The Spurs show we should run it back

[Celtics18]

Parker's playoff resume is nothing to sneer at - I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo's, but I think you could certainly call it a wash and if someone else wanted to argue the Parker case I wouldn't really argue too hard about it.

Um, you made a pretty convincing case yourself.

Tony Parker has 3 rings and has been a Finals MVP. 

Statistically, Rondo comes out pretty well in the playoffs against Tony Parker over their careers, but that takes into account a lot of seasons in the early 2000s when Parker was a role player.

Parker's playoff runs this year, last year, and in 2007 are better than anything's Rondo's done, in my opinion.

  I don't think that 20/4/6 and a steal is necessarily better than 17/7/12 and 2.5 steals. I thought Rondo was clearly better than Parker last year, especially considering the 3 teams the Celts faced in the playoffs were 3rd, 4th and 6th in defense that year and the teams Parker faced were 10th, 18th and 19th.

I don't buy the "Rondo generates the same / more points" argument.  Assists are not the same thing as points.  Parker has shown the ability to be the main shot taker and shot maker for a team that goes all the way.  Rondo has not.  That's really more or less the end of the story for me.

  Your not buying it doesn't mean it isn't true. In the 2012 playoffs our offense (minus Jeff Green's 20 ppg) was significantly better despite facing significantly better defenses. The difference was Rondo generating so many points for us. Did you notice all the wide open 20 footers KG wasn't getting this year? Did you notice most of those shots were created by Rondo in the 2012 playoffs?

  And it's true Parker takes more shots than Rondo, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the Celts score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than Parker scores when he shoots the ball.

I get your argument, but at the end of the day I just think it's much more valuable and rare to have a guy who can score 20-30 points efficiently, not to mention getting big buckets late in games when the opposing defense clamps down.  What Rondo does is great, but I'd rather have Parker.

To me it's sort of like asking, would you rather have Jason Kidd or Isiah Thomas?  I can see the argument for Kidd, but personally I'd rather build my team around Isiah.

Last season, eleven players averaged more than 20 points per game.  One player averaged more than 10 assists per game.  The "rare" part of your argument is clearly untrue.  A passer like Rondo is actually more rare than a scorer like Parker. 

Clearly, right now, Parker is more valuable.  His team's still playing, and he just got done with probably the best playoff series of his life to help lead his team to another finals appearance.  Rondo's been limping around, recovering from surgery since February. 

Rondo's also four years younger and based on his past performances, I think it's very fair to expect that he has a few more playoff series left in his career to rival the ones he had in 2009 vs. Chicago, in 2010 vs. Cleveland, 2011 vs. New York,  and 2012 vs. Miami (those are just his finest ones).

A point guard who can score like Parker is very rare -- in my opinion there's nobody at that position as effective as he is, all things considered.  Especially when you consider that he's also a very capable passer.  He doesn't get as many assists because that's not the way the Spurs' system works.  If you counted Parker's "hockey assists" I'm guessing he would seem like more of a passer statistically.  Don't get me wrong, Rondo is a rare talent as well.  Any team would love to have either Parker or Rondo as one of their key pieces.  But with Parker I think you are closer to having a contender if he's your starting point than with Rondo, because if you have Rondo you still need that elite leading scorer.

I apologize for the quibbling on this minor point, but of the eleven players who averaged over 20 points per game last season, four of them--Parker, Irving, Curry, and Westbrook--were point guards.  That's more than a fair share of top scorers coming from the PG position.  I'm still not buying the rarity argument.

I'm not hating on Tony Parker here; he's long been probably my favorite non-Celtic in the game.  If you'd rather have Parker than Rondo, I get that. 

Personally, I don't think there's much separation between the top five to seven point guards in the league as far as talent goes.  I think it comes down more to personal preference.  The other PGs on that list are more scorers than pass-first guys like Rondo, who happens to be a rarity in today's game. 

[kgainez]

Like I said, of the big 3s on each team, we win!

KG vs. Duncan- Wash

RR vs. TP- Wash (wow, Parker scores more and shoots a higher ft %, except with all those stats "someone" declined to add what RR is better at than TP b/c for everything TP does better I can find the same for RR).

PP vs. Manu- PP WINS THAT MATCHUP HANDS DOWN!


So 2 draws and a win for us, our big 3 is better lol!


Now, team wise, SA had the huge edge this season. They were healthy, had chemistry from playing with pretty much the same team as last season, and their role players are stepping up (Splitter especially). Only one of our role players were consistently good and that was Green. We couldn't count on any of the rest of them (well Jet was okay though).


Again, I don't care what SA does (well, I want them to win it all if Mia adv.), I want Danny to run it back!

Rondo has more assists. someone already said that. it contributes for 3 points more per game is the stat, which Tony Parker more than makes up for by himself.
Not sure how anyone can say t his one is a draw. maybe in the playoffs...maybe...but in the regular season, not even. and we have no clue what rondo would do in the play offs this year

  Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game. I'd say Parker's been better during the regular season the last couple of years and worse before that, Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.

i tend to agree with you and what i've seen in the post season
in the regular season, TP looks tons better, is much more consistent than RR
but you're asking me to use my logic and copy and paste it into the future
now if i woulda done that with paul pierce this year, he'd have a great post season..but he didn't, so i can't do that. I have to go by what we've seen.

and from regular season to play offs, Tony Parker is MUCH MORE CONSISTENT THAN RONDO...that's my argument.

[PhoSita]

I apologize for the quibbling on this minor point, but of the eleven players who averaged over 20 points per game last season, four of them--Parker, Irving, Curry, and Westbrook--were point guards.  That's more than a fair share of top scorers coming from the PG position.  I'm still not buying the rarity argument.

Your point about there being a lot of score-first point guards in the league and not so many prolific passers is well taken.

However, at least in my view Parker is on a different level than the other guys you mentioned, mostly because I trust his poise on the big stage.  I think he's much more capable than those others of producing consistently in high pressure situations and not making as many mistakes or taking as many ill-advised shots.  Not saying those other guys won't get to where Parker is, but his experience is the big difference maker for me there.  That's why I think he's the best.  He's got the ability and he puts up the numbers but he's also a really smart and controlled player.

Like you I appreciate that going with a score first point guard or a pass first point guard is a matter of preference.  In my view, if you are going to have your point guard be the focal point of your offense, it's more valuable to have somebody who can take over when other guys are not up to the task of getting the key baskets late in games.  The nice thing with Parker is he's clearly capable of making great passes, too.  So is Duncan.  That's why the Parker / Duncan pick and roll is so deadly and effective.  Both guys are a threat to score and both can pass to the other guy, or to open shooters or cutters elsewhere on the floor.  That's Rondo's biggest weakness in running the offense, in my opinion -- it's a limiting factor when the guy running your plays isn't nearly as much a threat to score himself.  The defense knows he's going to pass to somebody.  The impressive thing with Rondo is that he's such a creative passer that it's still hard to predict where the ball is going to go.

[kgainez]

I have to agree with PhoSita
And the point people are making that Rondo's assists are better because teammates get wide open...lol...come on, guys. If you're a pass first PG, you're going to rack up the assists. There aren't many in this day and age. Also, if you're smart enough to pass to your teammate in his fave spot, well...aren't you just doing what a PG SHOULD do?

Tony gets his guys in great position, gets them wide open as well. And on TOP of that, Tim Duncan and Splitter are setting great, hard LEGAL screens that help get defenders lost.

The Spurs are better. We were 20-23 with Rondo. No way we were going to be a 50 win club.

You all can act like the regular season doesn't matter AT ALL, but it has some bearing on what happens in the playoffs, such as matchups, homecourt advantage, familiarity and such.

I've never been a fan of Rondo sleep walking thru the regular season only to be a monster in the playoffs. Anyone on the team for that matter. Tony Parker brings it all the time, is extremely smart, is aggressive and can score -- because after all, you win a basketball game based on how many points you score.

[Roy H.]

  Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.

I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere?  Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating.  The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.

What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense?  That's not rhetorical.  Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much.  How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?  (Also, this isn't a factor of offensive rebounding.  Last season, for instance, San Antonio ranked 24th in offensive rebounds, but still had the most efficient offense.)

... Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.

Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?

[Celtics18]

I apologize for the quibbling on this minor point, but of the eleven players who averaged over 20 points per game last season, four of them--Parker, Irving, Curry, and Westbrook--were point guards.  That's more than a fair share of top scorers coming from the PG position.  I'm still not buying the rarity argument.

Your point about there being a lot of score-first point guards in the league and not so many prolific passers is well taken.

However, at least in my view Parker is on a different level than the other guys you mentioned, mostly because I trust his poise on the big stage.  I think he's much more capable than those others of producing consistently in high pressure situations and not making as many mistakes or taking as many ill-advised shots.  Not saying those other guys won't get to where Parker is, but his experience is the big difference maker for me there.  That's why I think he's the best.  He's got the ability and he puts up the numbers but he's also a really smart and controlled player.

Like you I appreciate that going with a score first point guard or a pass first point guard is a matter of preference.  In my view, if you are going to have your point guard be the focal point of your offense, it's more valuable to have somebody who can take over when other guys are not up to the task of getting the key baskets late in games.  The nice thing with Parker is he's clearly capable of making great passes, too.  So is Duncan.  That's why the Parker / Duncan pick and roll is so deadly and effective.  Both guys are a threat to score and both can pass to the other guy, or to open shooters or cutters elsewhere on the floor.  That's Rondo's biggest weakness in running the offense, in my opinion -- it's a limiting factor when the guy running your plays isn't nearly as much a threat to score himself.  The defense knows he's going to pass to somebody.  The impressive thing with Rondo is that he's such a creative passer that it's still hard to predict where the ball is going to go.

The bolded part is a big key for me, as well.  Rondo is still considerably younger than Parker, but the fact that he's had so much big game experience, and performed at extremely high levels and experienced a ton of team success in those situations, is going to hold him in really good stead as he enters his prime years. 

[kgainez]

  Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.

I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere?  Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating.  The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.

What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense?  That's not rhetorical.  Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much.  How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?

Everyone who's saying the Celtics are better or it's a wash, please pay attention to this
because for our starters, the statistics are very close (Leonard to JG, Green to AB, Splitter to Bass).

We are not a better team, right now, at all. And I will say this again:

If running it back like the Spurs means putting Paul on the bench, getting KG a 6'11+ Center, getting Rondo to score more (or at least be more consistent), then I'm with it.

But to say the team as is should just be better is a fallacy. And if we don't run it back, I have no problem trying to get RR and JG the pieces they need to compete.

[More Banners]

Let's forget the counting stats because different roles result in different totals in each category.

The first thing I looked at was turnover percentage, where TP is ahead of RR for the career by a large margin, 14.0% vs. 20.4%, meaning, I think, that Rondo commits nearly 50% more turnovers per 100 possessions.

TP beats Rondo in offensive rating, 109-106.

Rondo beats TP in defensive rating, 101-104.

Interesting that it's a 3-point spread in both and a split decision, offense-defense.

So it's probably a basketball theory decision, and I'll take Parker 10 times out of 10.  Here's why.

In the final seconds with the ball, I'll take TP's better ability to score and make free throwst every time.  He can be the guy with the ball in those situations; Rondo, not so much.

Second, turnovers from the point guard position drive me nuts.  True that Rondo has a better assist/turnover ratio and more assists, but I discount Rondo 2 assists per game where he turns down a layup or easy bucket to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else.  That flattens out the discrepancy in total assists and assist/turnover, tilting toward TP's favor for
me.

Third, Parker plays nice with the referees.

Fourth is the jumper, even though Parker isn't killer from 3, he's a threat and must be guarded.  There have been times when Rondo simply wasn't guarded outside in the half court, and that was in playoff games.  He stood there and dribbled.

They're close, but I'd prefer Parker if starting from scratch.

[mmmmm]

On paper, talent-wise the Spurs may or may not be significantly better. What they are significantly better at though is getting easy points in the paint. The Spurs 3 best paints are experts at getting shots right at the rim either in transition or by penetrating in the halfcourt. Our 2 key players get almost all their shots from 15 feet and out. Our whole offense is perimeter-based and therefore, more easily defended. That's why despite the similarities in age, the Spurs will always be better than this team as constituted not simply because of sheer talent but because of skillset.

This is a very important observation and it reflects one of my biggest concerns over the C's the last 2-3 years:  less and less shots 'at rim'.

To the counter, if the assumption going forward for next year is a healthy Sully and the acquisition of at least one decent big man, then that issue could be addressed somewhat.

[Celtics18]

Let's forget the counting stats because different roles result in different totals in each category.

The first thing I looked at was turnover percentage, where TP is ahead of RR for the career by a large margin, 14.0% vs. 20.4%, meaning, I think, that Rondo commits nearly 50% more turnovers per 100 possessions.

TP beats Rondo in offensive rating, 109-106.

Rondo beats TP in defensive rating, 101-104.

Interesting that it's a 3-point spread in both and a split decision, offense-defense.

So it's probably a basketball theory decision, and I'll take Parker 10 times out of 10.  Here's why.

In the final seconds with the ball, I'll take TP's better ability to score and make free throwst every time.  He can be the guy with the ball in those situations; Rondo, not so much.

Second, turnovers from the point guard position drive me nuts.  True that Rondo has a better assist/turnover ratio and more assists, but I discount Rondo 2 assists per game where he turns down a layup or easy bucket to "get his teammates involved" or "reward" someone else.  That flattens out the discrepancy in total assists and assist/turnover, tilting toward TP's favor for
me.

Third, Parker plays nice with the referees.

Fourth is the jumper, even though Parker isn't killer from 3, he's a threat and must be guarded.  There have been times when Rondo simply wasn't guarded outside in the half court, and that was in playoff games.  He stood there and dribbled.

They're close, but I'd prefer Parker if starting from scratch.

The book on Parker earlier in his career regarding the jump shot was more or less the same as it is on Rondo.  As a matter of fact, just looking at this year's playoffs, it appears that the defense still prefers to go under screens on Tony than risk trying to fight over them.  Parker has improved his mid-range jumper.  Of course, so has Rondo.  Rondo was among the leaders in field goal percentage from 16 to 23 feet this past season. 

Rondo will probably never be confused with Steve Nash or Chris Paul as a perimeter shooter, but he seems to be roughly on the same trajectory as Tony Parker.  It's nice that Tony can hit a jumper, but I don't think anyone would say that his outside shooting touch is what makes him a special player. 

[MBz]

I don't think we are comparable to the Spurs.   First off, I think Tony Parker and Tim Duncan are better then anyone on the Celtics.  I also think Kawhi Leonard is much better then our young talent(Bradley, Sullinger).  They also have major size in Duncan and Splitter and they use their size.  KG doesn't really play like a center and then after him we don't have any centers. 

[mmmmm]

My point is that if I'm deciding between building my team around a 12-10-5-2 guy or a 20-7-3-2 guy, I'll take the 20-7-3-2 guy, assuming the second guy is an elite crunch time scorer and the first guy isn't.

That's an individual-focused way to look at it.

I would rather have the guy who helps his _TEAM_ score efficiently, whether it is him taking the shot or someone else.

Rondo doesn't take a ton of shots - but the ones he does take he tends to complete at a high efficiency (career eFG% of 49%, just a hair behind Parker's 51%).   And the ones he doesn't take are instead assists to guys with better shots.   

If Rondo was not playing with great shooters like Pierce, Allen & Garnett, maybe he'd have been better off taking more shots.  But logically, when he might be open for a league-average 40% 2PT jumper, even if he is capable of making that shot at an above average 45%, if Ray Allen is open at the 3PT arc for a shot that Ray makes at an eFG% of 64%, then I want him passing to Ray.

That's smart team basketball.

[mmmmm]

  Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.

I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere?  Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating.  The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.

What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense?  That's not rhetorical.  Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much.  How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?  (Also, this isn't a factor of offensive rebounding.  Last season, for instance, San Antonio ranked 24th in offensive rebounds, but still had the most efficient offense.)

... Rondo's generally been better in the playoffs when healthy. And people who have followed the Celts over the last 4-5 years should have a clue how Rondo would do in the playoffs this year. When he's healthy he's one of the best postseason players in the league.

Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?

To the question in bold:  Yes.

Our offensive woes are DIRECTLY correlated with our decreasing use of a post up game and fewer shots at the rim in general in the last 2-3 years.

Basically after losing Perk (who while not a great offensive player, could set a hard baseline screen and help clear space under the hoop) and then Shaq, we just have not had any consistent big man who works close to the post to balance KG's stretch game.     We've had brief flashes of success with other bigs, but the only guy who's stayed healthy for the bulk of the last couple of years is Brandon Bass, who offensively is a poor imitation of KG - a stretch big, who isn't really very complementary to KG's game.

We had a brief, wonderful stretch when we paired Sully with KG -- as I've pointed out earlier, with those two together up front, our Net Rating was a fantastic +10 points per 100 possessions and had a solidly positive offensive rating of 105 (and, oh-yeah, a stingy DRtg of 95!).

If we DO have KG back next year, and we could get a solid, full season of Sully up front with him - that could be a huge boost to our offense.

[CelticConcourse]

Is the ability to stay healthy a positive attribute for Parker, that should be factored into a comparison?

No. He's not injured like Curry or Gordon or Roy. An ACL tear is one discrete injury that happens. Rondo is not consistently injured.

[mmmmm]

  Not sure how someone decided that 4 or so more assists a game contribute for 3 more points per game.

I don't know where that claim comes from, either, but doesn't the fact that Parker's team has been more successful offensively get factored in somewhere?  Over the past four seasons, San Antonio has finished 9th, 2nd, 1st, and 7th in offensive rating.  The Celtics have been 15th, 18th, 27th, and 24th.

What's more impressive, the point guard who racks up a ton of assists on the 27th rated offense, or the guy who gets 3 - 4 fewer assists on a top-rated offense?  That's not rhetorical.  Is our offense poor because our personnel is weak, or is there a flaw in Rondo handling the ball so much.  How much of San Antonio's offensive success is due to Parker, and would they be even better if they had somebody who had more assists?

Everyone who's saying the Celtics are better or it's a wash, please pay attention to this
because for our starters, the statistics are very close (Leonard to JG, Green to AB, Splitter to Bass).

We are not a better team, right now, at all. And I will say this again:

If running it back like the Spurs means putting Paul on the bench, getting KG a 6'11+ Center, getting Rondo to score more (or at least be more consistent), then I'm with it.

But to say the team as is should just be better is a fallacy. And if we don't run it back, I have no problem trying to get RR and JG the pieces they need to compete.

I think that the OP's assumptions all along have been that a real big man would need to be acquired (and also having Sully healthy all year).

I don't think anyone wants a repeat of last year where we played the fall without 2 of our key guys (no Bradley, Green obviously not fully recovered) and the fall without 2 of our starters (Rondo, Sully) and key rotation guy (Leandro).

I think folks need to keep clear that the intent of a 'run it back' is not to floor the same exact team as this last season by any means.