Revisiting the Rondo-for-CP3 discussions (poll)

[BballTim]

This triple double garbage is getting a little carried away.  I understand that versatility and multiple skills and contributing in many ways is cool and all, but didn't Rondo take 22 shots to get 17 points?  7 for 22 from the field?  I mean, he played alright, but lets not give him league MVP for reaching double digits in 3 categories.

Which game would you rather have (and this is purely hypothetical) -

Player A - 10 points (4-20 FG, 0-3 3PT, 2-4 FT), 10 rebounds, 10 assists, 7 turnovers

Player B - 34 points (10-20 FG, 2-4 3PT, 12-14 FT), 18 rebounds, 6 assists, 1 turnover

Player A has a "triple double".  Player B does not.

Which game would you rather have from your star player (hypothetical, could be anyone).

The point is, that not all triple double games are better than all non-triple double games.  Rondo having a triple double doesn't mean he has had a better playoff than Chris Paul or LeBron James or anyone else.

  Has a single person argued that a triple double is always better than a historically great game where you don't get 10+ assists?

[BballTim]

Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Hornets had agreed to a trade of Rondo, Green and picks to only have Green fail the physical and nullify the trade?!? A disgruntled Rondo would have killed us therefore probably forcing Danny's hand into some type of a trade where we get almost nothing in return for Rondo.

  I kept reading here that we had to trade Rondo because he was going to spend the season sulking about the CP3 trade rumors. Obviously that didn't happen.

[celtsfan84]

Bballtim, it seems that the answer would be yes, and multiple times.

I can't believe how many times I've heard that we shouldn't trade Rondo for a guy like Chris Paul because he "gets triple doubles" on this forum in the past and on other Celtics sites.  Or how I have seen that Rondo "rescued" the Celtics and seemed to be the sole reason the Celtics won on Friday.

His 15 missed jumpers and his 6 turnovers that all seemed to lead to Hawks baskets were a major detriment.  Not to mention, he didn't exactly stop Jeff Teague or Joe Johnson.

The amount of articles / people shouting that Rondo played excellent on Friday because he had a triple double are ennumerable.  Watching the game and not the box score, he seemed indecisive, took us down to the end of the shot clock far too often, had trouble getting us into our offense, turned the ball over with frequency, and played average defense at best.

We barely scraped by a mediocre team without their three best big men. No plaudits for this ugly game.  Just a win and play the next one.

[alajet]

To piggyback on my last post, Jason Kidd has 105 triple doubles in his career.  Michael Jordan had 28.

It seems that some here would want a prime Jason Kidd over a prime Michael Jordan because of this one stat.

Triple doubles are nice but they are in no way, shape, or form a reason to conclude one player is better than another or one performance is better than another.

Realistically speaking I'd want Kidd at PG, and MJ at SG for my team, as they're playing at different positions

Triple-double is a dangerous stat. It definitely shows some class, so, to say the last, not everyone will be getting them. But is it really that indicative? I do believe it is not. So, if Rondo falls one rebound shy of a triple-double, does it make a huge game of his less impressive? I don't think so.
That said, if he turned into a triple-double averaging Oscar Robertson, I'd be inclined not to question anything related to the topic 

[elcotte]

Bballtim, it seems that the answer would be yes, and multiple times.

I can't believe how many times I've heard that we shouldn't trade Rondo for a guy like Chris Paul because he "gets triple doubles" on this forum in the past and on other Celtics sites.  Or how I have seen that Rondo "rescued" the Celtics and seemed to be the sole reason the Celtics won on Friday.

His 15 missed jumpers and his 6 turnovers that all seemed to lead to Hawks baskets were a major detriment.  Not to mention, he didn't exactly stop Jeff Teague or Joe Johnson.

The amount of articles / people shouting that Rondo played excellent on Friday because he had a triple double are ennumerable.  Watching the game and not the box score, he seemed indecisive, took us down to the end of the shot clock far too often, had trouble getting us into our offense, turned the ball over with frequency, and played average defense at best.

We barely scraped by a mediocre team without their three best big men. No plaudits for this ugly game.  Just a win and play the next one.

And not every game is a masterpiece by every player....lighten up.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

3# players for cp3.....I think not. Rondo is easily as good as cp3....Rondo makes delevering the ball the #1 priority. There is only one ball out there. Rondo can shoot, pass, make tough layups....heck, Rondo has INVENTED at least 2 moves that no one EVER did before. CP3 is NOT on the way to achieving what only the NBA greats have...IN THE PLAYOFFS......The regular season is hard enough to do what rondo does, but only the best can not only do it in the playoffs, but improve upon it...! Cp3 has the dunk machine, and a lot of younger, more athletic players on his side......he would never be able to do anything great here...he would be more unhappy then he was with the hornets, and turn into a ball hog. And as far as attitude, i watched cp3, he has a bag of problems he brings also.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

The othr thing here is...when the rondo-haters talk down rondo, they create this mythical pg, that will be perfect...no bad games, no turnovers, no missed shots....DOESN'T EXIST....! Look at health...rondo keeps himself ready....and he takes a beating out there. Yes, there are some things that will happen, but it also matters what you do and don't do in your off time that eventually shows up in your long term health. Rondo is solid there too. Don't forget PAY...rondo makes much less than these other superstars....who produce little. Which one of these other superstars has the championship rondo helped us get...?

[CoachBo]

This triple double garbage is getting a little carried away.  I understand that versatility and multiple skills and contributing in many ways is cool and all, but didn't Rondo take 22 shots to get 17 points?  7 for 22 from the field?  I mean, he played alright, but lets not give him league MVP for reaching double digits in 3 categories.

Which game would you rather have (and this is purely hypothetical) -

Player A - 10 points (4-20 FG, 0-3 3PT, 2-4 FT), 10 rebounds, 10 assists, 7 turnovers

Player B - 34 points (10-20 FG, 2-4 3PT, 12-14 FT), 18 rebounds, 6 assists, 1 turnover

Player A has a "triple double".  Player B does not.

Which game would you rather have from your star player (hypothetical, could be anyone).

The point is, that not all triple double games are better than all non-triple double games.  Rondo having a triple double doesn't mean he has had a better playoff than Chris Paul or LeBron James or anyone else.

  Has a single person argued that a triple double is always better than a historically great game where you don't get 10+ assists?

Uh, yeah. Basically every day.

[CoachBo]

Bballtim, it seems that the answer would be yes, and multiple times.

I can't believe how many times I've heard that we shouldn't trade Rondo for a guy like Chris Paul because he "gets triple doubles" on this forum in the past and on other Celtics sites.  Or how I have seen that Rondo "rescued" the Celtics and seemed to be the sole reason the Celtics won on Friday.

His 15 missed jumpers and his 6 turnovers that all seemed to lead to Hawks baskets were a major detriment.  Not to mention, he didn't exactly stop Jeff Teague or Joe Johnson.

The amount of articles / people shouting that Rondo played excellent on Friday because he had a triple double are ennumerable.  Watching the game and not the box score, he seemed indecisive, took us down to the end of the shot clock far too often, had trouble getting us into our offense, turned the ball over with frequency, and played average defense at best.

We barely scraped by a mediocre team without their three best big men. No plaudits for this ugly game.  Just a win and play the next one.

TP.

While I don't think anyone should dismiss the fact that Rondo woke up in the fourth quarter and dominated the OT, your points are well taken.

The "triple double" term is overused and meaningless. The eyes don't lie. This was anything but a complete game by Rondo, and there isn't a soul in the Celtics locker room - including him - who doesn't know it.

Tommy Point for viewing Rondo realistically, a rare commodity. Or perhaps I should say, Tommy Point for being a "hater."

[celtsfan84]

Thank you, CoachBo.  Exactly the points I am trying to make.  Rondo is a great player and played well, but to act as if he dominated the game because he hit double figures in three categories would be ignoring key parts of the game.

And elcotte, I am plenty "light", thank you.  I never said every game is a masterpiece by every player.  My point was that those who say Rondo's game on Friday was some kind of masterpiece are wrong.  I don't know how to put it more simply or lightly.  I am fine and happy with us being up 2-1 but Rondo worked no miracle on Friday.  Certainly not enough to even make up for missing Game 2 due to his own poor decision making.  Pierce's Game 2 was quite impressive.

Maybe Rondo should lighten up.  He was the one suspended for bumping a ref.  Hopefully his jumper also lightens up.  The rim can't take much more damage than his 15 bricks on Friday night dished out.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Chris Paul is a much better player and it's really not that close. We're comparing a top 10 PG in the league vs. a top 5 player in the league.

[celtsfan84]

Totally agreed.

I am more than happy with Rondo.  It would be very difficult to upgrade the point guard position from him.  Arguments can be made for only a handful or so of guys as an upgrade.  Chris Paul is part of that handful.  At the very top of it, in fact.

This comparison is not close.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

If cp3 was here, you'd rip him the same way.....

[celtsfan84]

I'm not ripping Rondo.  He's not as good as Chris Paul. Plain and simple.

Just because a player wears green it doesn't make them better than every other player in basketball.

I would prefer Dwight Howard to Brandon Bass. Sorry for ripping Brandon Bass.

I would prefer LeBron James to Sasha Pavlovic.  Sorry for ripping Sasha Pavlovic.

I am definitely a Celtic hater.

[IanMello]

Chris Paul is a much better offensive player than Rondo. It used to be that Rondo was the much stronger defender but Rondo's energy and focus defensively have regressed significantly from past seasons.

In my eyes, the Celtics would be a SIGNIFICANTLY better team with Chris Paul. Better shooting, better spacing, and instead of having one late game one on one scorer we'd have two. I don't think it can be overstated how important it is to have multiple guys who can create good shots for themselves when the defense tightens at the end of the game.

Even if the Celtics had to give up Rondo/Jeff Green/21st pick (I don't think they would have had to go that far) I still think it would've been a clear win for Boston. The team that gets the best player wins the deal and I don't see how anyone could argue Rondo is better than Paul, frankly I don't think it's even that close.

I'm not a big Eric Gordon fan (hate guys who can't stay healthy) so I'd say NOH would have done better with Boston's package.