time to revisit an old idea? celtics- OKC trade idea

[syfy9]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

If you think Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distributing skills are average to above average for a starting caliber NBA point guard, then I am forced to call you a Westbrook "homer."   

If you haven't seen other people point those things out, then you haven't been looking very hard.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has noticed. 

On the other hand, his athleticism, his motor, his aggressiveness, and confidence are all pretty much off-the-charts.  These are the qualities that make Russell Westbrook an elite basketball player.

Now we are starting to get into the silliness of the oft-repeated claim that Rondo is a "flawed" player.  I say, fine.  Of course he's a flawed player.  There are no perfect basketball players.  Really, there aren't, not even Lebron James. 

It's got to be a slightly uncomfortable feeling to have to try to defend a position like "Russell Westbrook has no flaws." Well, I mean, even you have to feel silly saying that.  You know Russell Westbrook has flaws.  You've seen him play.

My long-winded point is that having some flaws doesn't make you a bad player.  Good players have plenty of strengths that outweigh their flaws.  This is the case with both Rondo and Westbrook and other elite players in the game.  That's what makes them special, not flawlessness. 

We (the collective WE--the fans) will find the flaws in anyone's game.  It's what we do.

The day when someone thinks you'd be a homer for thinking that an all-NBA point guard would at least have average BBIQ, ball-handling, and distribution skills...

Westbrook can't suck at those things and still put up the numbers he puts up, even if he has elite athleticism and quickness. How come Gerald Green, Shannon Brown, and Terrance Williams aren't all-stars?


There are no perfect players in the NBA, but there are complete players. Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc. are all complete players. They have no flaws in their games and are at least average in every single aspect of the game. Those guys are franchise players. I think that Westbrook is very very close to being one; his only real flaw is shot selection (arguably not even a flaw at all).

Franchise players are more valuable than star players like Rondo.

[D.o.s.]

I would say that both the Celtics and the Thunder have an entire post season to consider how important both are to their respective franchises.

[syfy9]

I read the last few posts and a lot of people are conceding that Westbrook is better than Rondo. I don't really think so. Call it homer-ism but they're both all star guards and their stats aren't much different except Rondo gets you 6-8 points in assists that Westbrook gets you in pull up 14-footers. Oh and Rondo is a substantially better defender.

Westbrook's a better scorer...and actually that is it. Rondo runs a offense better hands down. Their TS%s are almost identical because of Rondo's lack of 3pt and FT%.

Look at the stats!

Additionally Rondo is on a slightly cheaper contract and his WS% is higher. I'm really not seeing it as lopsided one way or the other. Maybe because Westbrook was an olympian and Rondo got snubbed.

What I will say is that I think Rondo would fit in OKC better than Westbrook does. That is just my opinion but for me Rondo is the better PG for that team and they could do a lot worse than moving Westbrook and Perkins for Rondo and maybe what I'd say is a top-20 all time player in KG. I'd call them the unabashed favorites in the west, hands down. I'd also ask for PJIII or Lamb in the deal.

Doesn't Rondo have a gambling addiction? In the 2012-2013 season, he was considered a poor defender by many posters.


We see this happen way more often than we should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDkjj-VCIrY&list=PLD5BCB3DC22688AB9

[Celtics18]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

If you think Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distributing skills are average to above average for a starting caliber NBA point guard, then I am forced to call you a Westbrook "homer."   

If you haven't seen other people point those things out, then you haven't been looking very hard.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has noticed. 

On the other hand, his athleticism, his motor, his aggressiveness, and confidence are all pretty much off-the-charts.  These are the qualities that make Russell Westbrook an elite basketball player.

Now we are starting to get into the silliness of the oft-repeated claim that Rondo is a "flawed" player.  I say, fine.  Of course he's a flawed player.  There are no perfect basketball players.  Really, there aren't, not even Lebron James. 

It's got to be a slightly uncomfortable feeling to have to try to defend a position like "Russell Westbrook has no flaws." Well, I mean, even you have to feel silly saying that.  You know Russell Westbrook has flaws.  You've seen him play.

My long-winded point is that having some flaws doesn't make you a bad player.  Good players have plenty of strengths that outweigh their flaws.  This is the case with both Rondo and Westbrook and other elite players in the game.  That's what makes them special, not flawlessness. 

We (the collective WE--the fans) will find the flaws in anyone's game.  It's what we do.

The day when someone thinks you'd be a homer for thinking that an all-NBA point guard would at least have average BBIQ, ball-handling, and distribution skills...

Westbrook can't suck at those things and still put up the numbers he puts up, even if he has elite athleticism and quickness. How come Gerald Green, Shannon Brown, and Terrance Williams aren't all-stars?


There are no perfect players in the NBA, but there are complete players. Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc. are all complete players. They have no flaws in their games and are at least average in every single aspect of the game. Those guys are franchise players. I think that Westbrook is very very close to being one; his only real flaw is shot selection (arguably not even a flaw at all).

Franchise players are more valuable than star players like Rondo.

My first beef with your latest response is you can't say "Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc." without naming your etceteras.  You make it sound as if there's a list to lengthy to mention of players without flaws. 

I won't go into those guys' flaws, because, admittedly, I'd be digging pretty deep, and those aren't the guys we are discussing here, anyway. 

As to Westbrook's ball handling, IQ, and passing abilities, you make some good comparisons with guys like Green, Williams, and Brown.  Why is Westbrook better than them?  I'd say it's because those guys are well below average in their "traditional point guard skills."   If those guys didn't have the size and athleticism that they do, they wouldn't even be NBA players.  What makes Westbrook special is that he has Gerald Green type athleticism to go with average point guard skills.  That, in itself, is extremely impressive.  No other point guard in the NBA can claim that.  But, if you think he has anything close to the elite ball skills and passing ability of a Rajon Rondo or a Chris Paul, you're kidding yourself. 

[D.o.s.]

I would also like to add that All-Star status is relatively meaningless in this discussion as it is determined via fan vote.

Finally, I would have thought the idea that OKC would do better with a different point guard would've died along with their title chances in this year's playoffs.

[Celtics18]

I would also like to add that All-Star status is relatively meaningless in this discussion as it is determined via fan vote.

Finally, I would have thought the idea that OKC would do better with a different point guard would've died along with their title chances in this year's playoffs.

Couldn't you say the same for Rondo and the Celtics?

[syfy9]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

If you think Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distributing skills are average to above average for a starting caliber NBA point guard, then I am forced to call you a Westbrook "homer."   

If you haven't seen other people point those things out, then you haven't been looking very hard.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has noticed. 

On the other hand, his athleticism, his motor, his aggressiveness, and confidence are all pretty much off-the-charts.  These are the qualities that make Russell Westbrook an elite basketball player.

Now we are starting to get into the silliness of the oft-repeated claim that Rondo is a "flawed" player.  I say, fine.  Of course he's a flawed player.  There are no perfect basketball players.  Really, there aren't, not even Lebron James. 

It's got to be a slightly uncomfortable feeling to have to try to defend a position like "Russell Westbrook has no flaws." Well, I mean, even you have to feel silly saying that.  You know Russell Westbrook has flaws.  You've seen him play.

My long-winded point is that having some flaws doesn't make you a bad player.  Good players have plenty of strengths that outweigh their flaws.  This is the case with both Rondo and Westbrook and other elite players in the game.  That's what makes them special, not flawlessness. 

We (the collective WE--the fans) will find the flaws in anyone's game.  It's what we do.

The day when someone thinks you'd be a homer for thinking that an all-NBA point guard would at least have average BBIQ, ball-handling, and distribution skills...

Westbrook can't suck at those things and still put up the numbers he puts up, even if he has elite athleticism and quickness. How come Gerald Green, Shannon Brown, and Terrance Williams aren't all-stars?


There are no perfect players in the NBA, but there are complete players. Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc. are all complete players. They have no flaws in their games and are at least average in every single aspect of the game. Those guys are franchise players. I think that Westbrook is very very close to being one; his only real flaw is shot selection (arguably not even a flaw at all).

Franchise players are more valuable than star players like Rondo.

My first beef with your latest response is you can't say "Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc." without naming your etceteras.  You make it sound as if there's a list to lengthy to mention of players without flaws. 

I won't go into those guys' flaws, because, admittedly, I'd be digging pretty deep, and those aren't the guys we are discussing here, anyway. 

As to Westbrook's ball handling, IQ, and passing abilities, you make some good comparisons with guys like Green, Williams, and Brown.  Why is Westbrook better than them?  I'd say it's because those guys are well below average in their "traditional point guard skills."   If those guys didn't have the size and athleticism that they do, they wouldn't even be NBA players.  What makes Westbrook special is that he has Gerald Green type athleticism to go with average point guard skills.  That, in itself, is extremely impressive.  No other point guard in the NBA can claim that.  But, if you think he has anything close to the elite ball skills and passing ability of a Rajon Rondo or a Chris Paul, you're kidding yourself.

The point I was trying to make was that he had at least average point guard skills, and that I shouldn't be homer for thinking so. I don't think he's an elite passer or has elite BBIQ,  but his ball-handling is elite (Not talking about turnovers and stuff, but overall how well you can dribble).


Yeah, so if you want me to list them out; here's the list of who I think are elite complete basketball players (excluding those who were in the past, but have aged/regressed): Lebron, Durant, Kobe, CP3, Wade, Melo, Parker, and Rose.

I think that Westbrook, Harden, Love, Griffin, and Kyrie are all front-runners to join that group.

EDIT: P.S, TP for this good debate. 

[D.o.s.]

I would also like to add that All-Star status is relatively meaningless in this discussion as it is determined via fan vote.

Finally, I would have thought the idea that OKC would do better with a different point guard would've died along with their title chances in this year's playoffs.

Couldn't you say the same for Rondo and the Celtics?

Absolutely. The comparison was supposed to be there by omission.

I will say that I think Westbrook helps the Celtics more than Rondo helps the Thunder, because the Thunder need a player besides Durant who is a constant threat to shoot (and quite possibly score) anywhere from 25 ft in. That doesn't really play to Rondo's strengths.

edit--score by being an on-ball creator, I should add. There are plenty of catch-and-shoot players in the NBA that fit my original statement.

[BballTim]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

If you think Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distributing skills are average to above average for a starting caliber NBA point guard, then I am forced to call you a Westbrook "homer."   

If you haven't seen other people point those things out, then you haven't been looking very hard.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has noticed. 

On the other hand, his athleticism, his motor, his aggressiveness, and confidence are all pretty much off-the-charts.  These are the qualities that make Russell Westbrook an elite basketball player.

Now we are starting to get into the silliness of the oft-repeated claim that Rondo is a "flawed" player.  I say, fine.  Of course he's a flawed player.  There are no perfect basketball players.  Really, there aren't, not even Lebron James. 

It's got to be a slightly uncomfortable feeling to have to try to defend a position like "Russell Westbrook has no flaws." Well, I mean, even you have to feel silly saying that.  You know Russell Westbrook has flaws.  You've seen him play.

My long-winded point is that having some flaws doesn't make you a bad player.  Good players have plenty of strengths that outweigh their flaws.  This is the case with both Rondo and Westbrook and other elite players in the game.  That's what makes them special, not flawlessness. 

We (the collective WE--the fans) will find the flaws in anyone's game.  It's what we do.

The day when someone thinks you'd be a homer for thinking that an all-NBA point guard would at least have average BBIQ, ball-handling, and distribution skills...

Westbrook can't suck at those things and still put up the numbers he puts up, even if he has elite athleticism and quickness. How come Gerald Green, Shannon Brown, and Terrance Williams aren't all-stars?

  They don't score like he does. Look, clearly you're a huge fan of his but you're overrating his non-scoring skills. He's really not a great a ball-handler (he has about 440 ball-handling turnovers over the past 4 years, probably leading the league over that time), his distribution skills really aren't that great, and his BBIQ leaves a lot to be desired. It's true you can name players that he's better than in those categories, but if you start looking at good/great players you won't find many.

[BballTim]

I read the last few posts and a lot of people are conceding that Westbrook is better than Rondo. I don't really think so. Call it homer-ism but they're both all star guards and their stats aren't much different except Rondo gets you 6-8 points in assists that Westbrook gets you in pull up 14-footers. Oh and Rondo is a substantially better defender.

Westbrook's a better scorer...and actually that is it. Rondo runs a offense better hands down. Their TS%s are almost identical because of Rondo's lack of 3pt and FT%.

Look at the stats!

Additionally Rondo is on a slightly cheaper contract and his WS% is higher. I'm really not seeing it as lopsided one way or the other. Maybe because Westbrook was an olympian and Rondo got snubbed.

What I will say is that I think Rondo would fit in OKC better than Westbrook does. That is just my opinion but for me Rondo is the better PG for that team and they could do a lot worse than moving Westbrook and Perkins for Rondo and maybe what I'd say is a top-20 all time player in KG. I'd call them the unabashed favorites in the west, hands down. I'd also ask for PJIII or Lamb in the deal.

Doesn't Rondo have a gambling addiction? In the 2012-2013 season, he was considered a poor defender by many posters.


We see this happen way more often than we should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDkjj-VCIrY&list=PLD5BCB3DC22688AB9

  Are you trying to claim that Westbrook never gambles on defense? Seriously?

[D.o.s.]

Maybe you're right - I should watch some more KG highlights and remind myself how much of a winner and competitor he is. Then again, there might be a reason that KG was being offered for DeAndre Jordan in the first place. Either way, I still think that the gap between Westbrook and Rondo is still bigger than KG and Perk. I'm trying to think like the OKC Thunder - would they really accept this trade? Tbh, I really like it, but it would take convincing from OKC's side.

By what standard could you possibly believe that the difference between Russell Westbrook and Rajon Rondo is greater than the difference between Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins?

Please remember that when comparing players, it is helpful to actually compare them and not just fawn all over one of them.

How would you propose to compare them and their value?

You really can't. I'm making an opinionated, suggestive statement by saying that. I could use advanced statistics and stuff, but in the end, you can't measure impact, influence to the game, their teammates, and the overall definitive potential franchise changers like Westbrook have.

I believe it, and that is my opinion. I would think that the OKC office would agree with me as well. You can think otherwise if you so desire. Just know that it is much, much easier for Celtics fans to think highly of Celtics players rather than players from different teams.

Sometimes I actually also think it's easier for Celtics fans to think less of their own players than those on other teams.  I believe that when watching a guy play on your team for every game out of 82, fans have a tendency to at times look at that players flaws and exaggerate them.  There's such a fear sometimes of being called a "homer" that many fans tend to overcompensate towards the negative.

I never think stats and awards and the like tell the whole story, but when you have a guy that has been a four consecutive time all-star, been on an all NBA team, been on four consecutive all defensive first or second teams, been top ten in MVP voting twice, as well as consistently putting up some of the most impressive post-season numbers in the league, then, I think it's reasonable to consider that the guy might be a star player.

So, I don't mind that folks prefer Westbrook or Paul or Rose to Rondo.  For me, that stuff comes down to personal preference more than anything else. 

However, I always feel like when I point out that Rondo is in elite company, someone invariably doesn't just say, "I prefer Westbrook or I prefer Rose."  They often say something like;  "you must be kidding, you utterly biased, completely insane, green-goggles wearing, homer.  Rondo's not even in the same league.  Comparing Rondo to Paul is like comparing Greg Stiemsma to Bill Russell!!"

When I then try to use facts or stats or awards or something other than just my own eye test to back up my observations and opinions, well, then, people just move on from the argument because often times people prefer not to consider facts that don't back up their own opinions.

When you think about it, if Rondo just has seven more years as successful as his first seven (certainly not a given, I know, but also not unattainable), he'll go down as one of the best to ever wear this storied uniform.  If that happens, looking back, won't it be a little strange that for the first half of his career, there were basically three or four fans on this entire blog who consistently stood up for him and recognized his immense talents.

There is also a chance that Rondo injury was worse than appeared/he gets injured again and he would finish his career Fat Lever/Grant Hill style. Consistently standing up for Rondo is more or less ignoring his flaws. When you ignore his flaws, you venture into "homer" territory.

I think that Rondo is certainly in the discussion of elite PGs (we are doing it right now), and has been for several years. That's really what it should boil down to in a whole - how the world perceives each player, and whether or not they are elite. I'm sure there are people outside of the Boston fan base that think of Rondo as elite; that is what makes him elite.


As to the matter of how Celtics fans think of Celtics players - I disagree. Normally, as Celtics fans, we cheer for the Celtics. We want them to win - we root for them. Even if you don't like players on the team or dislike some of their flaws/habits, you want them to succeed and overcome this all. Subconsciously, you are more biased for them because of this.

It's wrong to conflate "consistently standing up for" with "ignoring his flaws."  I am perfectly aware that Rondo has some flaws.  He's a terrible free throw shooter and a poor three point shooter.  He's also not a "natural scorer."  I generally don't mention his flaws because I often find myself in discussions with folks who seem to think that his flaws define him.  The are other people on here who are very willing to mention Rondo's flaws.  I don't need to join that train.

Russell Westbrook has flaws.  Does the fact that you and others on here focused on his abilities rather than his flaws make you Westbrook "homers"?  No, I wouldn't say that. You were stating a case.  The fact that Russell Westbrook, for all his positives, doesn't have the highest basketball IQ and isn't particularly skilled as a ball handler or distributor doesn't fit your argument.  I don't fault you for not mentioning that.  I don't go on a lot of OKC fan sites, but I'd be willing to guess that fans over there frequently point out the flaws in Westbrook's game.  They watch him all the time.  So, despite all the good things he can do on a basketball court, I'm sure his flaws can be frustrating to them.

I don't fault anyone for suffering from "the grass is greener" syndrome.  I just want to point out that it may exist on more levels than you are aware.

Well, I disagree on your claims that Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distribution skills are below average. They aren't flaws at all, and I don't see many other people pointing his problems with that. He's nowhere near the best, but he's not the worse. I think that Westbrook's only "flaw" (flaw being a below average skill that hinders a one's overall completeness as a basketball player) is his shot selection. Shot selection is fixable.

There is a difference between being a "homer" and being high on a player. I highly regard Westbrook, while others could see him as a chucker, while others see him as the next Jordan. A Westbrook homer would rather have him on the Celtics than an obviously better package, like a Evans/Cousins, Gordon/Davis, Rubio/Love sort of deal. I'd jump on any of those 3 trades instead of Westbrook.

If you think Westbrook's BBIQ, ball handling, and distributing skills are average to above average for a starting caliber NBA point guard, then I am forced to call you a Westbrook "homer."   

If you haven't seen other people point those things out, then you haven't been looking very hard.  I can't imagine that I'm the only one who has noticed. 

On the other hand, his athleticism, his motor, his aggressiveness, and confidence are all pretty much off-the-charts.  These are the qualities that make Russell Westbrook an elite basketball player.

Now we are starting to get into the silliness of the oft-repeated claim that Rondo is a "flawed" player.  I say, fine.  Of course he's a flawed player.  There are no perfect basketball players.  Really, there aren't, not even Lebron James. 

It's got to be a slightly uncomfortable feeling to have to try to defend a position like "Russell Westbrook has no flaws." Well, I mean, even you have to feel silly saying that.  You know Russell Westbrook has flaws.  You've seen him play.

My long-winded point is that having some flaws doesn't make you a bad player.  Good players have plenty of strengths that outweigh their flaws.  This is the case with both Rondo and Westbrook and other elite players in the game.  That's what makes them special, not flawlessness. 

We (the collective WE--the fans) will find the flaws in anyone's game.  It's what we do.

The day when someone thinks you'd be a homer for thinking that an all-NBA point guard would at least have average BBIQ, ball-handling, and distribution skills...

Westbrook can't suck at those things and still put up the numbers he puts up, even if he has elite athleticism and quickness. How come Gerald Green, Shannon Brown, and Terrance Williams aren't all-stars?

  They don't score like he does. Look, clearly you're a huge fan of his but you're overrating his non-scoring skills. He's really not a great a ball-handler (he has about 440 ball-handling turnovers over the past 4 years, probably leading the league over that time), his distribution skills really aren't that great, and his BBIQ leaves a lot to be desired. It's true you can name players that he's better than in those categories, but if you start looking at good/great players you won't find many.

While incomplete, here's the Turnovers and minutes stats for the first five seasons of these point guards: Rondo, Westbrook, CP3, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose (four seasons), and Magic Johnson (because why not).

http://bkref.com/tiny/aW9um


Magic:
12631 minutes, 1341 turnovers
4.0 turnovers per game, 9.8 assists

Paul:
12881 minutes, 888 turnovers
2.6 turnovers per game, 10.0 assists

Rondo:
12269 minutes, 973 turnovers
2.5 turnovers per game, 7.6 assists

Rose:
10272 minutes, 816 turnovers
2.9 turnovers per game, 6.8 assists

Westbrook:
13520 minutes, 1370 turnovers
3.5 turnovers per game, 6.9 assists

Williams:
13623 minutes, 1150 turnovers
3.0 turnovers per game, 9.0 assists


I think people tend to forget that Westbrook is still only 24, three or four years away from the normal trajectory for his prime as a basketball player.

[chambers]

teams would triple team durant if there wasnt another scoring threat like westbrook on on that team. If rondo's with durant, its even worse because teams would quadruple team durant.

If they triple teamed Durant then Rondo would go straight to the paint and be able to dump to KG or Ibaka for some wide open 15 footers on each side every time they over help.
He'd just carve them up with so many good jumpshooters and either get easy looks around the rim or wide open jumpers for their big men or KD.
Durant could catch open threes galore and would take 30+ shots a game (which is a good thing).
KG solidifies their interior D and gives them another inside scoring presence.

[Moranis]

So listening to espn on the radio this morning, Colin Coherd (spelling?) was talking how multiple sources have told him that the Durant way be growing tired with Westbrook eclipsing him on the shot totals every night.

  Management and the coaches should be tired of it as well. Durant's probably the most efficient high scorer in the league, Westbrook is close to the least efficient. The fact that he shoots more than KD on a regular basis is a testament to his low(ish) BBIQ. Put him on his own team and he'll take even more shots, and (without KD drawing the attention of the defense) probably be even *less* efficient when he shoots.

and yet without Westbrook they were awful offensively in the playoffs.  Westbrook takes the offensive pressure off of Durant. 

[Celtics18]

My first beef with your latest response is you can't say "Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc." without naming your etceteras.  You make it sound as if there's a list to lengthy to mention of players without flaws. 

I won't go into those guys' flaws, because, admittedly, I'd be digging pretty deep, and those aren't the guys we are discussing here, anyway. 

As to Westbrook's ball handling, IQ, and passing abilities, you make some good comparisons with guys like Green, Williams, and Brown.  Why is Westbrook better than them?  I'd say it's because those guys are well below average in their "traditional point guard skills."   If those guys didn't have the size and athleticism that they do, they wouldn't even be NBA players.  What makes Westbrook special is that he has Gerald Green type athleticism to go with average point guard skills.  That, in itself, is extremely impressive.  No other point guard in the NBA can claim that.  But, if you think he has anything close to the elite ball skills and passing ability of a Rajon Rondo or a Chris Paul, you're kidding yourself.

The point I was trying to make was that he had at least average point guard skills, and that I shouldn't be homer for thinking so. I don't think he's an elite passer or has elite BBIQ,  but his ball-handling is elite (Not talking about turnovers and stuff, but overall how well you can dribble).


Yeah, so if you want me to list them out; here's the list of who I think are elite complete basketball players (excluding those who were in the past, but have aged/regressed): Lebron, Durant, Kobe, CP3, Wade, Melo, Parker, and Rose.

I think that Westbrook, Harden, Love, Griffin, and Kyrie are all front-runners to join that group.

EDIT: P.S, TP for this good debate. 

Westbrook is not an "elite" ball handler.  He's an elite ball handler for a guy with his size and athletic tools.  And, I'm not talking about his numbers, I'm just talking about actually watching him dribble. 

As to your list of complete players, I disagree.  While that's a nice list of elite NBA players, those guys all have some flaws.  For starters, I would say that Wade, Parker, and Rose are all hardly, if at all, better shooters than Rondo.  Melo has trouble finishing at the rim, has a tendency to take too many shots, and has fairly mediocre court vision.  Paul often appears to be the perfect basketball player statistically, especially during the regular season.  His efficiency numbers are always just like made up silly.  However, his lack of elite athleticism and stubbornness can be exploited in the playoffs.  When he gets trapped aggressively, he has a tendency not to get rid of the ball fast enough.  This often leads to the offense he is running getting disrupted.  I guess Kobe's main flaw is that he shoots too much (it's probably also one of his greatest strengths).  Durant is a poor passer, and his skinny frame still hurts him on the defensive end.  Lebron, although having an improved jump shot, is not a "pure" shooter and, as witnessed for at least two or three games in the finals, can be taken out of his offensive rhythm when you pack the paint and dare him to shoot.

Oh, and TP to you as well.

Also, I felt it was high time to edit out some of our earlier responses.  Pretty soon one post was going to start taking up a whole page.   

[syfy9]

My first beef with your latest response is you can't say "Lebron, Durant, Kobe, etc." without naming your etceteras.  You make it sound as if there's a list to lengthy to mention of players without flaws. 

I won't go into those guys' flaws, because, admittedly, I'd be digging pretty deep, and those aren't the guys we are discussing here, anyway. 

As to Westbrook's ball handling, IQ, and passing abilities, you make some good comparisons with guys like Green, Williams, and Brown.  Why is Westbrook better than them?  I'd say it's because those guys are well below average in their "traditional point guard skills."   If those guys didn't have the size and athleticism that they do, they wouldn't even be NBA players.  What makes Westbrook special is that he has Gerald Green type athleticism to go with average point guard skills.  That, in itself, is extremely impressive.  No other point guard in the NBA can claim that.  But, if you think he has anything close to the elite ball skills and passing ability of a Rajon Rondo or a Chris Paul, you're kidding yourself.

The point I was trying to make was that he had at least average point guard skills, and that I shouldn't be homer for thinking so. I don't think he's an elite passer or has elite BBIQ,  but his ball-handling is elite (Not talking about turnovers and stuff, but overall how well you can dribble).


Yeah, so if you want me to list them out; here's the list of who I think are elite complete basketball players (excluding those who were in the past, but have aged/regressed): Lebron, Durant, Kobe, CP3, Wade, Melo, Parker, and Rose.

I think that Westbrook, Harden, Love, Griffin, and Kyrie are all front-runners to join that group.

EDIT: P.S, TP for this good debate. 

Westbrook is not an "elite" ball handler.  He's an elite ball handler for a guy with his size and athletic tools.  And, I'm not talking about his numbers, I'm just talking about actually watching him dribble. 

As to your list of complete players, I disagree.  While that's a nice list of elite NBA players, those guys all have some flaws.  For starters, I would say that Wade, Parker, and Rose are all hardly, if at all, better shooters than Rondo.  Melo has trouble finishing at the rim, has a tendency to take too many shots, and has fairly mediocre court vision.  Paul often appears to be the perfect basketball player statistically, especially during the regular season.  His efficiency numbers are always just like made up silly.  However, his lack of elite athleticism and stubbornness can be exploited in the playoffs.  When he gets trapped aggressively, he has a tendency not to get rid of the ball fast enough.  This often leads to the offense he is running getting disrupted.  I guess Kobe's main flaw is that he shoots too much (it's probably also one of his greatest strengths).  Durant is a poor passer, and his skinny frame still hurts him on the defensive end.  Lebron, although having an improved jump shot, is not a "pure" shooter and, as witnessed for at least two or three games in the finals, can be taken out of his offensive rhythm when you pack the paint and dare him to shoot.

Oh, and TP to you as well.

Also, I felt it was high time to edit out some of our earlier responses.  Pretty soon one post was going to start taking up a whole page.

You are right about Wade, take him off the list. Rose and Parker, though, are average shooters all over. Melo...I don't think he has very much trouble there. I often see him playing big - gobbling up an offensive board and going up with it strong. That's one of his biggest strengths. If he wasn't a good finisher, he wouldn't be posting up as much.

The more I think of it, the more I think that "shoots too much" isn't really a flaw, circumstantially.

Durant averaged 4.6 apg last season.

Lebron isn't a pure shooter, but he's at least average-really good. His last shots were super clutch, too.


Westbrook's handles can only be measured by the eye test, but we can at least agree that his handles are at least average, right?