Pierce > Rondo?

[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

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.

That is how it is on here, ha, one person plays well (especially if others are out) and people go off the deep end making correlations. I hear you, but....

The OP is asking who is a better player right now, what are your thoughts? I think it is close as I said above

[BballTim]

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.

  When Rondo was playing the team was more than 20 points a game better with him on the court than on the bench. I don't think I'd call that exposed. For most of that time Ray and possibly Bass were the only other players on the team that were average or better. One could easily argue that Bradley is playing a fair amount better than Pierce was when Rondo was healthy. If KG was playing as bad now as he was when PP was out we'd more likely be 1-3 than 3-1 without Rondo.

[BballTim]

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.

  I was somewhat surprised to see that we're now *4th* in the league in defense. We were probably 18th or so a couple of weeks ago, that's a pretty meteoric rise (or drop) even considering the Magic game.

[BballTim]

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. 

  This. I'm watching PP and KG come around and seeing decent play from the bench and thinking that once we put Rondo and Ray back on the court we're back in business. Other people see this and think that we've won a couple of games in a row without one of our best players so we should trade him.

[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.

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.

I am not sure if you are referring to my post that started this little reply string but your paraphasing of my statements (if that is what you are paraphrasing) is completely off the mark.  Nowhere did I say or even imply that Rondo sucks.  Overrated by many on this board, yes, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that Rondo sucks.

[dark_lord]

this has always been, and always will be, pierce's team.

[LB3533]

You and we can't expect this team to continue to play like this without Rondo and Ray.

It's just not gonna happen.

The thought process of trading anyone right now is the wrong thought process.

[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.

That is how it is on here, ha, one person plays well (especially if others are out) and people go off the deep end making correlations. I hear you, but....

The OP is asking who is a better player right now, what are your thoughts? I think it is close as I said above

Fine, if you must have my thoughts, I think Paul Pierce is the better player right now, playing like an all star while Rajon watches in his nice looking suits.

However, once Rondo trades the pinstripes in for the green shorts, I expect him to play like the all star he was playing like to start the season.  I think their games will complement each other well, and have complemented each other well over the past four years.  Of course, there has been some push and pull playing these two exceptional ball handlers together over the years, and a lot of the work in creating this team has been about finding the right balance.

Pierce's numbers will probably go down some, but I just think that more than ever he is at a stage of his career where his numbers mean diddly to him, and it's all about winning. 

Hopefully, he can keep Danny and the trade mongers off his back long enough to keep this thing rolling.  I'm starting to get a special feeling about this squad.

[OmarSekou]

We are a team. We won and got to the finals because everyone played well. The only way we can succeed going forward is if everything plays well.

The Big 3 are the leaders of the team. Rondo is our best player and general on the court.

Our team definitely depends on Pierce because he's the only guy in the past whose been able to consistently create his own offense. He changes the way defenses react and let's us play our game.

Rondo runs the show. Our offense is built around Rondo. He penetrates, creates ball movement, and pushes on fast breaks. He sets the tempo. He calls a lot of the sets.

We need both guys (and KG and Ray and even JO).

[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.

I am not sure if you are referring to my post that started this little reply string but your paraphasing of my statements (if that is what you are paraphrasing) is completely off the mark.  Nowhere did I say or even imply that Rondo sucks.  Overrated by many on this board, yes, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that Rondo sucks.

My apologies.  I didn't mean to call you out or inaccurately paraphrase your thoughts.

However, you say "overrated by many on this board," I say; underrated by many on this board. 

[LB3533]

The most important player on this team is the one who can play the best.

PP and KG were and if they are still able to play their best then either still are the most important on this team.

Rondo can have monster games, but he needs others to play well in order for him to have those monsters.

[BballTim]

The most important player on this team is the one who can play the best.

PP and KG were and if they are still able to play their best then either still are the most important on this team.

Rondo can have monster games, but he needs others to play well in order for him to have those monsters.

  He had a monster game vs the Knicks without anyone else playing that well. I could come up with other examples, but that's one of the more obvious ones. To your point, though, part of it's Rondo having great games when others are playing well but quite a bit of it is people playing well because Rondo's having a good/great game. He makes other players better but people here knock him down because people on the court with him are playing well.

[CelticG1]

The most important player on this team is the one who can play the best.

PP and KG were and if they are still able to play their best then either still are the most important on this team.

Rondo can have monster games, but he needs others to play well in order for him to have those monsters.

  He had a monster game vs the Knicks without anyone else playing that well. I could come up with other examples, but that's one of the more obvious ones. To your point, though, part of it's Rondo having great games when others are playing well but quite a bit of it is people playing well because Rondo's having a good/great game. He makes other players better but people here knock him down because people on the court with him are playing well.

I thought Ray and KG played pretty well that game, and we lost.

How about Pierce is the better player when he plays with lesser talent and Rondo is the better player when he plays with more talent?

Some people look at that as Pierce is better because he can do more with less

[BballTim]

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.

  I did some quick calculations (feel free to check my math) on the games without Rondo (Celts 4-1) and the games without Pierce (Celtics 0-3). When Pierce was out and Rondo was playing the Celts scored 1.02 ppp and gave up 1.10 ppp. When Rondo was out and Pierce was playing the Celts scored 0.96 ppp and opponents scored 0.84 ppp.

  One fairly obvious conclusion is that Rondo can play with a mediocre cast and have an average offense, while Pierce with a better cast "carries" us to a bottom 5 level of offense. There's another reason that PP "carried the team" farther than Rondo that you guys failed to notice. I'll give you a hint, it involves what goes on on the other end of the court.

[BballTim]

The most important player on this team is the one who can play the best.

PP and KG were and if they are still able to play their best then either still are the most important on this team.

Rondo can have monster games, but he needs others to play well in order for him to have those monsters.

  He had a monster game vs the Knicks without anyone else playing that well. I could come up with other examples, but that's one of the more obvious ones. To your point, though, part of it's Rondo having great games when others are playing well but quite a bit of it is people playing well because Rondo's having a good/great game. He makes other players better but people here knock him down because people on the court with him are playing well.

I thought Ray and KG played pretty well that game, and we lost.

How about Pierce is the better player when he plays with lesser talent and Rondo is the better player when he plays with more talent?

Some people look at that as Pierce is better because he can do more with less

  My point is, when Rondo gets guys easier shots, they score more easily and it makes them look better. Rondo does more with less, but part of what he does is make the "less" look like more.