Are these PGs better than our Rondo?

[BASS_THUMPER]

my thoughts on it

NO!

but it really matters what Rondo thinks.
his thoughts on it will make him or...?

[BballTim]

The problem with Rondo, and building around him, is that his lack of shooting/scoring presents a problem when trying to build a team around him. He needs players around him that can play off the ball, since Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective.  He's best suited if he had a very athletic team with a bunch of catch and shoot types.

Some of the other players mentioned are ball dominant as well, but there game doesn't decline nearly as bad off the ball because they are all arguably better shooters than Rondo and at the very least cause defenses to remain honest.


Edit: I'm not sure how many people were watching Team USA's scrimmages, but Wall and Lillard have greatly improved. I'm curious to see if Rondo is thought of as better than those two this time next season.

So, basically you are asserting that it is 'easier' to build a team by finding players who are better to play 'on the ball' rather than 'off the ball'.

Do you have _any_ sort of basis for that claim?

It seems a bit counter intuitive to me.  Since at any given moment, 4 of 5 guys will not have the ball in their hand, your team is better off with more guys who are effective playing off the ball.

They can't all be ball handlers.   And I don't think most guys want to be.

I also find it interesting at how many star players, at least anecdotally, state how they'd love to play with Rondo.

I'm saying it's not easy to build around a player that's biggest weakness (lack of shooting) is so apparent that it hinders the team from being other than the ball dominant PG approach we see.

  I don't think it's that hard to build around a player who's as good at getting his teammates good looks at the basket as anyone in the league.

The point is that those players offensive versatitly makes it able for a team to run different types of offenses. For example, would Rondo be a good fit on a team where his job is to make entry passes into the post?

  Shaq sure thought he was.

[Eddie20]

The problem with Rondo, and building around him, is that his lack of shooting/scoring presents a problem when trying to build a team around him. He needs players around him that can play off the ball, since Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective.  He's best suited if he had a very athletic team with a bunch of catch and shoot types.

Some of the other players mentioned are ball dominant as well, but there game doesn't decline nearly as bad off the ball because they are all arguably better shooters than Rondo and at the very least cause defenses to remain honest.


Edit: I'm not sure how many people were watching Team USA's scrimmages, but Wall and Lillard have greatly improved. I'm curious to see if Rondo is thought of as better than those two this time next season.

So, basically you are asserting that it is 'easier' to build a team by finding players who are better to play 'on the ball' rather than 'off the ball'.

Do you have _any_ sort of basis for that claim?

It seems a bit counter intuitive to me.  Since at any given moment, 4 of 5 guys will not have the ball in their hand, your team is better off with more guys who are effective playing off the ball.

They can't all be ball handlers.   And I don't think most guys want to be.

I also find it interesting at how many star players, at least anecdotally, state how they'd love to play with Rondo.

I'm saying it's not easy to build around a player that's biggest weakness (lack of shooting) is so apparent that it hinders the team from being other than the ball dominant PG approach we see.

  I don't think it's that hard to build around a player who's as good at getting his teammates good looks at the basket as anyone in the league.

The point is that those players offensive versatitly makes it able for a team to run different types of offenses. For example, would Rondo be a good fit on a team where his job is to make entry passes into the post?

  Shaq sure thought he was.

I think you have selective amnesia on this. Shaq wasn't being fed the ball consistently that year. He toiled around the basket and was more of a glorified garbage man. He may have gotten a couple of post opportunities, but nothing that we built are offense around.

Revisionist history, perhaps? But to recap Shaq played in 37 games that year and averaged 9.2 ppg (on 5.4 FGA a game) in just 20 mpg. To put that in comparison, Krstic played 24 games with the C's and averaged 9.1 ppg (on 6.1 FGA a game) in just 23 mpg. Point is that Shaq was as much a part of our offense as Krstic was, despite how many people think it was much more.

[BballTim]

The problem with Rondo, and building around him, is that his lack of shooting/scoring presents a problem when trying to build a team around him. He needs players around him that can play off the ball, since Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective.  He's best suited if he had a very athletic team with a bunch of catch and shoot types.

Some of the other players mentioned are ball dominant as well, but there game doesn't decline nearly as bad off the ball because they are all arguably better shooters than Rondo and at the very least cause defenses to remain honest.


Edit: I'm not sure how many people were watching Team USA's scrimmages, but Wall and Lillard have greatly improved. I'm curious to see if Rondo is thought of as better than those two this time next season.

So, basically you are asserting that it is 'easier' to build a team by finding players who are better to play 'on the ball' rather than 'off the ball'.

Do you have _any_ sort of basis for that claim?

It seems a bit counter intuitive to me.  Since at any given moment, 4 of 5 guys will not have the ball in their hand, your team is better off with more guys who are effective playing off the ball.

They can't all be ball handlers.   And I don't think most guys want to be.

I also find it interesting at how many star players, at least anecdotally, state how they'd love to play with Rondo.

I'm saying it's not easy to build around a player that's biggest weakness (lack of shooting) is so apparent that it hinders the team from being other than the ball dominant PG approach we see.

  I don't think it's that hard to build around a player who's as good at getting his teammates good looks at the basket as anyone in the league.

The point is that those players offensive versatitly makes it able for a team to run different types of offenses. For example, would Rondo be a good fit on a team where his job is to make entry passes into the post?

  Shaq sure thought he was.

I think you have selective amnesia on this. Shaq wasn't being fed the ball consistently that year. He toiled around the basket and was more of a glorified garbage man. He may have gotten a couple of post opportunities, but nothing that we built are offense around.

Revisionist history, perhaps? But to recap Shaq played in 37 games that year and averaged 9.2 ppg (on 5.4 FGA a game) in just 20 mpg. To put that in comparison, Krstic played 24 games with the C's and averaged 9.1 ppg (on 6.1 FGA a game) in just 23 mpg. Point is that Shaq was as much a part of our offense as Krstic was, despite how many people think it was much more.

  I never said that Shaq was the focal point of our offense, more that he scored very easily playing with Rondo and our offense thrived.

[mmmmm]

The problem with Rondo, and building around him, is that his lack of shooting/scoring presents a problem when trying to build a team around him. He needs players around him that can play off the ball, since Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective.  He's best suited if he had a very athletic team with a bunch of catch and shoot types.

Some of the other players mentioned are ball dominant as well, but there game doesn't decline nearly as bad off the ball because they are all arguably better shooters than Rondo and at the very least cause defenses to remain honest.


Edit: I'm not sure how many people were watching Team USA's scrimmages, but Wall and Lillard have greatly improved. I'm curious to see if Rondo is thought of as better than those two this time next season.

So, basically you are asserting that it is 'easier' to build a team by finding players who are better to play 'on the ball' rather than 'off the ball'.

Do you have _any_ sort of basis for that claim?

It seems a bit counter intuitive to me.  Since at any given moment, 4 of 5 guys will not have the ball in their hand, your team is better off with more guys who are effective playing off the ball.

They can't all be ball handlers.   And I don't think most guys want to be.

I also find it interesting at how many star players, at least anecdotally, state how they'd love to play with Rondo.

I'm saying it's not easy to build around a player that's biggest weakness (lack of shooting) is so apparent that it hinders the team from being other than the ball dominant PG approach we see.

  I don't think it's that hard to build around a player who's as good at getting his teammates good looks at the basket as anyone in the league.

The point is that those players offensive versatitly makes it able for a team to run different types of offenses. For example, would Rondo be a good fit on a team where his job is to make entry passes into the post?

  Shaq sure thought he was.

I think you have selective amnesia on this. Shaq wasn't being fed the ball consistently that year. He toiled around the basket and was more of a glorified garbage man. He may have gotten a couple of post opportunities, but nothing that we built are offense around.

Revisionist history, perhaps? But to recap Shaq played in 37 games that year and averaged 9.2 ppg (on 5.4 FGA a game) in just 20 mpg. To put that in comparison, Krstic played 24 games with the C's and averaged 9.1 ppg (on 6.1 FGA a game) in just 23 mpg. Point is that Shaq was as much a part of our offense as Krstic was, despite how many people think it was much more.

You are missing his point.

That 2011 season, Shaq averaged 9.1 attempts 'At Rim' every 40 minutes of play.  That was the highest rate of 'At Rim' attempts Shaq attempted in any year since at least 2007 (the farthest back Hoopdata.com goes).

I.E. - playing with Rondo, Shaq got more attempts at layups and dunks than he had playing with others for years.  And this, even though at this point in his career, Shaq was only the 6th USG% player on that team.

I should also point out that Krstic, also had a big boost in 'At Rim' shots that year.  He took 6.1 per 40 minutes with Boston, after just 3.5 with OKC that season.  And he hadn't attempted more than 4.1 per 40 since 2007, when he had averaged 5.5.

So ... the implication is, if Rondo has bigs who can score at the post, Rondo could get the ball to them just fine.

[Eddie20]

The problem with Rondo, and building around him, is that his lack of shooting/scoring presents a problem when trying to build a team around him. He needs players around him that can play off the ball, since Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective.  He's best suited if he had a very athletic team with a bunch of catch and shoot types.

Some of the other players mentioned are ball dominant as well, but there game doesn't decline nearly as bad off the ball because they are all arguably better shooters than Rondo and at the very least cause defenses to remain honest.


Edit: I'm not sure how many people were watching Team USA's scrimmages, but Wall and Lillard have greatly improved. I'm curious to see if Rondo is thought of as better than those two this time next season.

So, basically you are asserting that it is 'easier' to build a team by finding players who are better to play 'on the ball' rather than 'off the ball'.

Do you have _any_ sort of basis for that claim?

It seems a bit counter intuitive to me.  Since at any given moment, 4 of 5 guys will not have the ball in their hand, your team is better off with more guys who are effective playing off the ball.

They can't all be ball handlers.   And I don't think most guys want to be.

I also find it interesting at how many star players, at least anecdotally, state how they'd love to play with Rondo.

I'm saying it's not easy to build around a player that's biggest weakness (lack of shooting) is so apparent that it hinders the team from being other than the ball dominant PG approach we see.

  I don't think it's that hard to build around a player who's as good at getting his teammates good looks at the basket as anyone in the league.

The point is that those players offensive versatitly makes it able for a team to run different types of offenses. For example, would Rondo be a good fit on a team where his job is to make entry passes into the post?

  Shaq sure thought he was.

I think you have selective amnesia on this. Shaq wasn't being fed the ball consistently that year. He toiled around the basket and was more of a glorified garbage man. He may have gotten a couple of post opportunities, but nothing that we built are offense around.

Revisionist history, perhaps? But to recap Shaq played in 37 games that year and averaged 9.2 ppg (on 5.4 FGA a game) in just 20 mpg. To put that in comparison, Krstic played 24 games with the C's and averaged 9.1 ppg (on 6.1 FGA a game) in just 23 mpg. Point is that Shaq was as much a part of our offense as Krstic was, despite how many people think it was much more.

You are missing his point.

That 2011 season, Shaq averaged 9.1 attempts 'At Rim' every 40 minutes of play.  That was the highest rate of 'At Rim' attempts Shaq attempted in any year since at least 2007 (the farthest back Hoopdata.com goes).

I.E. - playing with Rondo, Shaq got more attempts at layups and dunks than he had playing with others for years.  And this, even though at this point in his career, Shaq was only the 6th USG% player on that team.

I should also point out that Krstic, also had a big boost in 'At Rim' shots that year.  He took 6.1 per 40 minutes with Boston, after just 3.5 with OKC that season.  And he hadn't attempted more than 4.1 per 40 since 2007, when he had averaged 5.5.

So ... the implication is, if Rondo has bigs who can score at the post, Rondo could get the ball to them just fine.

The stats you mentioned go back until 2007, so basically just 2 or 3 years of collective data, right? And you seem to insinuate that Shaq's numbers were as a direct result of playing with Rondo. I do think Rondo is a great passing PG, but let's not diminish the shooting/floor spacing that KG, Allen, and Pierce provided as well as the great interior passing that KG had with Shaq.

I'm a C's fan first and foremost, but quite often it appears that individual fandom is of greater importance here. Whoever even implies that Rondo has a lot of weaknesses, or other PG's are better, or questions if a team can't be build around him seems to get it from multiple angles.

If Doc truly thought Rondo was a franchise player and a player that you can build the team around, then why didn't he stay? I mean having a superstar of Rondo's caliber means that a rebuild would be short, right?

[BASS_THUMPER]

when we won our first championship in years
rondo was not the reason.

lets not over rate rondo...

[mmmmm]

The problem with Rondo, and building around him, is that his lack of shooting/scoring presents a problem when trying to build a team around him. He needs players around him that can play off the ball, since Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective.  He's best suited if he had a very athletic team with a bunch of catch and shoot types.

Some of the other players mentioned are ball dominant as well, but there game doesn't decline nearly as bad off the ball because they are all arguably better shooters than Rondo and at the very least cause defenses to remain honest.


Edit: I'm not sure how many people were watching Team USA's scrimmages, but Wall and Lillard have greatly improved. I'm curious to see if Rondo is thought of as better than those two this time next season.

So, basically you are asserting that it is 'easier' to build a team by finding players who are better to play 'on the ball' rather than 'off the ball'.

Do you have _any_ sort of basis for that claim?

It seems a bit counter intuitive to me.  Since at any given moment, 4 of 5 guys will not have the ball in their hand, your team is better off with more guys who are effective playing off the ball.

They can't all be ball handlers.   And I don't think most guys want to be.

I also find it interesting at how many star players, at least anecdotally, state how they'd love to play with Rondo.

I'm saying it's not easy to build around a player that's biggest weakness (lack of shooting) is so apparent that it hinders the team from being other than the ball dominant PG approach we see.

  I don't think it's that hard to build around a player who's as good at getting his teammates good looks at the basket as anyone in the league.

The point is that those players offensive versatitly makes it able for a team to run different types of offenses. For example, would Rondo be a good fit on a team where his job is to make entry passes into the post?

  Shaq sure thought he was.

I think you have selective amnesia on this. Shaq wasn't being fed the ball consistently that year. He toiled around the basket and was more of a glorified garbage man. He may have gotten a couple of post opportunities, but nothing that we built are offense around.

Revisionist history, perhaps? But to recap Shaq played in 37 games that year and averaged 9.2 ppg (on 5.4 FGA a game) in just 20 mpg. To put that in comparison, Krstic played 24 games with the C's and averaged 9.1 ppg (on 6.1 FGA a game) in just 23 mpg. Point is that Shaq was as much a part of our offense as Krstic was, despite how many people think it was much more.

You are missing his point.

That 2011 season, Shaq averaged 9.1 attempts 'At Rim' every 40 minutes of play.  That was the highest rate of 'At Rim' attempts Shaq attempted in any year since at least 2007 (the farthest back Hoopdata.com goes).

I.E. - playing with Rondo, Shaq got more attempts at layups and dunks than he had playing with others for years.  And this, even though at this point in his career, Shaq was only the 6th USG% player on that team.

I should also point out that Krstic, also had a big boost in 'At Rim' shots that year.  He took 6.1 per 40 minutes with Boston, after just 3.5 with OKC that season.  And he hadn't attempted more than 4.1 per 40 since 2007, when he had averaged 5.5.

So ... the implication is, if Rondo has bigs who can score at the post, Rondo could get the ball to them just fine.

The stats you mentioned go back until 2007, so basically just 2 or 3 years of collective data, right? And you seem to insinuate that Shaq's numbers were as a direct result of playing with Rondo. I do think Rondo is a great passing PG, but let's not diminish the shooting/floor spacing that KG, Allen, and Pierce provided as well as the great interior passing that KG had with Shaq.

I'm a C's fan first and foremost, but quite often it appears that individual fandom is of greater importance here. Whoever even implies that Rondo has a lot of weaknesses, or other PG's are better, or questions if a team can't be build around him seems to get it from multiple angles.

If Doc truly thought Rondo was a franchise player and a player that you can build the team around, then why didn't he stay? I mean having a superstar of Rondo's caliber means that a rebuild would be short, right?

It's not about fandom or being a homer or any of that.

The fact is, some 'fans' try so hard to NOT be 'homer's that they get just as ridiculous in their criticism as some 'homers' get in their praise.

I have zero problem with valid praise or criticism of Rondo or any of these players.

You made assertions that were questionable to me.  I questioned you on them.

You then misunderstood BballTim's  point.  I tried to clarify it for you.

Bringing up Doc's leaving is a dubious and irrelevant distraction.   There are potentially a zillion reasons why Doc left.   I'll take him at his word.   He basically said it had been a long time and he needed a change.  That doesn't say anything at all about what he thinks of Rondo as a player.

If he thinks of Chris Paul as a better player - that's fine.  That doesn't mean he doesn't think Rondo is a great player, too.   I doubt we'll ever know exactly what Doc thinks about either.

[PhoSita]

This idea that Curry doesn't qualify because he's not a "pure" pg is laughable.  Can he defend the position?  Does he help his team win playing at the position?  Yes and yes.  So who cares?

He's a more valuable player all around, and much harder to defend, when he's healthy.

Not particularly well. I do agree with you overall though.

Curry is not a great defender by any means, but he's passable, which is all you need from your point guard these days.  The rules of the game are not designed to allow point guards to play defense.  Besides, Rondo was atrocious on defense this year, and he's been going downhill in that area for the past few years.

[PhoSita]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

[bobbyv]

Bleacher report just got new rankings, and I agree with them for the most part.

1. CP3
2. Tony Parker
3. Rose
4. Westbrook
5. Rondo
6. Irving
7. Curry
8. DWill
9. John Wall
10. Jrue Holiday

I'd probably put Conley before Jrue but oh well. So many good points out these days. The reason Rondo was put ahead of Curry and Irving was because of his superior defense, and I firmly agree with that. If only one sided play was necessary to win a ring, Irving would have atleast a 40 win team.

All this said, Rondo's status as a top 5 PG is probably on the shakiest ground it's been for years (due to injury and team performance). He'll prove the doubters wrong, as he always does in the playoffs though.

[bfrombleacher]

It's not about fandom or being a homer or any of that.

The fact is, some 'fans' try so hard to NOT be 'homer's that they get just as ridiculous in their criticism as some 'homers' get in their praise.

Quoted for truth

[bobbyv]

It's not about fandom or being a homer or any of that.

The fact is, some 'fans' try so hard to NOT be 'homer's that they get just as ridiculous in their criticism as some 'homers' get in their praise.

Quoted for truth

Agreed. Also, after looking at the defensive numbers for Curry and Irving, it's enough to make me want to throw up. Luckily, Curry is so superb at shooting that his offense makes up for his absolutely terrible defense. And Irving is just as bad. There's no way I'd put them above Rondo simply based on defense.

[BballTim]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

[PhoSita]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.