of course not. 

Pointing to what a player has won in a team context is not particularly convincing evidence for whether they're better than another player or not.  The only time it's relevant, in my opinion, is when you have two players who are statistically similar who are surrounded by a similar level of talent.

He was the "leader" on the floor, (I already explained the extra responsibilities required to do so), and a critical component to the team winning a chmapionship.

And of course it's convincing evidence, (or should be) ... it's proven, not heresay or conjecture or based on ability or the first few games of the season.

Having talent and ability is one thing, taking on the responsibility of what is required to be the starting PG of a championship team is something that isn't afforded anyone until they do it.

I'm not arguing the talent Rubio is blessed with, or that he has a promising career, just that there's a lot more for him to prove in order for me to put him in the same category as Rondo.

The only thing it proves is that Rondo has been put in a winning situation and has been able to fill a significant role on a championship team.  Rubio has not yet had such an opportunity.  It's impossible to say whether or not he would rise to such an occasion.

What we can say is that Rubio is putting up excellent numbers and showing great poise and feel for the game as a rookie.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that at the same point in his career Rondo could not do the same things that Rubio is doing. 

As I've already said, I don't think Rubio is a better player than Rondo right now, but I don't think it's silly to say that they are very similar players who produce in similar ways.  Rubio happens to be better earlier in his career than Rondo was (more NBA-ready, you could say), and he's already a considerably better shooter.

Completely agree with this, PI, (as I do with most of what you post), I just personally think it would be presumptuous and way too early to pull the trigger on a trade that involves sending away a proven, consistent winner, for a guy who's only nine games into his NBA career. (And thanks for the lack of sarcasm that the previous poster seemed unable to manage ... TP for the good discussion).

[Bahku]

If Rubio leads his team to a Championship in his first season as a starter, (and his defense, rebounding, physicality, willingness to take a beating, resiliency, confidence, floor vision, etc., is comparable), then I will start to consider this, (the comparison, not the trade idea) ... PG leadership and vision and success is about much more than numbers. It might be an considerable comparison if you're talking about scoring alone, but Rubio's got a long way to go to be in the same bracket as Rajon as a complete player. Great young baller, but no way would I trade Rondo for him at this point.

Um, how exactly did Rondo "lead" the Celtics to a championship?

I know you know what I meant by that, but I'll explain anyway:

He was the starting point guard, and the PG is the guy who is the "floor general" and the leader on the court ... the ball is in his hands the majority of the time, he sets up and calls most of the plays, he directs traffic on the offensive end, and generally has those responsibilities throughout the game.

Rondo in particular had an immense amount of responsibility in just his second season, with the organization having done an incredible amount of trading to acquire Ray and KG in order to give us the best chance of winning a championship.

Rarely in the history of the game has a young player been put in a position of such responsibilty so early in their career, and done so to the point of winning it all. This kid is exceptional in many ways ... ways which Rubio is a long way from proving his comparability.

Look, what Rondo did was indeed remarkable, but I think it's seriously a stretch to say that the role he played on the '08 team meant that he "lead" the team to a championship.  He was a role-player (albeit a very solid one) on the '08 team.  He no more "led" the team to a title than Perk did.

If the Heat win the championship this year, would you say that Mario Chalmers "led" the team to a title and therefore he's got more credibility as a winning player than a guy like, say, Chris Paul, who's never even made it to the conference finals?  Of course not. 

Pointing to what a player has won in a team context is not particularly convincing evidence for whether they're better than another player or not.  The only time it's relevant, in my opinion, is when you have two players who are statistically similar who are surrounded by a similar level of talent.

And what exactly was Rondo's Role again?  Did he or did he not run the offense? Doc trusted him, Danny trusted him and his team mates trusted him. The difference between Rondo and Chalmers is Rondo actually make plays, call out sets, gets him teammates easy buckets. Chamlers don't have the ball anywhere near as Rondo does. Most of their plays are set up by James and Wade.

TP.

[greg683x]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team.  

The characterization is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

I thought this was a thread comparing Rubio to Rondo, not the semantics of the word "leader" ... I'll be careful not to use the word to describe PGs again, (even though it's a widely accepted term when talking about the game of basketball, and the starting PG being the "floor leader").

He helped to lead the team to a championship, much as Paul or Ray or KG or Perk. Better?

this is a thread about rubio and rondo, you were the one who brought up leading a team to a championship as the difference.  So when people disagree with you, of course what you define as being a leader is gonna be brought into question.

just saying someone is a PG on the championship team, therefore they led their team to a title is very inaccurate, and very very debatable.  Did BJ Armstrong lead the Bulls to a title or did Jordan? Do you always think that the QB on a superbowl winning team is just the leader of that team by default?  If so, then the leader of the 2000 super bowl Ravens team was Trent Dilfer.  Rex Grossman was the QB of a Bears team that went to the Super Bowl, was he the leader of that team, or did they win games despite him?

i think a lot of us forget how far Rondo has come since 2008.  If we had beaten the Lakers in 2010, Id have no problem saying he led that team to a title.

[Bahku]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team. 

The characterization is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

I thought this was a thread comparing Rubio to Rondo, not the semantics of the word "leader" ... I'll be careful not to use the word to describe PGs again, (even though it's a widely accepted term when talking about the game of basketball, and the starting PG being the "floor leader").

He helped to lead the team to a championship, much as Paul or Ray or KG or Perk. Better?

this is a thread about rubio and rondo, you were the one who brought up leading a team to a championship as the difference.  So when people disagree with you, of course what you define as being a leader is gonna be brought into question.

just saying someone is a PG on the championship team, therefore they led their team to a title is very inaccurate.  Did BJ Armstrong lead the Bulls to a title or did Jordan? Do you always think that the QB on a superbowl winning team is just the leader of that team by default?  If so, then the leader of the 2000 super bowl Ravens team was Trent Dilfer.  Rex Grossman was the QB of a Bears team that went to the Super Bowl, was he the leader of that team, or did they win games despite him?

i think a lot of us forget how far Rondo has come since 2008.  If we had beaten the Lakers in 2010, Id have no problem saying he led that team to a title.

Actually, yes, in the same way I meant Rondo is the "leader" while on the floor, (I explained why PGs are desribed as such), so is the QB the "leader" while on the field.

Sorry, but I already clarified what my intent was, and corrected the statement ... really not any point in arguing that part of it further.

This team wins and as team and loses as a team, and that's what makes it great, but the starting PG on any team is considered the "floor leader", and I'm not the only fool who says so.

[greg683x]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team.  

The characterization is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

I thought this was a thread comparing Rubio to Rondo, not the semantics of the word "leader" ... I'll be careful not to use the word to describe PGs again, (even though it's a widely accepted term when talking about the game of basketball, and the starting PG being the "floor leader").

He helped to lead the team to a championship, much as Paul or Ray or KG or Perk. Better?

this is a thread about rubio and rondo, you were the one who brought up leading a team to a championship as the difference.  So when people disagree with you, of course what you define as being a leader is gonna be brought into question.

just saying someone is a PG on the championship team, therefore they led their team to a title is very inaccurate.  Did BJ Armstrong lead the Bulls to a title or did Jordan? Do you always think that the QB on a superbowl winning team is just the leader of that team by default?  If so, then the leader of the 2000 super bowl Ravens team was Trent Dilfer.  Rex Grossman was the QB of a Bears team that went to the Super Bowl, was he the leader of that team, or did they win games despite him?

i think a lot of us forget how far Rondo has come since 2008.  If we had beaten the Lakers in 2010, Id have no problem saying he led that team to a title.

Actually, yes, in the same way I meant Rondo is the "leader" while on the floor, (I explained why PGs are desribed as such), so is the QB the "leader" while on the field.

Sorry, but I already clarified what my intent was, and corrected the statement ... really not any point in arguing that part of it further.

This team wins and as team and loses as a team, and that's what makes it great, but the starting PG on any team is considered the "floor leader", and I'm not the only fool who says so.

no one says youre a fool.  stop being so dramatic.

more often than not, yes, the PG is the floor leader on a basketball team.  more often than not, the field general on the football field is the QB.

is it always the case? certainly not.  Theres always exceptions.  Such as the cases I brought up in football, and also in basketball.

Youre telling me BJ Armsstrong led the bulls to a title??

People might point out that BJ Armstrong is an extreme case.  But isnt a team filled with three hall of famers, with a 2nd year, unproven PG extreme as well??  A PG that the Lakers were completely abandoning on offense and using his defender as a help defender bc his deficiencies on offense were so glaring?  A PG that people were saying the Lakers should start doing the 'Hack-a-Rondo' gameplan bc hes such a bad free throw shooter


I understand the point youre trying to make, but there are exceptions to the rule.

[BballTim]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team.  

It is proven, not hearsay or conjecture, to say that he actually had the ball in his hands the 4th most on the team.  Saying the ball was in his hands the majority of the time means you must have missed the majority of 2008.

The characterization that he was the leader is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

  Rondo may or may not have had the ball in his hands for much of 2008 but he certainly did in the playoffs, especially in the finals. His usage rate for the playoffs was higher than Rays. You also have to consider what usage means. It's how many possessions you use, meaning how many shots or turnovers or free throws. If you factored assists into usage rates Rondo would have been close to even with KG and PP in the 08 playoffs.

 Rondo had a lower usage rate last year than Jeff Green or Shaq or Baby, I'm sure you must have noticed the ball was in his hands much more than any of those players.

[Bahku]

Rondo was unsurprisingly 4th on the team in usage rate.  Point guard or not, he was not the leader of that team. 

The characterization is as absurd as saying Mario Chalmers was the leader of the Eastern Conference champions this past year.

I thought this was a thread comparing Rubio to Rondo, not the semantics of the word "leader" ... I'll be careful not to use the word to describe PGs again, (even though it's a widely accepted term when talking about the game of basketball, and the starting PG being the "floor leader").

He helped to lead the team to a championship, much as Paul or Ray or KG or Perk. Better?

this is a thread about rubio and rondo, you were the one who brought up leading a team to a championship as the difference.  So when people disagree with you, of course what you define as being a leader is gonna be brought into question.

just saying someone is a PG on the championship team, therefore they led their team to a title is very inaccurate.  Did BJ Armstrong lead the Bulls to a title or did Jordan? Do you always think that the QB on a superbowl winning team is just the leader of that team by default?  If so, then the leader of the 2000 super bowl Ravens team was Trent Dilfer.  Rex Grossman was the QB of a Bears team that went to the Super Bowl, was he the leader of that team, or did they win games despite him?

i think a lot of us forget how far Rondo has come since 2008.  If we had beaten the Lakers in 2010, Id have no problem saying he led that team to a title.

Actually, yes, in the same way I meant Rondo is the "leader" while on the floor, (I explained why PGs are desribed as such), so is the QB the "leader" while on the field.

Sorry, but I already clarified what my intent was, and corrected the statement ... really not any point in arguing that part of it further.

This team wins and as team and loses as a team, and that's what makes it great, but the starting PG on any team is considered the "floor leader", and I'm not the only fool who says so.

no one says youre a fool.  stop being so dramatic.

more often than not, yes, the PG is the floor leader on a basketball team.  more often than not, the field general on the football field is the QB.

if it always the case? certainly not.  Theres always exceptions.  Such as the cases I brought up in football, and also in basketball.

Youre telling me BJ Armsstrong led the bulls to a title??

People might point out that BJ Armstrong is an extreme case.  But isnt a team filled with three hall of famers, with a 2nd year, unproven PG extreme as well??  A PG that the Lakers were completely abandoning on offense and using his defender as a help defender bc his deficiencies on offense were so glaring?

I understand the point youre trying to make, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Dramatic, lol?!?

That was irony, not drama, (or maybe comic relief) ... sorry, guess you don't know me too well.

TP for the good discussion anyway.