Pierce > Rondo?

[Change]

Doc started all this nonsense with "This is Rondo's Team". The truth is Paul Pierce is the Truth.

In conclusion, Never compare Superstar HOF to Rondo ever again. Its belittling to Paul Pierce and everything he accomplished in his career.

[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.

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.

Well isnt it assumed that the OP is talking about who is better/going to be better this season? I don't even think Rondo is having that great a season anyway. He may be a little more consistent this year but what would make you believe that will continue? In a 15 game vacuum maybe rondo is better or more consistent but if we are betting on the season give me Pierce.

Also Pierce has been making it look pretty easy to initiate the offense and pile up assist numbers

[BballTim]

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?

  So, if by chance PP doesn't make the all-star team, even if it's next year, how does this work for you? Is he a non all-star, a HALL OF FAMER, or both? What about Shaq the last few years? How do you classify HALL OF FAMERs that are role players?

[Celtics18]

The fact that we are having this debate is great.  A week and a half ago, most thought that Paul Pierce was washed up. 

If he's even in the discussion as this team's best player, then our team's chances are looking much better for this season than many have been anticipating. 

If KG can stay anywhere near that conversation, I'll be really thrilled.

[Vermont Green]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

[ManUp]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

TP, Exactly

Rondo is good, but not as good as I thought he was. This season is kind of exposing him, the idea of a Rondo lead team without the big 3 is starting to give me the heebi jeebis. I've been thinking this even before Pierce started going off.

[snively]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

This sounds plausible, given that the C's were 0-3 to start the season without Pierce, and are 3-1 without Rondo, but I disagree and I think the circumstances favor my point of view. 

The C's at the beginning of the season were historically bad defensively.  It was only Rondo's ability to run a high level offense that kept us in games (and Ray had a big hand in this as well).

Since then they have slowly improved defensively until breaking out into outright defensive dominance in the past two games.  Meanwhile Pierce is doing solid work keeping the offense treading water without Rondo (though not quite at the level we reached early with Ray and Rondo).

So unless you credit Pierce with righting the ship defensively (or alternately, blame Rondo for upsetting it in the first place), I think the win/loss disparity between the Rondo-only and Pierce-only Celtics has very little to do with how much better one is than the other. 

[Celtics18]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

This sounds plausible, given that the C's were 0-3 to start the season without Pierce, and are 3-1 without Rondo, but I disagree and I think the circumstances favor my point of view. 

The C's at the beginning of the season were historically bad defensively.  It was only Rondo's ability to run a high level offense that kept us in games (and Ray had a big hand in this as well).

Since then they have slowly improved defensively until breaking out into outright defensive dominance in the past two games.  Meanwhile Pierce is doing solid work keeping the offense treading water without Rondo (though not quite at the level we reached early with Ray and Rondo).

So unless you credit Pierce with righting the ship defensively (or alternately, blame Rondo for upsetting it in the first place), I think the win/loss disparity between the Rondo-only and Pierce-only Celtics has very little to do with how much better one is than the other. 

Great point.  The recent success we've had is due to our defense finding it's rhythm and not to some great offensive improvement.

[mmmmm]

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?

This post deserves a TP.   Rondo has a loooong career to go before he gets in the same category as PP.

Seriously - why is this a question and why even worry about it?  They are both important to the team and play different (complementary) roles on this team.

Against certain teams, playing Pierce as the Elbow Capitaine can work - and that is a reflection of his HoF versatility - but in the long run our offense is going to be more fully functional and effective in general with Rondo at QB and Pierce as Living Weapon from the 3 spot.

[Carhole]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

This sounds plausible, given that the C's were 0-3 to start the season without Pierce, and are 3-1 without Rondo, but I disagree and I think the circumstances favor my point of view. 

The C's at the beginning of the season were historically bad defensively.  It was only Rondo's ability to run a high level offense that kept us in games (and Ray had a big hand in this as well).

Since then they have slowly improved defensively until breaking out into outright defensive dominance in the past two games.  Meanwhile Pierce is doing solid work keeping the offense treading water without Rondo (though not quite at the level we reached early with Ray and Rondo).

So unless you credit Pierce with righting the ship defensively (or alternately, blame Rondo for upsetting it in the first place), I think the win/loss disparity between the Rondo-only and Pierce-only Celtics has very little to do with how much better one is than the other. 

Great point.  The recent success we've had is due to our defense finding it's rhythm and not to some great offensive improvement.

Agreed, but I would add that PP is a much more settling force on our defense and it has been proven in basically every statistical breakdown possible over the past 5 years. He is a much more consistent defensive player than Rondo with his rotations and responsibilities.

At this point in Paul's career I would say it they are about equal but create their value in different ways (obviously)

PP has less holes in his game that can be taken advantage of and is more solid. But Rondo can be a force of nature in a game even with his holes.

If I could replace either with an average NBA player just for this season though, I think we win a couple more games with PP and a ave nba point guard then with rondo and an ave wing player

[PosImpos]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

TP, Exactly

Rondo is good, but not as good as I thought he was. This season is kind of exposing him, the idea of a Rondo lead team without the big 3 is starting to give me the heebi jeebis. I've been thinking this even before Pierce started going off.

I made a post suggesting this line of thinking a couple weeks ago and I got a wave of indignation and derision from Rondoites like you wouldnt believe.

[Celtics18]

I think the point is that a Rondo-led Celtics team can't win without Pierce on the floor and playing well (at least against other than the lowest competition) but a Pierce-led team can win without Rondo on the floor.

So what those two statements add up to is that we need Paul Pierce to win for sure and that Rondo is certainly a player that makes us better (as compared to Dooling, Bradley, Moore) but he doesn't make nearly the difference that Paul Pierce does.

This sounds plausible, given that the C's were 0-3 to start the season without Pierce, and are 3-1 without Rondo, but I disagree and I think the circumstances favor my point of view. 

The C's at the beginning of the season were historically bad defensively.  It was only Rondo's ability to run a high level offense that kept us in games (and Ray had a big hand in this as well).

Since then they have slowly improved defensively until breaking out into outright defensive dominance in the past two games.  Meanwhile Pierce is doing solid work keeping the offense treading water without Rondo (though not quite at the level we reached early with Ray and Rondo).

So unless you credit Pierce with righting the ship defensively (or alternately, blame Rondo for upsetting it in the first place), I think the win/loss disparity between the Rondo-only and Pierce-only Celtics has very little to do with how much better one is than the other. 

Great point.  The recent success we've had is due to our defense finding it's rhythm and not to some great offensive improvement.

Agreed, but I would add that PP is a much more settling force on our defense and it has been proven in basically every statistical breakdown possible over the past 5 years. He is a much more consistent defensive player than Rondo with his rotations and responsibilities.

At this point in Paul's career I would say it they are about equal but create their value in different ways (obviously)

PP has less holes in his game that can be taken advantage of and is more solid. But Rondo can be a force of nature in a game even with his holes.

If I could replace either with an average NBA player just for this season though, I think we win a couple more games with PP and a ave nba point guard then with rondo and an ave wing player

As luck would have it, though, we have elite players at both the point guard and small forward position.  And, we have really, really, really good players at power forward and shooting guard, a serviceable center and a strong bench.  Throw in a great coach and loads of Ubuntu, and I think we might have something. 

Of course, in the spirit of absolute glass half emptiness some people want to use our captain's inspirational play of late as an argument against our young, all star point guard. 

"Pierce is playing great.  Therefore, Rondo sucks."  I love that line of reasoning.

[Celtics4ever]

I think Rondo has more upside as a player today but PP was a better player than Rondo will ever be.   No one can beat father time forever.

[celty86]

It would not surprise me if it was Rondo that Ainge ends up trading down the road as opposed to Pierce.

[greenpride32]

It would not surprise me if it was Rondo that Ainge ends up trading down the road as opposed to Pierce.

Well we have been trying to trade Rondo for the past 2-3 years, there just aren't any takers (offered him for Westbrook and CP3, and rumored to have offerred him for Curry).