Is Rondo Finally the best PG in the NBA?

[tsherkin]

No, he isn't

I'll take him over Paul any day of the playoffs, though

Interesting, given that his three years in the postseason for New Orleans blow away anything Rondo's ever done in the PS.

[The Infamous1]

No, he isn't

I'll take him over Paul any day of the playoffs, though

Rondo was clearly better in the playoffs last year. Outside of 2 games against Memphis paul was average.

[tsherkin]

Rondo was clearly better in the playoffs last year. Outside of 2 games against Memphis paul was average.

So a one-year sample in his first season on a new team where Butler missed a game (and played like crap otherwise), Billups didn't play and the Clippers faced both Memphis and San Antonio is more illustrative than the three years he was dominating in New Orleans?

You're going to use the compressed season as a meaningful data point? That's interesting. If Paul does that again this year, then I suppose it's a fair point, but again, he was still a better scorer than Rondo's generally ever been in his career and while his assist volume wasn't up there, the system wasn't designed quite the same way as it was in New Orleans (or as it is in Boston), so that's not really a fair point of comparison either. Paul remains the superior player, and a single postseason isn't really going to overturn that.

[Dr Pepper]

Yea CP3's ability to score and close still puts him above Rondo for me. Although Rondo has more left in his tank in the sense that I think he can play significantly more minutes. Rondo is more athletic, has more stamina, and is a more versatile defender. Imo CP3 is still the better playmaker though, and better at controlling pace

[G35]

That and the celtics have the 10th best offense in the league so far. So we can't use the "well his teams offense stinks" argument. Or are we going to give that credit to someone else now that its good but criticize rondo(like we did all last season) when it's bad? This place is full of double standards so i won't be surprised if that' happens

10th means they are an offense in the top third of the league... but their team ORTG is about the same as it was in 2011, when they were 18th in the league. In-season ranking is important, but the Boston offense doesn't look all that great. It certainly doesn't stack up to the high-efficiency offenses produced by guys who are more complete offensive players. Chris Paul did a better job, for example, and with far less with which to work in terms of talent.

Rondo's playing some more than solid ball, but he's still producing numbers that are skewed by his role (which is dictated at least in part by his considerably inferior scoring game) and the nature of Boston's offense.

Is he among the best PGs in the league? Absolutely, few people have his vision, his dynamic play in transition, his playmaker's mind. Fewer still have that and his package of physical tools. He's very talented, but when you start comparing him to certain other players in the league, his lack of full offensive capacity brings him down. Paul is a way, way better offensive player, and that's not really a debatable or refutable point.

You could say that about Nash which is really what this is all comes down to. When someone gets rated as a great PG the typical comparison is to say "Well this is what Nash does." Nash's numbers were UNDOUBTEDLY skewed by his role and the offense he played. Just look at the uproar when Nash gets put in an offense where he doesn't control everything.

This is my main complaint about what constitutes a great player or not. Some players will be great in any system. Others that are perceived to be great have to have the perfect storm around them to mimic the truly great......

[Aeternus]

You could say that about Nash which is really what this is all comes down to. When someone gets rated as a great PG the typical comparison is to say "Well this is what Nash does." Nash's numbers were UNDOUBTEDLY skewed by his role and the offense he played. Just look at the uproar when Nash gets put in an offense where he doesn't control everything.

This is my main complaint about what constitutes a great player or not. Some players will be great in any system. Others that are perceived to be great have to have the perfect storm around them to mimic the truly great......

Talk about completely missing the point...

On one hand we have Nash creating everything by slashing in the paint and prodding the defense, holding up an all time great offense out of his own work without relying on plays drawn by the coach.
On the other we have Rondo being an important cog, but still just a cog, of a very structured offense where complex plays (where the defense is disrupted by off the ball work mainly) are the main source of offense.

You can't possibly rationalize their roles as similar. You just can't.

EDIT: I want to add something. Which superstars have we ever seen playing successfully outside of their favoured role? And with successfully I mean with the same impact.
Because certainly Magic playing as a wing in the start of his career was a lesser player for example. And it's really just the same situation as Nash with the Mavs.

[MisterWestside]

When you look at this video of today's game, you can begin to see why people are skeptical of Rondo's raw assist numbers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ViRGSJZFcE

Now, only one of them is really a badly (a few are questionable, but everyone gets questionable assists) credited assist (1:11 is a joke to get an assist on), and he did have some nice passes in there (the alley-oops are quite good), but it's hardly like Rondo created 20 good looks for his teammates. A lot of these are passes to contested jump-shooters where Rondo hardly did anything at all. A few more are very simple pick and pop plays, and a couple more are simple post-entry passes where KG had to make a move afterwards. And then there are the good alley oops on pick and rolls and a few good passes where he shows good court vision to make a pass other people might not have seen. But people see "20 assists" and think that it means something it doesn't, and I think there's good reason to be skeptical of raw assist numbers in general.


EDIT: For comparison, this is a 17 assist game Steve Nash had last year. He's more active in creating the shots and the looks created tend to be better (lots of layups near the rim):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpXLUm2wakI


Now obviously randomly picking two high assist games isn't necessarily a representative sample, but when you hear people question Rondo's value or praise say, Nash's, even as a playmaker, this kind of stuff is what they're talking about, even beyond the whole shooting thing.

I hear you on this, but there's a bunch of assist "homecooking" in both of these clips if you ask me.

[G35]

You could say that about Nash which is really what this is all comes down to. When someone gets rated as a great PG the typical comparison is to say "Well this is what Nash does." Nash's numbers were UNDOUBTEDLY skewed by his role and the offense he played. Just look at the uproar when Nash gets put in an offense where he doesn't control everything.

This is my main complaint about what constitutes a great player or not. Some players will be great in any system. Others that are perceived to be great have to have the perfect storm around them to mimic the truly great......

Talk about completely missing the point...

On one hand we have Nash creating everything by slashing in the paint and prodding the defense, holding up an all time great offense out of his own work without relying on plays drawn by the coach.
On the other we have Rondo being an important cog, but still just a cog, of a very structured offense where complex plays (where the defense is disrupted by off the ball work mainly) are the main source of offense.

You can't possibly rationalize their roles as similar. You just can't.

Yes lets talk about missing the point. Would Nash have the same role in Boston as he would in Phoenix? Hell no. KG/Pierce/Allen didn't need a PG that held the ball the whole time. In Phoenix Nash HAD to create the offense....duh. Amare/Marion while being elite finishers can't create for shinola.

Why is there a double standard for different players? With Nash it's great offense when one player holds the ball all the time. But haven't all the great offenses been when the whole team shares the ball? Wasn't that what the Heat were being praised for a week ago? With Nash running things the ball isn't shared. It's passed when Nash is ready to pass, never forget that. Some PG's prefer to get the ball up the court and into the playmakers hands quickly to allow OTHER players to use their gifts also.

Apparently Nash fans (I'm not going to put this all on Nash himself) feel that he should be the only one creating the offense and the focus should be built around his talents. Is that not odd to anyone? What if Kobe said that? Kobe gets criticized to death for being too selfish but around here the complaint is Nash is the one who doesn't get the ball enough lol.

Personally I like a PG that gets the ball upcourt and into the other players hands quickly so they can create something e.g. Jason Kidd who is great at that. Stockton did that a lot. Rondo does it also. There isn't just one way of creating offense. For some reason the Nash way is the only way. It's like now players have to mimic Nash to get respect from the PC board.......

[Rapcity_11]

I hear you on this, but there's a bunch of assist "homecooking" in both of these clips if you ask me.

Other than the 0:10 mark in the Nash video, those all look legit to me.

[Aeternus]

Yes lets talk about missing the point. Would Nash have the same role in Boston as he would in Phoenix? Hell no. KG/Pierce/Allen didn't need a PG that held the ball the whole time. In Phoenix Nash HAD to create the offense....duh. Amare/Marion while being elite finishers can't create for shinola.

Why is there a double standard for different players? With Nash it's great offense when one player holds the ball all the time. But haven't all the great offenses been when the whole team shares the ball? Wasn't that what the Heat were being praised for a week ago? With Nash running things the ball isn't shared. It's passed when Nash is ready to pass, never forget that. Some PG's prefer to get the ball up the court and into the playmakers hands quickly to allow OTHER players to use their gifts also.

Apparently Nash fans (I'm not going to put this all on Nash himself) feel that he should be the only one creating the offense and the focus should be built around his talents. Is that not odd to anyone? What if Kobe said that? Kobe gets criticized to death for being too selfish but around here the complaint is Nash is the one who doesn't get the ball enough lol.

Personally I like a PG that gets the ball upcourt and into the other players hands quickly so they can create something e.g. Jason Kidd who is great at that. Stockton did that a lot. Rondo does it also. There isn't just one way of creating offense. For some reason the Nash way is the only way. It's like now players have to mimic Nash to get respect from the PC board.......

Now, I'll go by paragraphs.

Hell yeah he would. On reduced volume maybe, but do you really think a smart coach like Rivers wouldn't have given Nash the chance to freestyle with three absolutely elite off the ball players? It would have been Phoenix on steroids.

There's no double standards. A great offense is defined by results, the more points an offense scores on average each possession, the better. If it happens by having a player hog the ball, so be it. If it happens by having the whole team moving the ball and cutting, just as good. Results are what matters.
For your info, of the top 10 best offenses of all times, 9/10 have been managed by having their PG (Magic, Nash or Oscar) hog the ball all the time, an it's not like you see anyone denying their greatness either,so really the double standard is in your mind only.

Kobe (nor anyone else other the Magic and Oscar really) has never ever managed to get even close to Nash levels of offensive production by hogging the ball all the time. His team had better results with him sharing the ball more. When that happened with Nash, the offense actually got worse. So yeah, different situation require different approaches.

Jason Kidd, Rondo and Stockton never managed offenses as good as Nash's, so why do you think their approach is better? Do you hate winning?.

[bigboi]

Yes lets talk about missing the point. Would Nash have the same role in Boston as he would in Phoenix? Hell no. KG/Pierce/Allen didn't need a PG that held the ball the whole time. In Phoenix Nash HAD to create the offense....duh. Amare/Marion while being elite finishers can't create for shinola.

Why is there a double standard for different players? With Nash it's great offense when one player holds the ball all the time. But haven't all the great offenses been when the whole team shares the ball? Wasn't that what the Heat were being praised for a week ago? With Nash running things the ball isn't shared. It's passed when Nash is ready to pass, never forget that. Some PG's prefer to get the ball up the court and into the playmakers hands quickly to allow OTHER players to use their gifts also.

Apparently Nash fans (I'm not going to put this all on Nash himself) feel that he should be the only one creating the offense and the focus should be built around his talents. Is that not odd to anyone? What if Kobe said that? Kobe gets criticized to death for being too selfish but around here the complaint is Nash is the one who doesn't get the ball enough lol.

Personally I like a PG that gets the ball upcourt and into the other players hands quickly so they can create something e.g. Jason Kidd who is great at that. Stockton did that a lot. Rondo does it also. There isn't just one way of creating offense. For some reason the Nash way is the only way. It's like now players have to mimic Nash to get respect from the PC board.......

Now, I'll go by paragraphs.

Hell yeah he would. On reduced volume maybe, but do you really think a smart coach like Rivers wouldn't have given Nash the chance to freestyle with three absolutely elite off the ball players? It would have been Phoenix on steroids.

There's no double standards. A great offense is defined by results, the more points an offense scores on average each possession, the better. If it happens by having a player hog the ball, so be it. If it happens by having the whole team moving the ball and cutting, just as good. Results are what matters.
For your info, of the top 10 best offenses of all times, 9/10 have been managed by having their PG (Magic, Nash or Oscar) hog the ball all the time, an it's not like you see anyone denying their greatness either,so really the double standard is in your mind only.

Kobe (nor anyone else other the Magic and Oscar really) has never ever managed to get even close to Nash levels of offensive production by hogging the ball all the time. His team had better results with him sharing the ball more. When that happened with Nash, the offense actually got worse. So yeah, different situation require different approaches.

Jason Kidd, Rondo and Stockton never managed offenses as good as Nash's, so why do you think their approach is better? Do you hate winning?.

Yet Nash has never won anything and those players have come closer to winning a championship or have won a championship before Nash. So your whole argument is flawed, Nash is no Magic. Magic lead excellent offenses while winning the Finals, but Nash hasn't so don't come up this bull saying do you hate winning, if Kidd, Rondo, and Stockton have come closer to winning as the lead man than Nash.

[MisterWestside]

Other than the 0:10 mark in the Nash video, those all look legit to me.

I'd argue with the Hill curl around the screen and dribble into the pull-up after that :10 play, the Hill reverse layup on the fast break (never liked how scorekeepers counted that as an assist in general), the Hill dribble and pull-up midrange jumper on the fastbreak, and the Dudley 3 in the 2nd half.

By the way, to add to the Nash vs. Rondo discussion; I think that Rondo is a bit overrated as well and NAsh is a better PG, but many of Nash's assists in the example clip came from the PnR. That doesn't just requires a capable passer, but bigs who are athletic enough to roll to the rim and have good hands to get the pass and finish over rotating defenders. The Celtics don't run alot of PnR; more off-ball plays where Rondo dribbles in isolation and off-ball screens are set for jumpshooters. System definitely matters here.

[G35]

Yes lets talk about missing the point. Would Nash have the same role in Boston as he would in Phoenix? Hell no. KG/Pierce/Allen didn't need a PG that held the ball the whole time. In Phoenix Nash HAD to create the offense....duh. Amare/Marion while being elite finishers can't create for shinola.

Why is there a double standard for different players? With Nash it's great offense when one player holds the ball all the time. But haven't all the great offenses been when the whole team shares the ball? Wasn't that what the Heat were being praised for a week ago? With Nash running things the ball isn't shared. It's passed when Nash is ready to pass, never forget that. Some PG's prefer to get the ball up the court and into the playmakers hands quickly to allow OTHER players to use their gifts also.

Apparently Nash fans (I'm not going to put this all on Nash himself) feel that he should be the only one creating the offense and the focus should be built around his talents. Is that not odd to anyone? What if Kobe said that? Kobe gets criticized to death for being too selfish but around here the complaint is Nash is the one who doesn't get the ball enough lol.

Personally I like a PG that gets the ball upcourt and into the other players hands quickly so they can create something e.g. Jason Kidd who is great at that. Stockton did that a lot. Rondo does it also. There isn't just one way of creating offense. For some reason the Nash way is the only way. It's like now players have to mimic Nash to get respect from the PC board.......

Now, I'll go by paragraphs.

Hell yeah he would. On reduced volume maybe, but do you really think a smart coach like Rivers wouldn't have given Nash the chance to freestyle with three absolutely elite off the ball players? It would have been Phoenix on steroids.

There's no double standards. A great offense is defined by results, the more points an offense scores on average each possession, the better. If it happens by having a player hog the ball, so be it. If it happens by having the whole team moving the ball and cutting, just as good. Results are what matters.
For your info, of the top 10 best offenses of all times, 9/10 have been managed by having their PG (Magic, Nash or Oscar) hog the ball all the time, an it's not like you see anyone denying their greatness either,so really the double standard is in your mind only.

Kobe (nor anyone else other the Magic and Oscar really) has never ever managed to get even close to Nash levels of offensive production by hogging the ball all the time. His team had better results with him sharing the ball more. When that happened with Nash, the offense actually got worse. So yeah, different situation require different approaches.

Jason Kidd, Rondo and Stockton never managed offenses as good as Nash's, so why do you think their approach is better? Do you hate winning?.

Wrong. Steve Nash had his "Boston scenario" in Dallas. Dirk was KG, Finley was Pierce. Nash was not the Nash you know and love. He was reduced Nash. Any smart coach? I doubt that Rivers would change his successful, WINNING, team to cater to Nash's very specific needs. First off Nash would have to learn to PRACTICE defense. That would be one major change. Some teams practice offense, some practice defense. Which one do you think Doc Rivers preaches? Yeah defense, because it has been successful in Boston.

Magic shared the ball with other great players. Magic gave the ball up to Kareem and got the hell out of the way. Magic didn't run all around the court "probing" the defense. Those Lakers teams were not a pick and roll offense. So very much, not the same. Now Oscar was similar to Nash in that he had those great offenses and crappy defenses and you know what? Their teams had pretty much similar success. I'll let you read into that.

Once again Nash proponents can ONLY measure team success through the offensive side of the ball. Since the Bulls threepeat from 96-98 every championship team has been at least top 10 in defense except for the Lakers 00/01 and they are an outlier because they turned their defense up big time in the playoff's.

Rondo has guided the Celtics offense and been a huge part of their defense and for many that appreciate that the Celtics have largely successful over that period. You are right. Results matter. Show me Nash's rings and I'll show you this.......

[Rapcity_11]

I'd argue with the Hill curl around the screen and dribble into the pull-up after that :10 play,

1 dribble and an immediate shot will always be credited with an assist.

the Hill reverse layup on the fast break (never liked how scorekeepers counted that as an assist in general)

The pass led directly to the shot. How can you argue that as not an assist?

the Hill dribble and pull-up midrange jumper on the fastbreak,

Again, 1 dribble and shot = automatic assist for everybody.

and the Dudley 3 in the 2nd half.

Alright well now it seems obvious that you have a different criteria for assists than the NBA. You seem to only want to reward players with assists when they create shots. That's a concept I actually agree with and love things like Elgee's opportunities created (or whatever it's called?). But that's not the way the game is scored. Plays like that last Dudley 3 ARE assists whether you like it or not. Not a product of home-cooking.

Anyways, raw assist totals are among the more meaningless statistics without looking at the context of them.

[Aeternus]

Yet Nash has never won anything and those players have come closer to winning a championship or have won a championship before Nash. So your whole argument is flawed, Nash is no Magic. Magic lead excellent offenses while winning the Finals, but Nash hasn't so don't come up this bull saying do you hate winning, if Kidd, Rondo, and Stockton have come closer to winning as the lead man than Nash.

Magic was a better player, with a far better team and a far far far better coach, so I don't know why he winning more matters.

Stockton and Rondo were never the best players on a team, so they're out.
Kidd as the man took 2 games from the 5,65 SRS champion and was swept by a 7,14 SRS champion, these are his best results.
Nash took 2 from a 5,96 SRS team and 1 from a 7,83 SRS champion. I'd say he managed better than all his contemporaries you mentioned.

Maybe check your facts before talking next time ok?

[MisterWestside]

I'd argue with the Hill curl around the screen and dribble into the pull-up after that :10 play,

1 dribble and an immediate shot will always be credited with an assist.

the Hill reverse layup on the fast break (never liked how scorekeepers counted that as an assist in general)

The pass led directly to the shot. How can you argue that as not an assist?

the Hill dribble and pull-up midrange jumper on the fastbreak,

Again, 1 dribble and shot = automatic assist for everybody.

and the Dudley 3 in the 2nd half.

Alright well now it seems obvious that you have a different criteria for assists than the NBA. You seem to only want to reward players with assists when they create shots. That's a concept I actually agree with and love things like Elgee's opportunities created (or whatever it's called?). But that's not the way the game is scored. Plays like that last Dudley 3 ARE assists whether you like it or not. Not a product of home-cooking.

Anyways, raw assist totals are among the more meaningless statistics without looking at the context of them.

Just keeping it consistent with the complainers. Many of Rondo's assists are the same way.

[Rapcity_11]

Just keeping it consistent with the complainers. Many of Rondo's assists are the same way.

Hardly anyone is complaining about Rondo getting credit with the assists, just questioning the value of his assists...

[MisterWestside]

Hardly anyone is complaining about Rondo getting credit with the assists, just questioning the value of his assists...

That's not what I'm reading from Krodis's post. You can certainly discuss the value of the assists (e.g., the kind of shot the player takes when he gets the ball) but the context of his post was (partly) framed as if Rondo's assists were actually bogus, as if he were the scorekeeper in that game then Rondo wouldn't get some of those assists that he talked about. If we're going by the scorekeppeing criteria you used in your post though then Rondo's assists were legitimate.

Now, I did also address the value issue in my post edit. We can always argue that point.

[CablexDeadpool]

Rondo was clearly better in the playoffs last year. Outside of 2 games against Memphis paul was average.

So a one-year sample in his first season on a new team where Butler missed a game (and played like crap otherwise), Billups didn't play and the Clippers faced both Memphis and San Antonio is more illustrative than the three years he was dominating in New Orleans?

You're going to use the compressed season as a meaningful data point? That's interesting. If Paul does that again this year, then I suppose it's a fair point, but again, he was still a better scorer than Rondo's generally ever been in his career and while his assist volume wasn't up there, the system wasn't designed quite the same way as it was in New Orleans (or as it is in Boston), so that's not really a fair point of comparison either. Paul remains the superior player, and a single postseason isn't really going to overturn that.

That's BS because Rondo was in a compressed season and did very well. Everybody was in a compressed season, Rajon Rondo peformed better than Chris Paul, its just that simple.

And Chris Paul has only had 2 dominant playoff performances in New Orleans, the 2010 - 2011 season and 2007 -2008 season. His 2008 - 2009 playoffs stint was a total dud, he got blown out his last two games against Denver and only had two games shooting above 40 percent and only had two games scoring over 15 points

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/393 ... ?year=2008.

I wouldn't consider Chris Paul a dominant playoff performer. Regular Season he is dominant.

Rajon Rondo for 3 years straight has been an above average consistent playoff performer and has put in some surreal games when he team has need it. Rajon Rondo has been damn right magical in the playoffs for three straight years, better than Rose, Westbrook and Paul for three straight years, saving the Miami series in 2010-2011 that was bad, 2010 - 2011 against the Knicks was very good).


I am starting to think that Chris Paul is the Peyton Manning of Point Guards and Rajon Rondo is like the Eli Manning of Point Guards.

Chris Paul gets the benefit of the doubt constantly and Rajon Rondo seems to have to prove himself and then Chris Paul can have a total dud last year and he gets a pass.

Rajon Rondo drops 44 and 10 along with 8 rebounds against the Miami Heat and people still question his scoring. He has dropped over 20 points fifteen time in the playoffs and I didn't even count the number of games he had 20 or the number of times he's put up at least 15.

No other point guard has been more consistent in the playoffs than Rondo, no other point guard has just showed up with big games in the playoffs like Rondo in the last 3 years.

During the regular season, yeah Rondo is a damn assist hog and he won't even dare shoot the ball, but playoff time comes, the man does work like no other point guard in the league right now.

[bigboi]

Yet Nash has never won anything and those players have come closer to winning a championship or have won a championship before Nash. So your whole argument is flawed, Nash is no Magic. Magic lead excellent offenses while winning the Finals, but Nash hasn't so don't come up this bull saying do you hate winning, if Kidd, Rondo, and Stockton have come closer to winning as the lead man than Nash.

Magic was a better player, with a far better team and a far far far better coach, so I don't know why he winning more matters.

Stockton and Rondo were never the best players on a team, so they're out.
Kidd as the man took 2 games from the 5,65 SRS champion and was swept by a 7,14 SRS champion, these are his best results.
Nash took 2 from a 5,96 SRS team and 1 from a 7,83 SRS champion. I'd say he managed better than all his contemporaries you mentioned.

Maybe check your facts before talking next time ok?

Rondo has been the best player on his team since 08-09, the Celtics lost in 08-09 to the ECF winners in 7 games, lost to the champ in 09-10, lost to the ECF winner in 10-11, and lost to the champion in 11-12. I would say Rondo's resume looks better . Stockton was 1b to Malone's 1a. Kidd played against one of the greatest teams of all time and got demolished, but the series against the Spurs was much closer than suggested. Also no way does Nash take a supporting cast like Kidd's to the Finals. So Nash doesn't have a better resume IMO and the dude has been blessed with some of the greatest supporting casts in NBA history.