Revisiting the Rondo-for-CP3 discussions (poll)

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Well, i guess i just don't spend that much time in fantasy land.....if we got him...or we had him....lets trade for him......you can only have what you have..generally speaking......and as we have been shown...most of these guys have no desire to be here....CP3...ya, he said NO to coming here....imagine that. I don't just close off and think anyone in the green is the best...i do know that players are different, in different environments, so you have to be able to look beyond just what you are shown...look at TA for example, he is a diff player in memphis...bbd...maybe also....maybe rondo is doing what we  need..because it is what we need.....!

[BballTim]

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."

  The term "triple double" is arbitrary and meaningless, but the contribution from the player who gets the triple double isn't. From the front page, we're 19-1 when Rondo has a triple double. Clearly the "triple doubles are meaningless" viewpoint is lacking in reality. The reality is that when Rondo gets lots of assists we generally do well, when he gets a lot of rebounds we do very well, and when he gets a lot of both the team does terrific.

  Pooh-pooing the fact that people keep track of these stats or pointing out any flaws in Rondo's game doesn't change those realities. If you can somehow show that the success that the Celts have when Rondo gets a triple double is somehow unrelated to his play then your "triple doubles are meaningless" claims would carry a lot more weight.

[BballTim]

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.

  I don't think the point is that he played a perfect game, but that he can miss 15 shots and have 6 turnovers and still be one of the main reasons that the Celts won because he contributes to the team in so many different ways.

[celtsfan84]

I didn't say triple doubles were meaningless.  I said the term is.

What is our record when Rondo has 9 assists and doubles in the other two categories?  Or 9 rebounds and doubles in the other two categories?

Maybe Rondo should either shoot or pass on every single possession so we can go undefeated.  Why not shoot for 82-0?

The point I am trying to make, which no one seems to be understanding, is he was played well on Friday but wasn't outstanding merely because he had a triple double.  Every triple double game isn't better than every non triple double game.

He also didn't play at all in Game 2 through his own actions.

[celtsfan84]

His stat line in Game 2 (which we won) = 0 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists.  We are undefeated in the Big 3 era when Rondo does absolutely nothing.

I'm sure the green-blind fans think it was Chris Paul in disguise as Rondo that chest bumped a referee though.

And Meadowlark Scal, are you telling me he missed 67% of his shots on purpose because that was what we needed?  7 for 22 is awful. 

[celtsfan84]

Also, where is the stat for how he kills our spacing and forces Paul and Kevin into tougher shots when Rondo's guy double teams off of him because he can't shoot (which even Doc has bemoaned)?

We have three Hall of Fame players on our team (past their prime, granted, but still effective) and shot 40% at home against a team with NO BIG MEN.

[BballTim]

I didn't say triple doubles were meaningless.  I said the term is.

What is our record when Rondo has 9 assists and doubles in the other two categories?  Or 9 rebounds and doubles in the other two categories?

  I don't disagree with this. I just guess I don't see the value in your comment. Players that get a lot of assists as well as a lot of rebounds help their teams win. Rondo's able to contribute in both of these areas as well as just about anyone in the game. But any way that you measure it will be arbitrary, and thus "meaningless". So we have a player who does certain things well, but no "valid" means to quantify his accomplishments.

The point I am trying to make, which no one seems to be understanding, is he was played well on Friday but wasn't outstanding merely because he had a triple double.  Every triple double game isn't better than every non triple double game.

  I think that everyone, or at least almost everyone, understands that.

[celtsfan84]

The value in my comment is that triple doubles don't define a player. Rondo having more triple doubles than Paul doesn't make him a better player.

If you agree, then I guess this part of the conversation is over and you agree that my statement has value.

[celtsfan84]

And for what it's worth - Danny Ainge (the guy that both built and played for a Celtics championship team) definitely thinks Chris Paul is better than Rajon Rondo.

He must be a Rondo hater.  Or a Celtics hater.  Or whatever nonsense we spew at people who want the Celtics to be better.

[BballTim]

The value in my comment is that triple doubles don't define a player. Rondo having more triple doubles than Paul doesn't make him a better player.

  That's not unique to triple doubles though. I'm sure that you feel that being better than CP3 in *any* statistical category doesn't make that player better than Paul.

  But by the same token, Rondo's clearly a better rebounder than Paul, and clearly Rondo's rebounding helps the Celts win. The triple doubles are a by-product of Rondo's contribution in that area, and indicative of how he's dominated that category (especially in the postseason) for point guards.

[celtsfan84]

Yes, a players skill is more important than a statistical achievement to me.  Stats have their merits but they are not accumulated in a vacuum.  Rondo and Paul have different teammates, different opponents, different gameplans, etc...

I will certainly agree that Rondo is a better rebounder.  That is a skill that he has that is superior to Paul's ability in that same area.

[BballTim]

Also, where is the stat for how he kills our spacing and forces Paul and Kevin into tougher shots when Rondo's guy double teams off of him because he can't shoot (which even Doc has bemoaned)?

  In 09-10 and 10-11, with Rondo controlling the ball most of the time, PP had the 2 most efficient shooting years of his career. This year he got off to a bad start, but since the all-star break he's been shooting what would be the 4th most efficent. KG hasn't been as effective because he takes fewer shots from the inside than he used to, but all of the last three years were above average for him in terms of shooting efficiency. Are those the stats you're looking for?

[celtsfan84]

Do you think having Ray Allen, arguably the greatest shooter in NBA history, was part of the reason?

Or maybe Pierce and Garnett have to take less difficult shots and a lower volume of shots now that they play with each other?

You seem to be greatly discounting the value of three Hall of Fame players and three of the great shooters in history at their positions.

[Vermont Green]

Shocking that anyone, much less fans who seem to have some knowledge, would feel that Chris Paul is no better than Rondo.

No way the clippers win a playoff game without Chris Paul.

If we had Chris Paul, I would like our team a whole lot more.

Teams don't even cover Rondo. Just pause and think about that for a moment.  The last high level player you could say that about was Ben Wallace.  Ben Wallace had jaw dropping talents and put up huge numbers (like Rondo) but also like Rondo was not an elite player because of his weaknesses.  Ben Wallace was a fine player and made meaningful contributions to playoff teams, like Rondo.

To me, saying Rondo = Paul is the same as saying Wallace = Karl Malone.

At any rate, I hope Danny can find a GM that shares the high opinion of Rondo that some on CB seem to have.  Maybe the clippers will trade Paul to us for Rondo.

[celtsfan84]

Thank you, Vermont Green.  Thank you.

TP.