Kobe Bean wrote: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.
Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063
Kobe Bean wrote:No, he isn't
I'll take him over Paul any day of the playoffs, though
Kobe Bean wrote:No, he isn't
I'll take him over Paul any day of the playoffs, though
The Infamous1 wrote:Rondo was clearly better in the playoffs last year. Outside of 2 games against Memphis paul was average.
Frosty wrote:Funny this is called Clone Wars because Kobe is like the second installment of the Star Wars series. It looked like Star Wars but came up short. But it did appeal to the kiddies.
tsherkin wrote:The Infamous1 wrote: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.
G35 wrote: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......
Krodis wrote: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.
Aeternus wrote:G35 wrote: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.
MisterWestside wrote:
I hear you on this, but there's a bunch of assist "homecooking" in both of these clips if you ask me.
G35 wrote: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.......
Aeternus wrote:G35 wrote: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?.
tlee324 wrote:
Lebron made it to the finals with that cleveland team.
Bird would have won 4 rings with that team, in this weak ass era of basketball.
Rapcity_11 wrote:Other than the 0:10 mark in the Nash video, those all look legit to me.
Aeternus wrote:G35 wrote: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?.
MisterWestside wrote:
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.
bigboi wrote: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.
Rapcity_11 wrote:MisterWestside wrote:
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.
MisterWestside wrote:Just keeping it consistent with the complainers. Many of Rondo's assists are the same way.
Rapcity_11 wrote:Hardly anyone is complaining about Rondo getting credit with the assists, just questioning the value of his assists...
tsherkin wrote:The Infamous1 wrote: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.
ken6199 wrote:A Rocket's loss really brought out the best of people. It makes me realize this forum is filled with jobless scumbags with their only intention to come hate the team they hate and realize their anger from their life/job/wife/kids or whatever.
Aeternus wrote:bigboi wrote: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?
tlee324 wrote:
Lebron made it to the finals with that cleveland team.
Bird would have won 4 rings with that team, in this weak ass era of basketball.