PG's Do NOT Lead a Team to a Championship

[fairweatherfan]

It's pretty hard to define who's "leading" a team in a lot of cases, as others have pointed out.  I don't think Rondo would ever "lead" a team the way a Bird or Jordan or Russell could, because he's not as good as them, and there's no shame in that.

But I think a guy like Rondo could be a major piece of a title team down the road.  He doesn't have to be the best player on that team, because we aren't paying him like one, and title teams don't always have a clear #1.

[CelticSooner]

Ainge is smart enough to know at best Rondo is a third option on a championship team. If management sticks with Rondo they will build with him not around him.

[GreenFaith1819]

Well, Rajon Rondo was AWFULLY close to leading this team to a Banner in 2009-10..

He was clearly the best player on the floor during the CLE and ORL series, and amazingly the most consistent.

To my memory, CLE guarded Ray and Paul well - but they had no answer for Rajon - even to the point of placing Lebron on him in a desperation move.

Lord knows if we could've sealed the deal Rajon Rondo would've been in the running for MVP of that Finals.

[Moranis]

This comes up every so often (usually because I bring it up) and it is true.  I forget the exact breakdown, but I actually went through season by season, and since Isiah's two title teams I believe there has only been 1 season in which the starting PG of the championship winner was an all star in that season (Parker for the fourth Spurs title).  In addition the starting PG of the team that lost the finals appeared in an all star game just 5 times - Payton, Stockton (only an all star 1 of the 2 years), Kidd x2, and Rondo.  

  It's also true that the team who's city has the lower unemployment rate generally wins the Super Bowl, at least that's what I heard on the news before the game. You need a very good player (especially defensively) that's a pf or c. You need 2-3 players that are of a certain caliber, regardless of their position. You're much more likely to win if you have a transcendent player. It just so happens that the last transcendent point guards were in the 80s/90s.

   Larry Bird was always the best player on his team, and that team was always a threat to win the title. Whether any of the title teams in the 20 years before or after had a small forward as their best player had no more effect on whether Bird's team won titles than, well, the unemployment rate in Boston.

The thing is, PG is the only position where there is an absolute dearth of all stars winning or even playing for championships.  Every other position virtually has an all star every single season (between the two teams).  And it isn't just about transcendant players because there are essentially only 4 such players in the 2000's (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron).  The game over the last 20 years was just different to the point where a PG really didn't matter.  I don't know what it is that led to the change, but the fact that the forwards and shooting guards are such great ball handlers now probably had a lot to do with it.  I am sure that Rose, Westbrook, and the new breed of scoring PG will end this trend as they are just really good, but for a 20 year period an all star traditional PG just wasn't necessary to win titles and this new breed of PG has taken over (you know more of the SG in a PG body and role).

[Greenbean]

Let's be real here folks. Rondo is a very nice player and one of the better PG's in the league. He has a lot of areas where he is best in the league, but a few where he really struggles. He is by no means a complete PG who would be considered an all-time great. That being said, he is a nice trading chip to build a contender. Let's not forget the Champions of the past years and who led their teams:

Nowitzki, Kobe, Pierce, Duncan, Wade, Shaq/Kobe, Jordan, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Kareem, etc...

The only PG that arguably led their team to a Championship, because I don't think Magic really counts at the PG spot, is Isaiah Thomas. Rondo is no Isaiah Thomas. He doesn't have the scoring ability to consistently take over a game. Isaiah was a Hall of Famer and one of the best of all time consistently throughout his career. Rondo, while very good, isn't anywhere near that level.

If the goal truly is a Championship, then putting all your eggs in the "Let Rondo be the cornerstone of this team" basket is a horrible plan. Championships are won with all-stars at the 3,4, and/or 5 spots. Not with PG's with huge holes in their game.

Why not face the fact that we are not going to win with this team. While Ray, Pierce, and KG at one point were championship material, they all aren't now. KG isn't anywhere near the defensive presence he once was, and we don't have any consistency at the 5 spot to back him up with JO not healthy enough to be dependable. Rather than spend this year and next pretending we have a shot, let's ensure that we won't wallow in another 20 years of mediocrity by using Rondo to give us a chance at maintaining a winning team and with a little luck contend again. If not, 2 years from now we are likely to be the Washington Wizards...

  Trying to skew your argument by saying Magic doesn't count as a point guard is fairly nonsensical. Which point guard duties did he not do? Aside from that, is anyone claiming that Rondo is going to be the cornerstone going forward? How about a building block, one of the 2-3 good/great players you need to win a title? And someone better phone KG and tell him that he  isn't anywhere near the defensive presence he once was, and we don't have any consistency at the 5 spot to back him up. We're 3rd or so in defense right now. Considering the fact that we were in the 20s after a dozen games or so, I'd wager that over the last month or so our defense has been significantly better than any other defense in the league.

You make Rondo, or any other PG 6 foot 9, and you might be right about Magic, but he was a PG only because of how deep that team was. You can put PG in front of Pierce's name as well and I would argue we do better in the half court, but that doesn't make him a PG. I seem to recall one of those Championships of Magic's was won with him playing the Center spot. Grow Rondo 9-10 inches and give him Magic's scoring ability and we can discuss that.

As far as KG goes, we are playing great defense in spite of KG. He has been horrible compared to the KG of 2008. He's rebounding at a 30% lower clip than his career avg.  His steals are 50% lower than career avg. His blocks are down 30%. Of the big 3, KG has by far the most miles and it shows.

KG's minutes are way down from his career average. His rebound rate has been pretty steady since he got to boston in 07-08. Also, he is blocking shots this year at a rate not seen since his days in minesota.

Clearly KG has lost some athletic ability, but in his prime, KG was an absolute freak athletically.

Now he is still above average athletically compared to other players his size. He is still very effective in the Celtics defensive schemes and he's even shown me some new tricks by playing some dang good one on one defense on centers this year.

He is still an elite defensive player.

[BballTim]

This comes up every so often (usually because I bring it up) and it is true.  I forget the exact breakdown, but I actually went through season by season, and since Isiah's two title teams I believe there has only been 1 season in which the starting PG of the championship winner was an all star in that season (Parker for the fourth Spurs title).  In addition the starting PG of the team that lost the finals appeared in an all star game just 5 times - Payton, Stockton (only an all star 1 of the 2 years), Kidd x2, and Rondo.  

  It's also true that the team who's city has the lower unemployment rate generally wins the Super Bowl, at least that's what I heard on the news before the game. You need a very good player (especially defensively) that's a pf or c. You need 2-3 players that are of a certain caliber, regardless of their position. You're much more likely to win if you have a transcendent player. It just so happens that the last transcendent point guards were in the 80s/90s.

   Larry Bird was always the best player on his team, and that team was always a threat to win the title. Whether any of the title teams in the 20 years before or after had a small forward as their best player had no more effect on whether Bird's team won titles than, well, the unemployment rate in Boston.

So what it actually boils down to is that Rondo isn't good enough to "lead" a team to a Championship.

  I'd say that's debatable. If Rondo had played 1-2 more great games in 2010 he'd have led us to a title. Of course, you need the Rondo that's been putting up roughly 16/7/9 in the playoffs the last 3 years and a few players nearly as good, but I would think adding 2-3 players nearly as good as Rondo is more likely than picking up the next Shaq or Duncan in the draft.

[Donoghus]

Since the Showtime Lakers, outside of Isiah, I'd agree with this sentiment.

They're heckuva 2nd-3rd options/complementary pieces, though.

[BballTim]

This comes up every so often (usually because I bring it up) and it is true.  I forget the exact breakdown, but I actually went through season by season, and since Isiah's two title teams I believe there has only been 1 season in which the starting PG of the championship winner was an all star in that season (Parker for the fourth Spurs title).  In addition the starting PG of the team that lost the finals appeared in an all star game just 5 times - Payton, Stockton (only an all star 1 of the 2 years), Kidd x2, and Rondo.  

  It's also true that the team who's city has the lower unemployment rate generally wins the Super Bowl, at least that's what I heard on the news before the game. You need a very good player (especially defensively) that's a pf or c. You need 2-3 players that are of a certain caliber, regardless of their position. You're much more likely to win if you have a transcendent player. It just so happens that the last transcendent point guards were in the 80s/90s.

   Larry Bird was always the best player on his team, and that team was always a threat to win the title. Whether any of the title teams in the 20 years before or after had a small forward as their best player had no more effect on whether Bird's team won titles than, well, the unemployment rate in Boston.

The thing is, PG is the only position where there is an absolute dearth of all stars winning or even playing for championships.  Every other position virtually has an all star every single season (between the two teams).  And it isn't just about transcendant players because there are essentially only 4 such players in the 2000's (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron).  The game over the last 20 years was just different to the point where a PG really didn't matter.  I don't know what it is that led to the change, but the fact that the forwards and shooting guards are such great ball handlers now probably had a lot to do with it.  I am sure that Rose, Westbrook, and the new breed of scoring PG will end this trend as they are just really good, but for a 20 year period an all star traditional PG just wasn't necessary to win titles and this new breed of PG has taken over (you know more of the SG in a PG body and role).

  If it wasn't for Shaq you'd have a similar situation at center. To rephrase, if Shaq played in the 80s and Magic played now you'd be making an identical argument, only saying that pg was key and center was unimportant.

[Moranis]

This comes up every so often (usually because I bring it up) and it is true.  I forget the exact breakdown, but I actually went through season by season, and since Isiah's two title teams I believe there has only been 1 season in which the starting PG of the championship winner was an all star in that season (Parker for the fourth Spurs title).  In addition the starting PG of the team that lost the finals appeared in an all star game just 5 times - Payton, Stockton (only an all star 1 of the 2 years), Kidd x2, and Rondo.  

  It's also true that the team who's city has the lower unemployment rate generally wins the Super Bowl, at least that's what I heard on the news before the game. You need a very good player (especially defensively) that's a pf or c. You need 2-3 players that are of a certain caliber, regardless of their position. You're much more likely to win if you have a transcendent player. It just so happens that the last transcendent point guards were in the 80s/90s.

   Larry Bird was always the best player on his team, and that team was always a threat to win the title. Whether any of the title teams in the 20 years before or after had a small forward as their best player had no more effect on whether Bird's team won titles than, well, the unemployment rate in Boston.

The thing is, PG is the only position where there is an absolute dearth of all stars winning or even playing for championships.  Every other position virtually has an all star every single season (between the two teams).  And it isn't just about transcendant players because there are essentially only 4 such players in the 2000's (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron).  The game over the last 20 years was just different to the point where a PG really didn't matter.  I don't know what it is that led to the change, but the fact that the forwards and shooting guards are such great ball handlers now probably had a lot to do with it.  I am sure that Rose, Westbrook, and the new breed of scoring PG will end this trend as they are just really good, but for a 20 year period an all star traditional PG just wasn't necessary to win titles and this new breed of PG has taken over (you know more of the SG in a PG body and role).

  If it wasn't for Shaq you'd have a similar situation at center. To rephrase, if Shaq played in the 80s and Magic played now you'd be making an identical argument, only saying that pg was key and center was unimportant.

Olajuwan won 2 titles as an All Star.  Wallace was an all star both of Detroit's finals appearances.  Robinson probably would have been an all star for that 99 Spurs title (if they had an all star game that year).   Ewing, Howard, Dikembe, and I think one or two others played for titles in years they were all stars.  In other-words, if you swapped Shaq for Magic the same is just not true.  

[TheTruthFot18]

If Rondo is the best player on the team then that team is going nowhere so don't worry.  

Rondo will be the ultimate compliment player with 2 or maybe 3 star players to dominate.

Maybe this hurts someone line CP3, DWill, Westbrook, or Curry who demand the ball more in terms of scoring and running the floor but not Rondo.

[BballTim]

This comes up every so often (usually because I bring it up) and it is true.  I forget the exact breakdown, but I actually went through season by season, and since Isiah's two title teams I believe there has only been 1 season in which the starting PG of the championship winner was an all star in that season (Parker for the fourth Spurs title).  In addition the starting PG of the team that lost the finals appeared in an all star game just 5 times - Payton, Stockton (only an all star 1 of the 2 years), Kidd x2, and Rondo.  

  It's also true that the team who's city has the lower unemployment rate generally wins the Super Bowl, at least that's what I heard on the news before the game. You need a very good player (especially defensively) that's a pf or c. You need 2-3 players that are of a certain caliber, regardless of their position. You're much more likely to win if you have a transcendent player. It just so happens that the last transcendent point guards were in the 80s/90s.

   Larry Bird was always the best player on his team, and that team was always a threat to win the title. Whether any of the title teams in the 20 years before or after had a small forward as their best player had no more effect on whether Bird's team won titles than, well, the unemployment rate in Boston.

The thing is, PG is the only position where there is an absolute dearth of all stars winning or even playing for championships.  Every other position virtually has an all star every single season (between the two teams).  And it isn't just about transcendant players because there are essentially only 4 such players in the 2000's (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron).  The game over the last 20 years was just different to the point where a PG really didn't matter.  I don't know what it is that led to the change, but the fact that the forwards and shooting guards are such great ball handlers now probably had a lot to do with it.  I am sure that Rose, Westbrook, and the new breed of scoring PG will end this trend as they are just really good, but for a 20 year period an all star traditional PG just wasn't necessary to win titles and this new breed of PG has taken over (you know more of the SG in a PG body and role).

  If it wasn't for Shaq you'd have a similar situation at center. To rephrase, if Shaq played in the 80s and Magic played now you'd be making an identical argument, only saying that pg was key and center was unimportant.

Olajuwan won 2 titles as an All Star.  Wallace was an all star both of Detroit's finals appearances.  Robinson probably would have been an all star for that 99 Spurs title (if they had an all star game that year).   Ewing, Howard, Dikembe, and I think one or two others played for titles in years they were all stars.  In other-words, if you swapped Shaq for Magic the same is just not true.  

  Pretty close, you've got 5-6 all-stars on losing teams and 2-3 on winning teams. You'd have Magic (7-8 finals as all-star), Parker, Kidd, Payton, Stockton, Rondo, Isiah, et al. You'd probably be at 16 or so in the last 22 or so years. That's about where you are now with centers.

[cman88]

which is why I think its pretty foolish for fans to pine spending 20million$ on deron williams or westbrook...those guys alone arent leading the celts to a championship. and they take up more cap space that could be spent on that #1 guy

thats why rondo isnt being paid like a #1 player...hes making $10million a year.

Instead of worrying about getting a marginal upgrade at PG, why not worry about getting that #1 player or upgrades at other positions?? namely sg, sf, pf, center

for instance, I think a Rondo/eric gordon guard combo would be electric

[OmarSekou]

I think there's a difference between building a team AROUND someone and WITH someone. You can't build a championship team AROUND Rondo, but you can build one WITH him.

I mentioned it in another post. There are currently about 5 guys you can build AROUND. CP3 is a maybe and the only PG I'd put. They're doing it with Rose in Chicago right now and he's going to break down.

Hypothetically, let's put Rondo on the Sixers or the Pacers (to a lesser degree Atlanta). I think those teams are instant contenders. He would be the best player on those teams. I think with the right breaks (mainly to Rose's back and Wade's knee) we can contend this year. Rondo is our best player.

Why would we have to mortgage our future to keep Rondo? His contract isn't unreasonable and he's a top 5 PG. We couldn't find pieces to fit around him as the Big 3 fades/retires? We already have one in Jeff Green who I think could be a great 6th man if he can return to health (and more if he improves). I like Bradley off the bench. JJJ has some potential. Pietrus has some more years in him. The Big 3 might be willing to take less $ and become role players. Etc.

I don't think there's some magic trade where we can trade Rondo for a cornerstone player. The trades people are talking about aren't Rondo for Melo or Rondo for Howard. They're Rondo for Lowry and Dalembert, Rondo for Gasol, Rondo for Nash and Gortat, Rondo for Ray Felton and a bag of chips. They're trades where we are giving up the better player or better fit for our current/future team.

And what about loyalty? Do we need to be so desperate to trade away our best player who by all accounts is a guy who makes others better on the court? Is it necessary to criticize his every mistake while overlooking that he's among the best in the game at his position and the most exciting in the league?

[Moranis]

This comes up every so often (usually because I bring it up) and it is true.  I forget the exact breakdown, but I actually went through season by season, and since Isiah's two title teams I believe there has only been 1 season in which the starting PG of the championship winner was an all star in that season (Parker for the fourth Spurs title).  In addition the starting PG of the team that lost the finals appeared in an all star game just 5 times - Payton, Stockton (only an all star 1 of the 2 years), Kidd x2, and Rondo.  

  It's also true that the team who's city has the lower unemployment rate generally wins the Super Bowl, at least that's what I heard on the news before the game. You need a very good player (especially defensively) that's a pf or c. You need 2-3 players that are of a certain caliber, regardless of their position. You're much more likely to win if you have a transcendent player. It just so happens that the last transcendent point guards were in the 80s/90s.

   Larry Bird was always the best player on his team, and that team was always a threat to win the title. Whether any of the title teams in the 20 years before or after had a small forward as their best player had no more effect on whether Bird's team won titles than, well, the unemployment rate in Boston.

The thing is, PG is the only position where there is an absolute dearth of all stars winning or even playing for championships.  Every other position virtually has an all star every single season (between the two teams).  And it isn't just about transcendant players because there are essentially only 4 such players in the 2000's (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron).  The game over the last 20 years was just different to the point where a PG really didn't matter.  I don't know what it is that led to the change, but the fact that the forwards and shooting guards are such great ball handlers now probably had a lot to do with it.  I am sure that Rose, Westbrook, and the new breed of scoring PG will end this trend as they are just really good, but for a 20 year period an all star traditional PG just wasn't necessary to win titles and this new breed of PG has taken over (you know more of the SG in a PG body and role).

  If it wasn't for Shaq you'd have a similar situation at center. To rephrase, if Shaq played in the 80s and Magic played now you'd be making an identical argument, only saying that pg was key and center was unimportant.

Olajuwan won 2 titles as an All Star.  Wallace was an all star both of Detroit's finals appearances.  Robinson probably would have been an all star for that 99 Spurs title (if they had an all star game that year).   Ewing, Howard, Dikembe, and I think one or two others played for titles in years they were all stars.  In other-words, if you swapped Shaq for Magic the same is just not true.  

  Pretty close, you've got 5-6 all-stars on losing teams and 2-3 on winning teams. You'd have Magic (7-8 finals as all-star), Parker, Kidd, Payton, Stockton, Rondo, Isiah, et al. You'd probably be at 16 or so in the last 22 or so years. That's about where you are now with centers.

You can't count Isiah, since it was post Isiah (you'd get some other centers if you went back to the Isiah years).  There have been 6 PG seasons as All Stars since Isiah/Magic with only Parker winning, plus whatever you got from Magic.  However Magic and Shaq basically counteract each other, so when you look at the centers as All Stars you have 8 Seasons with 3 more arguable (Robinson, Duncan, Gasol) - Dream 94, 95: Ewing 94: Robinson 99 (again no all star game, but safe to assume he makes it that year): Dikembe 01: Wallace 04, 05: Duncan 07 (he was mostly center that year): Ilgauskas 07: Howard 09: and arguably Gasol 09 (bynum didn't play that much or that many minutes that season and Gasol spent more time at center than PF).

[Celtics4ever]

Yeah Magic was terrible and never lead his team to anything.  JK