Is Rondo the best NBA PG? He's almost there.

[kozlodoev]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

  Most point guards have more holes in their games than Rondo. He's not a great outside shooter or free throw shooter, but he's arguably the best in the league in just about every other point guard skill. Aside from rebounding (where he's pretty good) only CP3 can make a similar claim.

Or to flip your argument around: Rose/Paul/Nash/[insert your favorite PG here] is not a great defender or passer, but he's arguably the best in the league in just about every other point guard skill.

  Nash isn't a great defender or rebounder and doesn't get to the rim much. Rose doesn't rebound, defend, pass, run an offense or control the pace of the game as well as Rondo. Which point guard skills (aside from scoring) do you see Rose as best in the league at?

I wasn't aware that rebounding is a point guard skill. But I digress...

Also, I am curious what  distinguishing between "passing, running an offense and controlling the tempo" serve other than padding Rondo's resume?

Should we then  divide shooting into "shooting the three", "shooting off the dribble", "shooting from close distance", "shooting from midrange", post game, etc.? That will open ujp a pile of holes in Rondo's game too.

Plis, I did not say Rose is the best PG in the league. But the notion that Rondo is being underestimated around the league because, you know, the world doesn't know what a PG is, and CB does is ridiculous. Yes, Rondo is a great player. But so are half a dozen of other guys, and all of them have considerable holes in their game. The argument that Rondo's flaws are somehow less significant because those skills are not important for a PG is preposterous.

[saltlover]

Calculated from 55 qualified NBA guards, courtesy of NBA.com.

Average FG%: .438
STDEV FG%: .030

Average APG: 4.565
STDEV APG: 2.394

Average ATTR: 2.393
STDEV ATTR: .624

Method: Subtract average from player's actual value, and divide by STDEV to obtain value. Add values for each of the three categories.

FG%, APG, ATTR
Rondo: +0.33, +2.98, +1.31
Paul: +1.33, +1.89, +3.18
Nash: +3.13, +2.56, +0.81
Rose: -0.10, +1.39, +0.30
Parker: +1.4, +1.07, +1.02
Williams: -1.03, +1.73, -0.31
Westbrook: +0.63, +0.39, -1.40

Final Rankings (Sum)
1. Steve Nash +6.5
2. Chris Paul +6.4
3. Rajon Rondo +4.62
4. Tony Parker +3.49
5. Derrick Rose +1.59
6. Deron Williams +0.39
7. Russell Westbrook -0.41

No Calderon?

No he's there. I just calculated the 7 we were talking about.

Calderon +5.78

Got it.  It's interesting that having a pool of all qualified NBA players instead of only qualified guards causes Nash and Paul to swap places.

Westbrook must do something well, right?  He looks so mediocre focusing on these three numbers.

[kozlodoev]

Westbrook must do something well, right?  He looks so mediocre focusing on these three numbers.

He does volume scoring well. Volume scoring is not reflected in FG%, AST, or ATTR -- just the opposite, if anything.

[Finkelskyhook]

A lot of this goes to show how meaningless statistics are.

To have los Nash even in the discussion of the best PGs is a collossal joke. 

He plays one end of the court great and is completely absent on the other.

[kozlodoev]

A lot of this goes to show how meaningless statistics are.

To have los Nash even in the discussion of the best PGs is a collossal joke. 

He plays one end of the court great and is completely absent on the other.

Yes, statistics are meaningless -- when you've got no idea how to use them.

In this case in particular, the statistics accurately reflect who the best player is, based on shooting percentage and assists.

Why someone decided this is a good measure is a different issue altogether.

[Snakehead]

i would put rondo in the top 5 or 6 pgs, but i dont think he is the best

Well that's quite conservative.


There's no other PG I'd rather have.  I think Paul might be better overall but I like Rondo's fire more.



Also TP to the OP for the effort.

[saltlover]

A lot of this goes to show how meaningless statistics are.

To have los Nash even in the discussion of the best PGs is a collossal joke. 

He plays one end of the court great and is completely absent on the other.

I mean, it's quite clear that this is about offense.  The OP started with two quotes that described a point guard purely from the perspective of offensive value.  Furthermore, with the exception of center, roles can change from offense to defense.  Bradley, for instance, is a perimeter defender who can guard the ball very well, and often picks up the opposing point guard -- but offensively, he's probably better classified a 2 guard than a point.  Offensively, looking at the things point guards are supposed to do, Nash is great.

I don't think there's any reason to bash statistics that are looking at a specific thing, and being used qualitatively, for not coming up with the result you subjectively think is true.

[AB_Celtic]

I don't think there's any reason to bash statistics that are looking at a specific thing, and being used qualitatively, for not coming up with the result you subjectively think is true.

Yep. TP.

[AB_Celtic]

Why someone decided this is a good measure is a different issue altogether.

Either you didn't read the full OP, or you're just trying to fuel some kind of argument or something. I explained why I looked at those statistics. Agree or disagree with them if you want, but my explanation is right there.

[ItStaysYang]

Loved reading this. However, didn't read a single post between post 1 and my post now. It makes me sick, but lots of Celtics fans love to hate on Rondo.

The grass is always greener 

[saltlover]

Westbrook must do something well, right?  He looks so mediocre focusing on these three numbers.

He does volume scoring well. Volume scoring is not reflected in FG%, AST, or ATTR -- just the opposite, if anything.

Is it volume scoring or chucking tho?  True Shooting % and points per game are only weakly correlated at .33 (for nba qualifiers last season), but it's not like they're negatively correlated.  I actually had a pretty high opinion of Westbrook coming into this, based on reputation, and am surprised downright mediocre he looks.

[Interceptor]

Loved reading this. However, didn't read a single post between post 1 and my post now. It makes me sick, but lots of Celtics fans love to hate on Rondo.

The grass is always greener 

Welcome to the offseason! I brought Tasty Popcorn, have one for free.

[AB_Celtic]

Westbrook must do something well, right?  He looks so mediocre focusing on these three numbers.

He does volume scoring well. Volume scoring is not reflected in FG%, AST, or ATTR -- just the opposite, if anything.

Is it volume scoring or chucking tho?  True Shooting % and points per game are only weakly correlated at .33 (for nba qualifiers last season), but it's not like they're negatively correlated.  I actually had a pretty high opinion of Westbrook coming into this, based on reputation, and am surprised downright mediocre he looks.

I was the same way. I'd never really watched much of Westbrook's game but I assumed he was good since he's a 91 overall in 2k12, better than every other PG besides CP3 and Rose. Silly me, never believe 2k. Based off of these three stats he's an 80 at best.

[Snakehead]

Loved reading this. However, didn't read a single post between post 1 and my post now. It makes me sick, but lots of Celtics fans love to hate on Rondo.

The grass is always greener 

He has real flaw in his shooting and we know that well, but we pretend as if others don't have their flaws too.  Nash plays abysmal defense and from reading some people's comparisons you think it wasn't an issue.

Deron Williams and Paul are both more complete players I'd say but neither one is qutie the passer or floor general Rondo is and to me that's the key to the position.  I also seriously question Deron Williams competitive fire. So that's why I feel Rondo's the NBA's best PG.

The thing is Rondo made serious strides with his shooting and had one downright dominant shooting game vs the Heat in a huge game.  He's showing he will step up his scoring when he needs to.  His midrange shooting numbers were quite good and he seems confident in the elbow jumper.

[saltlover]

Why someone decided this is a good measure is a different issue altogether.

Either you didn't read the full OP, or you're just trying to fuel some kind of argument or something. I explained why I looked at those statistics. Agree or disagree with them if you want, but my explanation is right there.

I'm not sure he was being that harsh to you -- I think he was more commenting that the debate about these statistics is rightly placed at the decisions on what data to use or not use, just as they are with most statistical metrics, but that a universal dismissal of all statistics for the sake of dismissing all statistics, as another commenter did, is baseless.  Your measurement accurately looks at assists and shooting as measurements of point guard quality.  You expressed why you did that.  But the debate, should we want to debate, should at this point be at whether those were the best or only metrics to include, and not whether your measurements say anything at all.