Say OKC gets booted , would they trade Westbrook for Rondo then ? and would you?

[PhoSita]

  You're basically knocking him because we haven't had any decent inside scorers, didn't have as many 3 point shooters on the roster as other teams, and (most importantly) was on a team that didn't rebound well on offense.

I don't know if I'm knocking him for that, per se.

What I'm saying is that

a. Rondo's primary role, and his greatest strength, is to be an offensive facilitator
b. Despite this, he's never been the leader of an elite offense

You can come up with any number of reasons for why that is, i.e. why it's not due to any failing or flaw of Rondo's.  But I want to see Rondo actually spearhead a good offensive team before I fall in line with this idea that he's such a boon to his team's offense.


I should say, I do believe Rondo could be an important piece in a good offense, given the right circumstances.  I just think it's worth pointing out that he hasn't exactly proven it yet; this is all surmise.

Westbrook, I think, has more than proven that he IS an important piece in a good offense, despite his flaws. 

I could imagine a team built in such a way that Rondo would be a much better fit than Westbrook.  But in the NBA, the most important thing you can have, especially in the playoffs, is players who create their own offense at an elite level.  Westbrook does that; Rondo does not. 

Especially for a team like OKC, which is built to get a vast portion of its offense from a very small number of players, Westbrook has immense value.  I don't think Rondo, passing prowess and all, would have the same value in that system.

[mmmmm]

  You're basically knocking him because we haven't had any decent inside scorers, didn't have as many 3 point shooters on the roster as other teams, and (most importantly) was on a team that didn't rebound well on offense.

I don't know if I'm knocking him for that, per se.

What I'm saying is that

a. Rondo's primary role, and his greatest strength, is to be an offensive facilitator
b. Despite this, he's never been the leader of an elite offense

But logically, you ARE knocking him because that "despite this" connector is arbitrary.    It only makes sense to throw that down if the two are causally connected.

Being a great offensive facilitator doesn't directly and causally correlate with 'elite offense' because by definition ("facilitator") more parts are required.

Further, part b contains an assertion (Rondo's never been the leader of an elite offense) that we are supposed to take at face value.     Some of us might disagree with that statement.

I'd post seasons with numbers that counter your assertion, but I'm pretty sure the definition of an "elite offense" would just shift so I'm not going to bother unless that is well-defined.

How about you first define what you think of as an 'elite offense' is.  When we all agree upon the definition, then we can apply the test to see if Rondo has ever met that threshold.

[D.o.s.]

But logically, you ARE knocking him because that "despite this" connector is arbitrary.    It only makes sense to throw that down if the two are causally connected.

Being a great offensive facilitator doesn't directly and causally correlate with 'elite offense' because by definition ("facilitator") more parts are required.

Further, part b contains an assertion (Rondo's never been the leader of an elite offense) that we are supposed to take at face value.     Some of us might disagree with that statement.

I'd post seasons with numbers that counter your assertion, but I'm pretty sure the definition of an "elite offense" would just shift so I'm not going to bother unless that is well-defined.

How about you first define what you think of as an 'elite offense' is.  When we all agree upon the definition, then we can apply the test to see if Rondo has ever met that threshold.

I think the chart I posed a few pages back (or many, this thread has become rather behemoth) helps point out that the Thunder have had an "effective" offense -- I'm hesitant to set terms on "elite" on my own.

Would we all agree that, going off the earlier Nash Example, the 2005 Suns had an "elite" offense?

[PhoSita]

How about you first define what you think of as an 'elite offense' is.  When we all agree upon the definition, then we can apply the test to see if Rondo has ever met that threshold.

A team that regularly scores above 100 points, that wins games via offense instead of relying on defense to create a substantial portion of the offense; a team that is in the top 5, or at least the top 10, in offensive efficiency; a team that consistently generates good looks, and only rarely suffers from extended scoring droughts.

Some of those teams in the Big 3 era were quite good in terms of effective field goal percentage, and overall scoring efficiency, that's definitely true.

But first of all, Rondo wasn't really the "leader" of the offense in '08.  Even in the latter part of 2009, I seem to recall Paul Pierce as primary guy.  Rondo obviously had a great post-season run in 2009, and his role on the team took off from there.

Second of all, none of those Big 3 teams was ever truly overwhelming offensively.  There were certainly stretches -- early on in the 2009 and 2011 seasons stand out in my memory.  But offensive stagnation, especially down the stretch, was a hallmark of the Big 3 era.  When the team was at its best in 2008 and 2010, scoring runs were fueled in large part by forcing turnovers on defense.



What I'm trying to say here is that I feel that Rondo has to prove that he's such a valuable offensive player by actually leading a prolific, deadly offense.  There's a lot of bowing at the altar of the pure passing point guard around here, but personally I feel a major factor in judging the job that a point guard is doing as the initiator and facilitator of the offense should be the overall performance of the offense. 

Passing for passing's sake and assists for assists sake are not worth much.  We saw that at the start of last season.  If it seems that I'm suggesting having a point guard who passes better than he scores is necessarily worse than the opposite, I need to recant.  That's not what I'm trying to say. 

However I disagree strongly with the converse assertion.  In fact, if you look at the leaders in assists for this past season, and then look at how their teams performed offensively, there isn't a strong correlation between having a point guard who accrues assists and having a difficult to defend team.


I look at the teams at the top of the list of Offensive Efficiency this season, and what do I see?  LAC, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Portland, San Antonio, OKC.  All of those teams have something in common -- at least one primary ball-handler and playmaker who is either a deadly shooter, a significant scoring threat, or both. 

Tony Parker and Damian Lillard, combined, averaged just over 10 assists this season.  Yet I think it would be foolish to suggest that either of their respective teams would be better off with Rondo running the offense simply because he can average double digit assists, or that he's a better "pure passer."

[Eja117]

How about you first define what you think of as an 'elite offense' is.  When we all agree upon the definition, then we can apply the test to see if Rondo has ever met that threshold.

A team that regularly scores above 100 points, that wins games via offense instead of relying on defense to create a substantial portion of the offense; a team that is in the top 5, or at least the top 10, in offensive efficiency; a team that consistently generates good looks, and only rarely suffers from extended scoring droughts.

Some of those teams in the Big 3 era were quite good in terms of effective field goal percentage, and overall scoring efficiency, that's definitely true.

But first of all, Rondo wasn't really the "leader" of the offense in '08.  Even in the latter part of 2009, I seem to recall Paul Pierce as primary guy.  Rondo obviously had a great post-season run in 2009, and his role on the team took off from there.

Second of all, none of those Big 3 teams was ever truly overwhelming offensively.  There were certainly stretches -- early on in the 2009 and 2011 seasons stand out in my memory.  But offensive stagnation, especially down the stretch, was a hallmark of the Big 3 era.  When the team was at its best in 2008 and 2010, scoring runs were fueled in large part by forcing turnovers on defense.



What I'm trying to say here is that I feel that Rondo has to prove that he's such a valuable offensive player by actually leading a prolific, deadly offense.  There's a lot of bowing at the altar of the pure passing point guard around here, but personally I feel a major factor in judging the job that a point guard is doing as the initiator and facilitator of the offense should be the overall performance of the offense. 

Passing for passing's sake and assists for assists sake are not worth much.  We saw that at the start of last season.  If it seems that I'm suggesting having a point guard who passes better than he scores is necessarily worse than the opposite, I need to recant.  That's not what I'm trying to say. 

However I disagree strongly with the converse assertion.  In fact, if you look at the leaders in assists for this past season, and then look at how their teams performed offensively, there isn't a strong correlation between having a point guard who accrues assists and having a difficult to defend team.


I look at the teams at the top of the list of Offensive Efficiency this season, and what do I see?  LAC, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Portland, San Antonio, OKC.  All of those teams have something in common -- at least one primary ball-handler and playmaker who is either a deadly shooter, a significant scoring threat, or both. 

Tony Parker and Damian Lillard, combined, averaged just over 10 assists this season.  Yet I think it would be foolish to suggest that either of their respective teams would be better off with Rondo running the offense simply because he can average double digit assists, or that he's a better "pure passer."

Are you saying that if you trade Lillard or Parker straight up for Rondo next season those teams would be worse, and ours would be better? Mayyyybbee Parker. Not so sure on Lillard.

[BballTim]

  You're basically knocking him because we haven't had any decent inside scorers, didn't have as many 3 point shooters on the roster as other teams, and (most importantly) was on a team that didn't rebound well on offense.

I don't know if I'm knocking him for that, per se.

What I'm saying is that

a. Rondo's primary role, and his greatest strength, is to be an offensive facilitator
b. Despite this, he's never been the leader of an elite offense

You can come up with any number of reasons for why that is, i.e. why it's not due to any failing or flaw of Rondo's.  But I want to see Rondo actually spearhead a good offensive team before I fall in line with this idea that he's such a boon to his team's offense.

  Rondo's actually spearheaded a good offense before. And he's led 4 teams to top 5 in the league in fg% including teams that were 1st and 2nd in the league. High fg% is what you get from Rondo, who's a great facilitator. The main reason the teams weren't great offenses were that they were poor offensive rebounding teams. The next reason is that they didn't get a ton of foul shots when they didn't have any low post players at all. I think it's fairly ridiculous to think that reflects poorly on Rondo's facilitating skills.

I should say, I do believe Rondo could be an important piece in a good offense, given the right circumstances.  I just think it's worth pointing out that he hasn't exactly proven it yet; this is all surmise.

Westbrook, I think, has more than proven that he IS an important piece in a good offense, despite his flaws. 

  He's proven that he can be a part of a good offense when he's playing with the best scorer in the nba. That's about it.

I could imagine a team built in such a way that Rondo would be a much better fit than Westbrook.  But in the NBA, the most important thing you can have, especially in the playoffs, is players who create their own offense at an elite level.  Westbrook does that; Rondo does not. 

   Rondo's proven that creating offense is important, especially in the playoffs. He does that as well as all but a very few players in the league. Claiming that creating shots for yourself is more valuable than creating shots for others is IMO fairly short-sighted.

[goCeltics]

westbrook 10 for 31, 8 more shots than durrant, ppl are delusional if they think okc shouldn't be exploring trade scenarios involving westbrook, if they are not, then the okc front office is, .

also i never get tired of pointing out what a gar-bage stat PER is, it goes up if you miss a shot, no joke.

a generous offer for westbrook, would be rondo+green+sully for westbrook+perk, can't see okc doing better than that

[D.o.s.]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

[goCeltics]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

russell is a chucker, you need someone that share's the ball to be your pg, especially when you have the most talented scorer in the league on your team, whomever westbrook is stealing shots from, he shouldn't be, his been shooting way too much

[BballTim]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

  Who is he stealing shots from? Right now the guy's not only taking the most shots on the team per minute, he's leading the league in usage for the playoffs by a pretty healthy margin. He has a TS% of .442 and on top of that he's averaging almost 5 turnovers a game. I'm somewhat baffled that you don't see why that's a problem.

[Moranis]

So now we have a problem now that Westbrook had 30 points, 13 assists, and 10 rebounds with just 4 turnovers in a playoff game all while playing solid defense on his counterpart.

[PhoSita]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

  Who is he stealing shots from? Right now the guy's not only taking the most shots on the team per minute, he's leading the league in usage for the playoffs by a pretty healthy margin. He has a TS% of .442 and on top of that he's averaging almost 5 turnovers a game. I'm somewhat baffled that you don't see why that's a problem.

Problem is -- who is Westbrook taking shots away from right now?  I don't think there's another guy on OKC who is capable of scoring against the Grizzlies other than Jackson, who needs the ball in his hands to score anyway. 

I mean, right now the Thunder are relying on Derek Fisher and Caron Butler -- two players that other teams have thrown away -- to take and make big shots for them.  Too many minutes in the rotation taken up by players who are total non-factors on offense (Collison, Perkins, Sefolosha) The depth just isn't there at the moment.

To some extent I wonder how much of this should fall, too, on Scott Brooks.  Westbrook might be capable of fitting in a more versatile (i.e. less iso-reliant) system, but Brooks hasn't given him the opportunity.

[Moranis]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

  Who is he stealing shots from? Right now the guy's not only taking the most shots on the team per minute, he's leading the league in usage for the playoffs by a pretty healthy margin. He has a TS% of .442 and on top of that he's averaging almost 5 turnovers a game. I'm somewhat baffled that you don't see why that's a problem.

Problem is -- who is Westbrook taking shots away from right now?  I don't think there's another guy on OKC who is capable of scoring against the Grizzlies other than Jackson, who needs the ball in his hands to score anyway. 

I mean, right now the Thunder are relying on Derek Fisher and Caron Butler -- two players that other teams have thrown away -- to take and make big shots for them.  Too many minutes in the rotation taken up by players who are total non-factors on offense (Collison, Perkins, Sefolosha) The depth just isn't there at the moment.

To some extent I wonder how much of this should fall, too, on Scott Brooks.  Westbrook might be capable of fitting in a more versatile (i.e. less iso-reliant) system, but Brooks hasn't given him the opportunity.

I have been saying for years that Scott Brooks is the problem in Oklahoma City.  It is why Presti had to trade Jeff Green, it is why they have no offense aside from what Westbrook and Durant generate themselves, it is why they will not win a title.  Scott Brooks is an absolutely terrible coach.  His rotations are terrible, his offensive scheme is perhaps the worst scheme in the league (despite having two of the better overall offensive players in the league), I don't think he know what defense is.  He should be fired immediately.  He is horrible.

[gpap]

I gotta say, now with OKC on the verge of eliminiation, this actually might be a possibility.

I mean I think most GMs would agree that Westbrook is a better player but at what point does OKC not consider the idea of shaking things up if they can't win a title with the 2nd best player in the league in Durant?

What about something like this

Celts get Westbrook, Perry Jones and Hasheem Thabeet
OKC gets Rondo, Jeff Green

[BballTim]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

  Who is he stealing shots from? Right now the guy's not only taking the most shots on the team per minute, he's leading the league in usage for the playoffs by a pretty healthy margin. He has a TS% of .442 and on top of that he's averaging almost 5 turnovers a game. I'm somewhat baffled that you don't see why that's a problem.

Problem is -- who is Westbrook taking shots away from right now?  I don't think there's another guy on OKC who is capable of scoring against the Grizzlies other than Jackson, who needs the ball in his hands to score anyway. 

I mean, right now the Thunder are relying on Derek Fisher and Caron Butler -- two players that other teams have thrown away -- to take and make big shots for them.  Too many minutes in the rotation taken up by players who are total non-factors on offense (Collison, Perkins, Sefolosha) The depth just isn't there at the moment.

  They're probably capable of scoring, just not creating their own offense. That's why your claims that people who can create their own offense better than Rondo falls short. People like to think that playoff basketball is mainly give the ball to your dominant scorer and have him create his own offense and carry the load but oftentimes it's more involved than that. OKC has players that can knock down open shots, they just don't get those open shots. Orchestrating those opportunities for your teammates is a skill and it's very valuable, especially in the playoffs.