Are these PGs better than our 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.

[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.

  Rondo plays well with Shaq or Perk or Wilcox or KG or Bass, he plays well with players like Ray or Bradley. They don't all need to be a certain type of player. And how many players in the league that aren't point guards aren't capable of playing off the ball?

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Roo is really only the true pg out of the group...westy, and cp3...are sorta 2's...who want to handle the ball....westbrook doesn't pass much....cp3...people think he takes over a game.....what are his % efficiencies....remember allen Iverson......he scored a lot too.....Rose....not much for passing..and gets a LOT more calls than rondo.....so does cp3.....THAT makes a BIG difference in the final points total....I know rondo did what he did to the refs....but.....so to compare him and them...if you erase their calls they get and he didn't....because we know he gets hit...fouled.....they are all VERY good....but they don't want to be pg's...they just want the ball....rondo could do that too...but instead he makes better TEAM decisions....to get others involved.....that is just my opinion.

[wdleehi]

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

[wdleehi]

Roo is really only the true pg out of the group...westy, and cp3...are sorta 2's...who want to handle the ball....westbrook doesn't pass much....cp3...people think he takes over a game.....what are his % efficiencies....remember allen Iverson......he scored a lot too.....Rose....not much for passing..and gets a LOT more calls than rondo.....so does cp3.....THAT makes a BIG difference in the final points total....I know rondo did what he did to the refs....but.....so to compare him and them...if you erase their calls they get and he didn't....because we know he gets hit...fouled.....they are all VERY good....but they don't want to be pg's...they just want the ball....rondo could do that too...but instead he makes better TEAM decisions....to get others involved.....that is just my opinion.

Paul is not a SG pretending to be a PG.  He is a PG that has all the tools and uses them. 



Westbrook on the other hand...

[Smitty77]

Ill post my thoughts on the OPs list next time but I just have to comment that I really hate it when people cite "none of those players have ever played in the conference finals" or some other form of that as some counter-argument why Rondo is by far a superior player. Rondo is a good player, undoubtedly, but to say that the Celtics' success is HIS doing and not a team effort that featured all-time greats like Pierce and KG (who despite being past their prime are still pretty darn dominant) is pretty disrespectful and ignorant IMO.

  A team with two "pretty darn dominant" players probably shouldn't have had to fight tooth and nail to avoid a sweep at the hands of the Knicks. They're still very good players but they haven't exactly been immune to father time over the last few years.

Well if you want to reference last year's Celtics, then how come in the regular season, the team performed better after Rondo got injured. And besides, what about previous years when the team had more playoff success?

Anyway, my point is that playoff success is not a valid argument as to why Rondo could hypothetically be better than the other PGs on the OP's list. If people want to reference stats, on/off court stats, etc. etc then by all means. But saying "rondo has been to the conference finals and they haven't and that's why he's better" is disrespectful to the impact the likes of KG, Pierce and Allen have had on the team's success.

I don't understand how playoff performance does NOT trump the preseason and regular season in ANY sport just as the Majors trump other tourneys in golf and tennis!!!

The reason people are down on Tony Romo is because of his 1-4 playoff record.  Otherwise, he is clearly a top five NFL QB. 

Smitty77

[BballTim]

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

 Rose isn't that different from Westbrook in that regard.

[Smitty77]

Ill post my thoughts on the OPs list next time but I just have to comment that I really hate it when people cite "none of those players have ever played in the conference finals" or some other form of that as some counter-argument why Rondo is by far a superior player. Rondo is a good player, undoubtedly, but to say that the Celtics' success is HIS doing and not a team effort that featured all-time greats like Pierce and KG (who despite being past their prime are still pretty darn dominant) is pretty disrespectful and ignorant IMO.

The only time that argument will hold water is if the C's actually make the eastern conference finals this year (with a healthy rondo and this current squad) and I'm seriously doubting that will happen.

Would you say that the Spur's run this year and championships in the past were due SOLELY to Parker or more to a team effort???  I would say Parker's and RR's roles are similar, but overall, Rondo raises his level more consistently in then playoff than Parker and is simply a better all around player.  Parker's defense is terrible.

Smitty77

I would say team effort. The Spurs were winning games in the season with only pieces of their Big 3. Sometimes, without any of the 3 playing at all.

And I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but do consider that Parker has won a Finals MVP while playing alongside both Manu and TD. "Raises his level more consistently" is a highly subjective term.

There is NOTHING subjective about finding out a guy's playoff Efficiency Rating and comparing that directly to another player. 

Smitty77

[wdleehi]

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

 Rose isn't that different from Westbrook in that regard.

Except he won an MVP as a PG, so I give him credit for that.  (mind you I am looking at him as if he comes back at the level.  Of course I am doing that with Rondo as well so it all works out)

[Smitty77]

Roo is really only the true pg out of the group...westy, and cp3...are sorta 2's...who want to handle the ball....westbrook doesn't pass much....cp3...people think he takes over a game.....what are his % efficiencies....remember allen Iverson......he scored a lot too.....Rose....not much for passing..and gets a LOT more calls than rondo.....so does cp3.....THAT makes a BIG difference in the final points total....I know rondo did what he did to the refs....but.....so to compare him and them...if you erase their calls they get and he didn't....because we know he gets hit...fouled.....they are all VERY good....but they don't want to be pg's...they just want the ball....rondo could do that too...but instead he makes better TEAM decisions....to get others involved.....that is just my opinion.

Paul is not a SG pretending to be a PG.  He is a PG that has all the tools and uses them. 



Westbrook on the other hand...

Paul has all the tools on offense.  He simply does NOT have all the tools on defense.  He is NOT a great man to man defender and he can get posted up by taller PG's.

Smitty77

[wdleehi]

Roo is really only the true pg out of the group...westy, and cp3...are sorta 2's...who want to handle the ball....westbrook doesn't pass much....cp3...people think he takes over a game.....what are his % efficiencies....remember allen Iverson......he scored a lot too.....Rose....not much for passing..and gets a LOT more calls than rondo.....so does cp3.....THAT makes a BIG difference in the final points total....I know rondo did what he did to the refs....but.....so to compare him and them...if you erase their calls they get and he didn't....because we know he gets hit...fouled.....they are all VERY good....but they don't want to be pg's...they just want the ball....rondo could do that too...but instead he makes better TEAM decisions....to get others involved.....that is just my opinion.

Paul is not a SG pretending to be a PG.  He is a PG that has all the tools and uses them. 



Westbrook on the other hand...

Paul has all the tools on offense.  He simply does NOT have all the tools on defense.  He is NOT a great man to man defender and he can get posted up by taller PG's.

Smitty77

He is a very good defensive PG. 

3 times all defensive 1st team
2 times all defensive 2nd team. 

[BballTim]

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

 Rose isn't that different from Westbrook in that regard.

Except he won an MVP as a PG, so I give him credit for that.  (mind you I am looking at him as if he comes back at the level.  Of course I am doing that with Rondo as well so it all works out)

  I'm not saying he's a bad player, just not as much of a pg as Rondo/Paul/Deron.

[LilRip]

Ill post my thoughts on the OPs list next time but I just have to comment that I really hate it when people cite "none of those players have ever played in the conference finals" or some other form of that as some counter-argument why Rondo is by far a superior player. Rondo is a good player, undoubtedly, but to say that the Celtics' success is HIS doing and not a team effort that featured all-time greats like Pierce and KG (who despite being past their prime are still pretty darn dominant) is pretty disrespectful and ignorant IMO.

  A team with two "pretty darn dominant" players probably shouldn't have had to fight tooth and nail to avoid a sweep at the hands of the Knicks. They're still very good players but they haven't exactly been immune to father time over the last few years.

Well if you want to reference last year's Celtics, then how come in the regular season, the team performed better after Rondo got injured. And besides, what about previous years when the team had more playoff success?

  There were plenty of reasons the team got off to a bad start that had nothing to do with Rondo, just like the team got off to a bad start the year before for reasons that had nothing to do with Rondo. It's true that the team's had success in the playoffs in the past but over the last few years it's been more and more dependent on a healthy Rondo.

Just like there are plenty of other reasons other than Rondo why the team succeeded in the past. That's my point. We can't point to the Celtics playoff success and say that's why Rondo is a better PG than the other PGs.

And like I said in my original post, the only time I think that argument can hold any weight is if in fact, a healthy Rondo brings this current squad to the conference finals.

And smitty, my contention is attributing playoff TEAM success in determining whether a PG is better than another. An analogy of this would be when KG was with the wolves. He was a dominant player, but with a bunch of first round exits.

[BballTim]

Ill post my thoughts on the OPs list next time but I just have to comment that I really hate it when people cite "none of those players have ever played in the conference finals" or some other form of that as some counter-argument why Rondo is by far a superior player. Rondo is a good player, undoubtedly, but to say that the Celtics' success is HIS doing and not a team effort that featured all-time greats like Pierce and KG (who despite being past their prime are still pretty darn dominant) is pretty disrespectful and ignorant IMO.

  A team with two "pretty darn dominant" players probably shouldn't have had to fight tooth and nail to avoid a sweep at the hands of the Knicks. They're still very good players but they haven't exactly been immune to father time over the last few years.

Well if you want to reference last year's Celtics, then how come in the regular season, the team performed better after Rondo got injured. And besides, what about previous years when the team had more playoff success?

  There were plenty of reasons the team got off to a bad start that had nothing to do with Rondo, just like the team got off to a bad start the year before for reasons that had nothing to do with Rondo. It's true that the team's had success in the playoffs in the past but over the last few years it's been more and more dependent on a healthy Rondo.

Just like there are plenty of other reasons other than Rondo why the team succeeded in the past. That's my point. We can't point to the Celtics playoff success and say that's why Rondo is a better PG than the other PGs.

And like I said in my original post, the only time I think that argument can hold any weight is if in fact, a healthy Rondo brings this current squad to the conference finals.

And smitty, my contention is attributing playoff TEAM success in determining whether a PG is better than another. An analogy of this would be when KG was with the wolves. He was a dominant player, but with a bunch of first round exits.

  I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I don't completely agree with decoupling team success from player comparisons.

[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. You have to play to your strengths and having Rondo off the ball is definitely not a strength. On the other hand, you have players like Curry, Irving, and Paul who are very dangerous from the perimeter and simply can't be left open. Then you have others that might not be as good as they're shooting the ball, but they still have to be accounted for on offense and simply can't be left open.

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? Say he's on Indy and is feeding Hibbert, you simply can't have him on the strongside because the defender would leave Rondo and double down. However, another PG could make the post entry pass and remain on the strongside because their shooting ability has to be respected. With Rondo he'd have to either stay on the weakside and not make the entry pass or make the entry pass and immediately go to the weakside.

Scal talks about having players that compliment him at the 10 minute/50 second mark

And this is just X's and O's stuff, how about building a team around a guy who takes so many nights off?

Scal talks about this at the 6 minute mark.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/27/scalabrine-on-toucher-rich-is-rondo-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room/