Are these PGs better than our Rondo?

[D.o.s.]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.  Sure Rondo's assist number are gaudy but maybe pounding the ball for 85 percent of possessions isn't the most optimal way to run an offense.  If he doesn't pound the ball, it's hard to run anything through the  middle of the court if he stands on the wing because his defender can wreak havoc.  He's also by far the most turnover prone point guard in transition.  I scoff whenever I hear the phrase "run with Rondo."  For one, Rondo has to cut down on his transition turnovers.  Two, he has to have a faster internal clock to take advantage of secondary transition opportunities.

Which of them would you prefer to have over Rondo in a huge playoff game? I can't imagine you choosing someone else... maybe CP3 and Parker. Literally, every other choice seems incredibly silly.

I don't know if you can separate the player from the team at that point (the "VERY IMPORTANT GAME"), but I'm absolutely taking the Spurs and the Bulls over the Cavs or the Clippers, with all players completely healthy.

Which is another wrinkle in this idea of "better." How much does team success determine our assessment of individual ability? (here's looking at you, Chris Paul). What about health--interesting because almost all of these guys have had season ending injuries except for Parker and Irving--who is made of glass/victim to Cleveland's overcaution anyway?

I agree with the top. If we are talking final possession, game on the line, opinion probably changes... but again, and like I said at the outset, it's nearly impossible to answer this question without addressing a LOT of caveats...

Making a team better is where I think Rondo will excel. Granted, he hasn't done it with a weak cast, I still think he can carry a team when it matters (big game, big series, etc). And reiterating the above... I made tentative suggestions based on variability in health. If Rose comes back a shell of his former self, for example, he's going to fall drastically.

Right, I agree with you. I'm just curious as to how someone can say "all of these players are better than Rondo" with any kind of straight face, given the outrageous complexity of the statement.

General FWIW: Rondo, Rose, Westbrook, and Paul have all had   knee injuries that caused them to miss significant time. Only Paul's team (the 09-10 Hornets) missed the playoffs.

What is the outrageous complexity part? All these guys can be no.1 scoring options and also run a team.  That gives them more value than Rondo.  If they all wanted to focus on getting assists like Rondo, they have the passing ability to put up gaudy assist numbers too.  The opposite doesn't work because Rondo's three point and free throw shooting is so subpar.

The other complicating factors include teammates, coaching, overall success, individual success, the eye test, and making the numbers make sense.

For example, I think most of us were very surprised to see the Bulls make it to the second round without Derrick Rose. Nate Robinson and the Bulls won more playoff games this year than Derrick Rose and the Bulls the year before.


On the flip side, I don't think any of us were surprised to see Chris Paul having to run the floor offensively during the playoffs. Lots of shouting and pointing because he was saddled with a sub-par coach. CP3 is pretty much guiltless when it comes to his team's playoff success--why is he the only one?

So there's a couple differences when you're determining the worth of Derrick Rose and Chris Paul. And there's a hundred differences between these guys (and they multiply when you add the rest of the players) that make it more complicated than "hey, he can be a number one scoring option and also run a team. He must be better."

[Chris]

Of the players on that list:

* Chris Paul is on a level by himself, by far the best on this list and much better than Rondo.

* Rose and Westbrook are better than Rondo when healthy, but who knows about that? OTOH, Rondo has the same concerns, so it's a crapshoot.

* Steph Curry is a better overall player than Rondo, but not a better point guard. I guess I'd rather have him, but it might depend on what my team needed.

* Kyrie Irving isn't better than Rondo yet, but he could be any game now. If I had one year to contend for a championship, I'd probably rather have Rondo, but if I need to build around one of them, it's Irving every time.

* I actually feel like Tony Parker is a bit overrated at this point in time. He's as good as Rondo, but I'm not sure if he's better, particularly given their ages. By the same logic as above, though, I'd rather have Parker to win this year.

So in sum: The only player on that list who's better than Rondo without qualification is Chris Paul. There are good reasons to prefer all the others to Rondo, but there are also arguments the other way. Overall, I'd probably put Rondo around #5 or #6 on that list.

I agree with pretty much all of this.  Just a couple notes.

While Rondo is hurt now, and while I think Irving WILL be a better player, and Curry is currently a better player...I think both of those guys are HUGE injury risks, which knocks their value down.  It would be hard to count on either of those guys being healthy longterm.

I think Parker is the closest to Rondo in impact.  They are very similar leveled players, but they have different skillsets.  I would generally call it a toss-up between them, and say that who I would prefer, would be determined by the rest of the team.

The thing about Parker is that he has shown he can be the go-to scorer, and the guy who can close out games.  Rondo hasn't really shown that he can do that with any consistency.  Which might give Parker a bit of an advantage, just because that is a hard thing to find.  However, if you have a team that already has a "closer", then Rondo might be better.

[KGs Knee]

I have a real problem with this idea that scoring from PG should be more highly valued than play-making ability.  I'll take a play-maker like Rondo over a guy like Rose, Westbrook or Curry every time.

Irving is really the only guy of this mold I could see being more valuable as a PG.  Unlike the others I just mentioned, Irving seems to actually be a darn good play-maker, as well as scorer.

Having your PG be your leading scorer is usually a fatal flaw.  It very rarely leads to titles.  As it stands right now, the only PGs I would take over Rondo are Paul, Parker, and maybe Irving.

[ddb]

tough question.  As much as I love Rondo I still feel like he needs to prove what he can do without KG/PP. 

Chris Paul is awesome but I also think he's overrated. Probably still the better player > Rondo

Tony Parker IMO is criminally underrated.  But right now he's better then Rondo

Steph Curry is a better offensive player, no doubt. but overall PG goes to Rondo.

D Rose when healthy is better then Rondo

Kyrie Irving is about to break out and if he can lead that young Cavs team into the playoffs then he jumps past Rondo.

Deron Williams is a better offensive PG then Rondo but overall I give it to Rondo.

John Wall is about to burst out. He showed signs towards the end of last season.  Right now it's Rondo > Wall but I think Wall eventually takes over.

Damien Lillard is better offensively. Not better overall.

[Greenback]

All the PGs on the list are better than Rondo - and more that aren't on the list.

[Vermont Green]

Interesting list.  If I look at it from the perspective of who would I want on the Celtics going forward in a potential straight up trade, I would not want Parker due to the later stage of his career.  If I were a playoff team, I would prefer Parker to Rondo.

I would also hesitate on Curry.  His ankles scare me.  If I did get an OK from a doctor I trusted, I would definitly rather have Curry moving forward.

One prediction that I have for next year is that Deron Williams is going to make a comeback and will thrust himself back into the top PG discussion.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

If we are talking overall production I'd say Rondo is 4th.

I have Tony Parker, Chris Paul, Russel Westbrook over him based on production and overall impact of their play to their team.

I think Rondo is the PG as it comes to setting teammates up for easy shots, no question. And I think he's the best PG if only he's a consistent 16 PPG guy and would stop gambling on defense because he can also lock down opposing players. But to me as I see it, he's number 4.

[TheTruthFot18]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/top-6-2013-2014-nba-point-guards

Steph Curry
Russell Westbrook
Derrick Rose
Kyrie Irving
Tony Parker
Chris Paul

Who in your opinion is better than Rondo from the above?

IMHO Rondo is better.

I'd say only CP3 and Rose. Both lead bad teams at one point and are now paired with the talent they need. Rose hasn't been th the playoffs since the 2011 season (lost to heat). Only real playoffs with a new look squad failing like Miami did in teh finals. They need him back and they'll be a force.

Curry and Irving need at least 1-2 more seasons showing they can be consistent especially Curry who has a legit squad with him. Love Parker and Westbrook but they are overshadowed by other teamates.

Now Importance by being on the court for a full season:

1. Irving (only because he is on the worst team here)
2. Paul
3. Westbrook (with a Harden/KMart)
4. Rondo
5. Parker
6. Rose (how do the Bulls do it?)

[BballTim]

All these guys are better.  I'd take all of them over Rondo.  These guys aren't overrated by their flashy scoring.  Scoring is a pretty big deal for a point guard too.  They all happen to be pretty good to great passers too, yes, even Westbrook. 

Rondo's on/off offensive impact including games he's missed entirely aren't even all that good.  They're actually in the negative.

  Rondo's on/off offensive impact over the las3 3 regular seasons are (10-11) +10, (11-12) +7, (12-13) -2 and, in the playoffs were (2011) +17 and (2012)+11. Why don't you check out the numbers for those "elite" point guards over that same time period and explain why almost all of them have averaged on/off numbers that are so far below Rondo's over that time.

  And they aren't all that great of passers. All of them might be at least a little better than average but the spread between the best and the worst is pretty big.

[The MadLad]

yes, those pgs are better than rondo. Their ability to be primary scorers is huge. Not just score in volume, but score in the clutch. When your team needs a basket, whos the stud your going to look to. Rondo isnt that player and never will be. Hes a sidekick.
The PGs on that list have the ability to shoot and stretch the floor is crucial.
Some other PGs id have over rondo...
D williams (last season was down, but he was hurt for the first half, blew up in the 2nd half.)
D Lillard-gotta step up on defense, but he looks like an elite PG in the next couple of years.
Westbrook-  His offensive skills with the ball are so good, hes not a great fit on many teams, but hes head over heels better than rondo.

Rondo has so many flaws in his game (and personality-this shouldnt be overlooked), celts fans are too infatuated with this guy. Even players like B jennings, P Wall and T Lawson, who arent as skilled as Rondo, could step into this celtics team and possibly improve us. Think thats crazy? Well, if rondo is that great and that irreplaceable, how could we lose him for half of last season and finish with a better record, better ball movement, better team in general. Rondo is a great player, but his skills dont translate into wins. His inflated triple-double stats prove that. the celtics record without him proves that.
Im sure some Rondo fanatic will say im crazy. thats fine. but IMO, the numbers with him on the floor and off the floor speak louder than your love for him.
Detroit getting Jennings breaks my heart, another place that didnt want Rondo. add them to the list. 

TP for Galeto who makes my point better than I could.

[kozlodoev]

I have a real problem with this idea that scoring from PG should be more highly valued than play-making ability.  I'll take a play-maker like Rondo over a guy like Rose, Westbrook or Curry every time.

The problem with this particular comparison is that the difference is scoring abilities is considerably larger than the difference in playmaking. At least in my book.

This is to say, those three guys are somewhat inferior in playmaking ability, but considerably more advanced in scoring.

[dark_lord]

Steph Curry
Russell Westbrook
Derrick Rose
Kyrie Irving
Tony Parker
Chris Paul

cp3, parker, irving, and rose are all better imo

[Casperian]

I have a real problem with this idea that scoring from PG should be more highly valued than play-making ability.

Why?

[PhoSita]

I have a real problem with this idea that scoring from PG should be more highly valued than play-making ability.  I'll take a play-maker like Rondo over a guy like Rose, Westbrook or Curry every time.

The problem with this particular comparison is that the difference is scoring abilities is considerably larger than the difference in playmaking. At least in my book.

This is to say, those three guys are somewhat inferior in playmaking ability, but considerably more advanced in scoring.

I agree completely.

Now, if we're talking about playoffs / national-TV Rondo, then there could be more of a debate about who is more valuable.  But that's not the player that Rondo is on a regular basis.

[Galeto]

I have a real problem with this idea that scoring from PG should be more highly valued than play-making ability.  I'll take a play-maker like Rondo over a guy like Rose, Westbrook or Curry every time.

The problem with this particular comparison is that the difference is scoring abilities is considerably larger than the difference in playmaking. At least in my book.

This is to say, those three guys are somewhat inferior in playmaking ability, but considerably more advanced in scoring.

Maybe Rose and Westbrook in terms of pure playmaking ability (which is highly subjective) but I'd say all the rest are as good a passer as Rondo.  They all have extremely good vision and creativity.  There's not a pass that Rondo can make that these others can't. 

If they shot less and tried to put up higher assist numbers, they are more than capable of matching Rondo's assist average.  In the overall team concept, that wouldn't be wise because their ability to score is a big reason for their team's offensive efficiency, just like Rondo's inability to score efficiency is a not insignificant part of the Celtic's offensive inefficiency.