Hypothetically if you replaced Rondo with LeBron, how many games would we win?

[LarBrd33]

More interesting question: would the Pelicans improve if they traded Anthony Davis for LeBron?

That is an interesting question too.   And the answer is yes... they'd keep Asik at Center and start Ryan Anderson at PF.  Tyreke Evans goes back to being 6th man.  They'd be better for sure.

If they didn't have Asik, a case could be made that the loss of Davis would be so damaging to their interior defense that it would be tough for the addition of LeBron to make up for it.  Granted, it would be tough for anyone to make that case right now... easier to make the case in a couple years when Davis proves his superstardom and the team actually makes the playoffs. 

[Celtics18]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty. 

[timobusa]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

THIS

[LarBrd33]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

I'm not sure it's empty.  Where does "guard who passes really good" fall in the list of desirable NBA strengths?   We have arguably the best passing guard in the world.. and yet we've all collectively decided the team would be 15-20 games better if we lost that strength and added "elite superstar scorer". 

I was having a discussion with a friend recently about NFL position importance.  Like... having the world's greatest kicker is nice, but you'd probably trade the world's greatest kicker for a improved running back.   We've established that having the world's (maybe) greatest passing point guard is nice... but is it more important than having an elite scorer?  No.  More important than having an elite interior defender?  What do you think, Celtics18?

[D.o.s.]

Not really, it's not that interesting. We're not just talking about any superstar i.e. Westbrook or Griffin, we're talking about a probable top 5 all time player. Like I said, the replacement choice was the issue. If you asked the same question but switched James for Harden, I doubt the needle would be moved that much.

I don't know about the bolded, but that's fairly subjective stuff.


I'd say the Celtics win 43-47 games with James instead of Rondo. They're about on the same level as the '07-'08 Cavs, but I think LeBron takes a  little step back at age 31 after the wear and tear of playing 48 minutes a night for 82 games.

And they'd lose to the Bulls in the playoffs.

edit: and that NFL comparison is lazy. Knowingly lazy.

[LarBrd33]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

THIS

What are you "THIS"ing? ... That the difference between an all-star PG and a superstar scorer is a 30 win bottomfeeder and a 50 win playoff contender?

I find it interesting to think about... that you could replace the best player on this team with a different player, lose the team's greatest strength, and still improve by 15-20 games (hypothetically).  Which leads into the second question... what would happen if you replaced Rondo with an elite interior defender.  What happens if you lose the team's "Strength", but in doing so made the team's biggest weakness a strength?  I guess it depends on how you value NBA strengths.  Is it more important to have a guard who finds open men... or a big man who protects the paint. 

[Celtics18]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

I'm not sure it's empty.  Where does "guard who passes really good" fall in the list of desirable NBA strengths?   We have arguably the best passing guard in the world.. and yet we've all collectively decided the team would be 15-20 games better if we lost that strength and added "elite superstar scorer". 

I was having a discussion with a friend recently about NFL position importance.  Like... having the world's greatest kicker is nice, but you'd probably trade the world's greatest kicker for a improved running back.   We've established that having the world's (maybe) greatest passing point guard is nice... but is it more important than having an elite scorer?  No.  More important than having an elite interior defender?  What do you think, Celtics18?

But, you aren't talking about "elite superstar scorer" in the abstract.  You are talking about Lebron James, arguably one of the top five players to ever play the game.  We aren't talking about Demar Derozan, Rudy Gay, Chandler Parsons, Monta Ellis, Bradley Beal or even Carmelo Anthony.  If you replaced Lebron James with any of those names in your hypothetical, it would be a much more debatable point. 

[LarBrd33]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

I'm not sure it's empty.  Where does "guard who passes really good" fall in the list of desirable NBA strengths?   We have arguably the best passing guard in the world.. and yet we've all collectively decided the team would be 15-20 games better if we lost that strength and added "elite superstar scorer". 

I was having a discussion with a friend recently about NFL position importance.  Like... having the world's greatest kicker is nice, but you'd probably trade the world's greatest kicker for a improved running back.   We've established that having the world's (maybe) greatest passing point guard is nice... but is it more important than having an elite scorer?  No.  More important than having an elite interior defender?  What do you think, Celtics18?

But, you aren't talking about "elite superstar scorer" in the abstract.  You are talking about Lebron James, arguably one of the top five players to ever play the game.  We aren't talking about Demar Derozan, Rudy Gay, Chandler Parsons, Monta Ellis, Bradley Beal or even Carmelo Anthony.  If you replaced Lebron James with any of those names in your hypothetical, it would be a much more debatable point.

I had to establish a premise that not all all-stars are created equally... that not all NBA strengths are created equally.   I had to start with an undebatable extreme before getting into the more niche questions.   

So how about it, Celtics18... instead of debating about how over-the-top obvious my initial question is (we'd clearly improve by 15-20 wins)... take on a more difficult hypothetical.

What happens if this team were to replace Rondo with Melo?  More or less wins?

What happens if the team were to replace Rondo with Gasol?  More or less wins?

What about something disgusting like replacing Rondo with Roy Hibert?  What then?

[D.o.s.]

I'm with Celtics18 on this one. I said the analogy was knowingly lazy but there seems to be a point behind this thread about the relative value of Rondo to the C's by virtue of LeBron James being so far ahead of the competition that replacing one with the other makes the Celtics better.


The only problem is that the point is, to be nice, monumentally underdeveloped (half baked, if you will) and hasn't really been thought out at all to any sort of satisfying conclusion -- which is why you haven't given one. Not that there is one, either way. Which is why you're able to adlib in disparate players with no qualifiers whatsover beyond the fact that they are 'good.'

Also, this talk of establishing premises and undebatable extremes... I'm going to assume you failed your Philosophy 101 lecture and never went back and actually read any of the books. The actual books, mind, not the Gladwell pop-psychology stuff

[Celtics18]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

I'm not sure it's empty.  Where does "guard who passes really good" fall in the list of desirable NBA strengths?   We have arguably the best passing guard in the world.. and yet we've all collectively decided the team would be 15-20 games better if we lost that strength and added "elite superstar scorer". 

I was having a discussion with a friend recently about NFL position importance.  Like... having the world's greatest kicker is nice, but you'd probably trade the world's greatest kicker for a improved running back.   We've established that having the world's (maybe) greatest passing point guard is nice... but is it more important than having an elite scorer?  No.  More important than having an elite interior defender?  What do you think, Celtics18?

But, you aren't talking about "elite superstar scorer" in the abstract.  You are talking about Lebron James, arguably one of the top five players to ever play the game.  We aren't talking about Demar Derozan, Rudy Gay, Chandler Parsons, Monta Ellis, Bradley Beal or even Carmelo Anthony.  If you replaced Lebron James with any of those names in your hypothetical, it would be a much more debatable point.

I had to establish a premise that not all all-stars are created equally... that not all NBA strengths are created equally.   I had to start with an undebatable extreme before getting into the more niche questions.   

So how about it, Celtics18... instead of debating about how over-the-top obvious my initial question is (we'd clearly improve by 15-20 wins)... take on a more difficult hypothetical.

What happens if this team were to replace Rondo with Melo?  More or less wins?

What happens if the team were to replace Rondo with Gasol?  More or less wins?

What about something disgusting like replacing Rondo with Roy Hibert?  What then?

I honestly don't know the answer to either of the three that you presented.  Also, I'm not trying to be rude here, but I do find these types of hypotheticals a bit silly.

But, I guess I can play along. 

Melo;  slightly better.

Marc:  about the same.

Hibbert:  way worse. 

[LarBrd33]

I'm with Celtics18 on this one. I said the analogy was knowingly lazy but there seems to be a point behind this thread about the relative value of Rondo to the C's by virtue of LeBron James being so far ahead of the competition that replacing one with the other makes the Celtics better.


The only problem is that the point is, to be nice, monumentally underdeveloped (half baked, if you will) and hasn't really been thought out at all to any sort of satisfying conclusion -- which is why you haven't given one. Not that there is one, either way. Which is why you're able to adlib in disparate players with no qualifiers whatsover beyond the fact that they are 'good.'

Also, this talk of establishing premises and undebatable extremes... I'm going to assume you failed your Philosophy 101 lecture and never went back and actually read any of the books. 

You can keep whining about my initial question, or follow me down this rabbit hole.  You don't have to participate in this thread if it offends you so much.

The first question is admittedly ridiculous, but it established that we'd go from a 30 win bottomfeeder to 45-50 win playoff team. 

I'm trying to understand the perceived importance of "really good passing guard".  So let's take it to the next logical step. 

What would happen on this team if you replaced Rondo with Melo?

What would happen on this team if you replaced Rondo with an "elite" all-star defender like Marc Gasol?

What would happen on this team if you replaced Rondo with Roy Hibbert?

Or more interesting... is there any scenario at all where you could replace Rajon Rondo with a lesser player (of a different position) and see the team improve as a whole?  Would you do it?  Why or why not?

[LarBrd33]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

I'm not sure it's empty.  Where does "guard who passes really good" fall in the list of desirable NBA strengths?   We have arguably the best passing guard in the world.. and yet we've all collectively decided the team would be 15-20 games better if we lost that strength and added "elite superstar scorer". 

I was having a discussion with a friend recently about NFL position importance.  Like... having the world's greatest kicker is nice, but you'd probably trade the world's greatest kicker for a improved running back.   We've established that having the world's (maybe) greatest passing point guard is nice... but is it more important than having an elite scorer?  No.  More important than having an elite interior defender?  What do you think, Celtics18?

But, you aren't talking about "elite superstar scorer" in the abstract.  You are talking about Lebron James, arguably one of the top five players to ever play the game.  We aren't talking about Demar Derozan, Rudy Gay, Chandler Parsons, Monta Ellis, Bradley Beal or even Carmelo Anthony.  If you replaced Lebron James with any of those names in your hypothetical, it would be a much more debatable point.

I had to establish a premise that not all all-stars are created equally... that not all NBA strengths are created equally.   I had to start with an undebatable extreme before getting into the more niche questions.   

So how about it, Celtics18... instead of debating about how over-the-top obvious my initial question is (we'd clearly improve by 15-20 wins)... take on a more difficult hypothetical.

What happens if this team were to replace Rondo with Melo?  More or less wins?

What happens if the team were to replace Rondo with Gasol?  More or less wins?

What about something disgusting like replacing Rondo with Roy Hibert?  What then?

I honestly don't know the answer to either of the three that you presented.  Also, I'm not trying to be rude here, but I do find these types of hypotheticals a bit silly.

But, I guess I can play along. 

Melo;  slightly better.

Marc:  about the same.

Hibbert:  way worse.

How much worse would we be if we replaced Rondo with Hibbert?  Talk me through it.

PG - Smart
SG - Bradley
SF - Green
PF - Sully
C - HIbbert
... Oly backs up Sully/HIbbert.  We have Turner and Thornton backing up the guards.

If anything, that lineup establishes an identity of an elite defensive squad, right?  Does Hibbert not solve our most glaring weakness?  Our offense would be worse, but how much worse would it be?...

[Celtics18]

I'm with Celtics18 on this one. I said the analogy was knowingly lazy but there seems to be a point behind this thread about the relative value of Rondo to the C's by virtue of LeBron James being so far ahead of the competition that replacing one with the other makes the Celtics better.


The only problem is that the point is, to be nice, monumentally underdeveloped (half baked, if you will) and hasn't really been thought out at all to any sort of satisfying conclusion -- which is why you haven't given one. Not that there is one, either way. Which is why you're able to adlib in disparate players with no qualifiers whatsover beyond the fact that they are 'good.'

Also, this talk of establishing premises and undebatable extremes... I'm going to assume you failed your Philosophy 101 lecture and never went back and actually read any of the books. 

You can keep whining about my initial question, or follow me down this rabbit hole.  You don't have to participate in this thread if it offends you so much.

The first question is admittedly ridiculous, but it established that we'd go from a 30 win bottomfeeder to 45-50 win playoff team. 

I'm trying to understand the perceived importance of "really good passing guard".  So let's take it to the next logical step. 

What would happen on this team if you replaced Rondo with Melo?

What would happen on this team if you replaced Rondo with an "elite" all-star defender like Marc Gasol?

What would happen on this team if you replaced Rondo with Roy Hibbert?

Or more interesting... is there any scenario at all where you could replace Rajon Rondo with a lesser player (of a different position) and see the team improve as a whole?  Would you do it?  Why or why not?

See, examples like the bolded statement are why it's very difficult to take you seriously much of the time.

Of course, nothing of the kind has been established. 

If we end up winning 40 games this year, does your hypothetical then "prove" that if we replaced Rondo with James, we'd be a 55-60 win team?

It's all conjecture, and, as much as you want to try to objectify it (by taking a late-night, informal poll with very few responses), it's not really something you can objectify. 

It actually seems like you are taking the stance that "because you say so" your theory has been established. 

[LarBrd33]

So no commentary on the Hibbert hypothetical, Celtics18?

[Celtics18]

Bird, you start with your opinion that we are at best a 30 win team, and repeat it as a fact.  That's obviously far from a known at this point.

And, of course, no one would argue that Lebron James wouldn't make this team better.  You could literally replace him with any player in the league and he would make that team better. 

So, while, sure, you're right that having Lebron James instead of Rajon Rondo would make us considerably better, your point seems kind of empty.

I'm not sure it's empty.  Where does "guard who passes really good" fall in the list of desirable NBA strengths?   We have arguably the best passing guard in the world.. and yet we've all collectively decided the team would be 15-20 games better if we lost that strength and added "elite superstar scorer". 

I was having a discussion with a friend recently about NFL position importance.  Like... having the world's greatest kicker is nice, but you'd probably trade the world's greatest kicker for a improved running back.   We've established that having the world's (maybe) greatest passing point guard is nice... but is it more important than having an elite scorer?  No.  More important than having an elite interior defender?  What do you think, Celtics18?

But, you aren't talking about "elite superstar scorer" in the abstract.  You are talking about Lebron James, arguably one of the top five players to ever play the game.  We aren't talking about Demar Derozan, Rudy Gay, Chandler Parsons, Monta Ellis, Bradley Beal or even Carmelo Anthony.  If you replaced Lebron James with any of those names in your hypothetical, it would be a much more debatable point.

I had to establish a premise that not all all-stars are created equally... that not all NBA strengths are created equally.   I had to start with an undebatable extreme before getting into the more niche questions.   

So how about it, Celtics18... instead of debating about how over-the-top obvious my initial question is (we'd clearly improve by 15-20 wins)... take on a more difficult hypothetical.

What happens if this team were to replace Rondo with Melo?  More or less wins?

What happens if the team were to replace Rondo with Gasol?  More or less wins?

What about something disgusting like replacing Rondo with Roy Hibert?  What then?

I honestly don't know the answer to either of the three that you presented.  Also, I'm not trying to be rude here, but I do find these types of hypotheticals a bit silly.

But, I guess I can play along. 

Melo;  slightly better.

Marc:  about the same.

Hibbert:  way worse.

How much worse would we be if we replaced Rondo with Hibbert?  Talk me through it.

PG - Smart
SG - Bradley
SF - Green
PF - Sully
C - HIbbert
... Oly backs up Sully/HIbbert.  We have Turner and Thornton backing up the guards.

If anything, that lineup establishes an identity of an elite defensive squad, right?  Does Hibbert not solve our most glaring weakness?  Our offense would be worse, but how much worse would it be?...

Jeff Green would be our best offensive player, and Marcus Smart would be our primary ball handler, tasked with running the team.  I love Marcus Smart.  I looooooove Marcus Smart, but I don't think he's ready offensively to lead an NBA team to the playoffs as the primary playmaker.

Sorry, I don't think it would come close to making up for the slight upgrade defensively.  I say "slight upgrade" because, replacing Rondo with Hibbert would mean that both Smart and Bradley would have much more offensive responsibility, much less opportunity to rest, and a harder time shouldering the burden of attempting to do what their jobs are on this team, which is to be pit bulls defensively. 

Maybe "way worse" was too much, though.  I'm changing it to significantly to somewhat worse.