Pierce > Rondo?

[ManUp]

Is 34 y/o Paul Pierce still a better or bigger impact player than 25 y/o Rondo? Looking at the splits it would seem so. In the games that we have won pierce has basically done it all scoring passing and rebounding. As for Rondo he's basically just played his role distributing the ball and doing what you'd expect from him. In 6 losses Pierce has been terrible shooting the ball his rebounding and assists are down while turnovers are up. Rondo in 8 losses scores, rebounds, and turns the ball a little more while his assists stay basically the same.

In Wins:
Pierce: 8 wins
FG%:457  FT%:800 3P%:405
18.9points, 6.4assists, 5.9rebounds, 0.9steals, and 2.8turnovers
Rondo: 5 Wins
FG%:595  FT%:524  3P%:500
12points, 9.2assists, 4.8 rebounds, 1.steals, and 3turnovers

In Losses:
Pierce: 6 Losses
FG%:347  FT%:871  3p%:400
14points, 3.5assists, 4rebounds, 0.8steals, and 3.2turnovers
Rondo: 8 Losses
FG%:485  FT%:633  3p%:286
16points, 9.5assists, 5.3rebounds, 2.steals, and 4.3turnovers

So far it's looked like we need Pierce a whole lot more than we need Rondo. What do you think?

Things to take into account.
Rondo played the first 3 games without Pierce and an out of shape team (if you buy that excuse).

Pierce played 4 games without Ray, 3 games without Rondo.

[ManUp]

SO should we change the trade Pierce threads to trade Rondo? So far this season he's failed in the alpha dog role. It looks like this is still very much Pierce's team.

[snively]

So because Paul has played better in wins and far worse in losses he's the better player? 

[ejk3489]

SO should we change the trade Pierce threads to trade Rondo? So far this season he's failed in the alpha dog role. It looks like this is still very much Pierce's team.

No need to, there's already been about 5 this morning...

And no, at this point I still think Rondo is our best player. I don't think Pierce can keep this up every game which is fine, he's still a very good player.

[pearljammer10]

As an overall player yes. As a point guard, no freakin way.

[BballTim]

Is 34 y/o Paul Pierce still a better or bigger impact player than 25 y/o Rondo? Looking at the splits it would seem so. In the games that we have won pierce has basically done it all scoring passing and rebounding. As for Rondo he's basically just played his role distributing the ball and doing what you'd expect from him. In 6 losses Pierce has been terrible shooting the ball his rebounding and assists are down while turnovers are up. Rondo in 8 losses scores, rebounds, and turns the ball a little more while his assists stay basically the same.

  So you're saying that Paul's play has been more inconsistent than Rondo's, therefor he's better than Rondo?

[CelticG1]

Yes pierce is better. at this point in his career he is still at least as consistent as Rondo and he is still the go to guy on this team. I trust him in late game situations for a variety of reasons as well.

If Rondo could consistently play wel he would pass pierce at this point but  who knows if that will happen. With the style that Rondo plays I think its hard to maintain a consistent high level of play. He has to rely on other people making baskets and has to rely on finishing at the rim.

[ManUp]

What I'm trying to point out is that it seems that this teams success depends on Pierce's ability to play at or near an all star level. So far this season when Pierce hasn't shown up we've lost. Rondo has been pretty consistent this year, but it seems that when he has to do less or takes the back seat we win. Out of the 5 wins he's played in he's hit double figures in scoring only twice. 18 against the Wizards, and 21 against Raptors. He's hit double figures in scoring in 7 of the 8 losses he's played, Indian being the exception. How can you be considered the best player on the team when the team does better when your playing a secondary role?

[snively]

What I'm trying to point out is that it seems that this teams success depends on Pierce's ability to play at or near an all star level. So far this season when Pierce hasn't shown up we've lost. Rondo has been pretty consistent this year, but it seems that when he has to do less or takes the back seat we win. Out of the 5 wins he's played in he's hit double figures in scoring only twice. 18 against the Wizards, and 21 against Raptors. He's hit double figures in scoring in 7 of the 8 losses he's played, Indian being the exception. How can you be considered the best player on the team when the team does better when your playing a secondary role?

Rondo's been the best player on the team because he's been the most consistently productive player.  Paul's had some great games (the last 3 especially) and some pretty bad ones (the first game against Indy, Chicago and Phoenix).

You might say that Rondo's been the rock and Pierce has been the wild card.

If Pierce keeps up the pace he's been at in the last 3 games (25+ppg on 50% shooting, with 8+ assists and 6+ boards) of course he'll be worthy of best player on the team honors.  Heck, he'd be worthy of MVP honors.  I don't expect him to sustain that level of production.  Thus I eagerly await Rondo's return to the line-up.

[wdleehi]

Pierce is the best player on the team. 


Rondo creates the best mismatch against certain teams.

[CelticG1]

What I'm trying to point out is that it seems that this teams success depends on Pierce's ability to play at or near an all star level. So far this season when Pierce hasn't shown up we've lost. Rondo has been pretty consistent this year, but it seems that when he has to do less or takes the back seat we win. Out of the 5 wins he's played in he's hit double figures in scoring only twice. 18 against the Wizards, and 21 against Raptors. He's hit double figures in scoring in 7 of the 8 losses he's played, Indian being the exception. How can you be considered the best player on the team when the team does better when your playing a secondary role?

Rondo's been the best player on the team because he's been the most consistently productive player.  Paul's had some great games (the last 3 especially) and some pretty bad ones (the first game against Indy, Chicago and Phoenix).

You might say that Rondo's been the rock and Pierce has been the wild card.

If Pierce keeps up the pace he's been at in the last 3 games (25+ppg on 50% shooting, with 8+ assists and 6+ boards) of course he'll be worthy of best player on the team honors.  Heck, he'd be worthy of MVP honors.  I don't expect him to sustain that level of production.  Thus I eagerly await Rondo's return to the line-up.

Is there any question that Pierce has been the most consistent celtic fire the past 10 years. We aren't just going on these 15 games both have their their ttrack records set in stone, Pierce has been consistent, Rondo inconsistent.

Id bet money that pattern holds true again.

Also lets not forget if teams are daring Rondo to beat them they are a lot more successful than daring Pierce to beat them.

[Bankshot]

Yes.

I can't believe people are asking this question after watching Pierce and Rondo their whole careers.

Until Rondo greatly improves his jump shot and free throw shooting to the point where he is not a liability, Pierce will be better.

[Swoopz]

In our losses with Rondo, our only consistent scorers were him, Ray, and Bass. The rest of the team were missing wide open jumpers and easy layups. Now that the team is in better shape/more comfortable, they're going to win more games, whether Pierce is controlling the ball or Rondo.

[RyNye]

Pierce is a HALL OF FAMER. A historically good player.

Rondo is a great player, a perennial All-Star.

Both are good. But Hall of Fame caliber is rare. Why is this even a question?

[ejk3489]

What I'm trying to point out is that it seems that this teams success depends on Pierce's ability to play at or near an all star level. So far this season when Pierce hasn't shown up we've lost. Rondo has been pretty consistent this year, but it seems that when he has to do less or takes the back seat we win. Out of the 5 wins he's played in he's hit double figures in scoring only twice. 18 against the Wizards, and 21 against Raptors. He's hit double figures in scoring in 7 of the 8 losses he's played, Indian being the exception. How can you be considered the best player on the team when the team does better when your playing a secondary role?

Rondo's been the best player on the team because he's been the most consistently productive player.  Paul's had some great games (the last 3 especially) and some pretty bad ones (the first game against Indy, Chicago and Phoenix).

You might say that Rondo's been the rock and Pierce has been the wild card.

If Pierce keeps up the pace he's been at in the last 3 games (25+ppg on 50% shooting, with 8+ assists and 6+ boards) of course he'll be worthy of best player on the team honors.  Heck, he'd be worthy of MVP honors.  I don't expect him to sustain that level of production.  Thus I eagerly await Rondo's return to the line-up.

Is there any question that Pierce has been the most consistent celtic fire the past 10 years. We aren't just going on these 15 games both have their their ttrack records set in stone, Pierce has been consistent, Rondo inconsistent.
Id bet money that pattern holds true again.

Also lets not forget if teams are daring Rondo to beat them they are a lot more successful than daring Pierce to beat them.

Wasn't that the question though? I don't think anyone is saying that Rondo has had a better career than Pierce (obviously), just that this season he's been our most consistent player.