Is Rondo Finally the best PG in the NBA?

[Doctor MJ]

Well Nash never had a KG on his team now did he.

Rondo never had Joe Johnson, Amare, Marion and D'Antoni as his coach and carte blanche to say "screw defense" I'm saving it all for the offensive end.....

So, obviously you & I have been through a lot of stuff before here. I'm trying not to be redundant.

Understand though that there's no reason at all to think that offensive & defensive edges between two players are comparable. If what we "Nash" people were seeing was evidence that Rondo's defensive edge was anything like Nash's edge on offense, we'd be talking about them as comparable player.

Obviously you don't have to agree with our assessments, but playing this equivalency game is pointless. We've already considered what you're considering.

I also will say that I think it's odd to here someone talking like this for Rondo's defense given that it's hardly controversial that Garnett is much more important to the defense of Boston than Rondo. If you dispute that, then Nash has very little to do with the discussion. If you agree with that, then all that matters is the offensive discussion.

[MisterWestside]

Mmm.... but it was also the lowest scoring efficiency of his entire career, the highest TOV% since his rookie season, and the lowest ORTG since his rookie season. He was much reduced by comparison, and that was on a Toronto team for which he did basically nothing, since they were the 21st-ranked team offense. And again, he was playing his sets, and it looked a little different than Boston's offense.

And yet he was able to post better usg/ortg splits and oRAPM numbers that season than Rondo That team was a mess as they were figuring out the roster with Bosh defecting to Miami and using a bunch of different players in different roles and different lineups. That's no small feat there.

I picked that season on purpose because while Calderon's efficiency went down in '11, he also wasn't playing in an ideal environment either. I'm sure he'd make use of the better stability, continuity, coaching, and overall talent on the top-end in Boston.

Do you think that would happen in Boston? That same season, Rondo was running it 26.6% of the time, because the offense was developing for Ray, Pierce and KG. That kind of puts a crimp on Jose's ability to impact a game. Last year, 31.3% of the time. This year, so far? 38.9%, early. Still a lot less than Calderon, and that's basically the only way he impacts an offense, so they'd be robbing him of his efficacy... and for them, it would make sense, because of the other weapons they'd be employing.

PnR can't be a hindrance here, as the Celtics avoided running it with Rondo's inability to hit a jumper coming off a screen (that play is not as effective when defenders don't have to respect the open space for the shot that the pick creates). Even now Garnett and Pierce are still high-usage players partly because Rondo can't be relied upon to put the ball in the hoop consistently even while the offense is actually doing the work for him. Calderon isn't a high-usage guy by any means, but being able to shoot would make a difference in what you can run offensively as well as force defenses to think about something other than KG/Pierce. Because we both know that they're not actually overly worried about Rondo's assist spamming in the gameplan

IF he was used as a spot-up weapon with any degree of usage, but I doubt he would be, because they have superior weapons for that.

Again, with the focus actually being on KG/Pierce, Calderon would still get plenty of looks with that shot.

[tsherkin]

Well Nash never had a KG on his team now did he.

Rondo never had Joe Johnson, Amare, Marion and D'Antoni as his coach and carte blanche to say "screw defense" I'm saving it all for the offensive end.....

This isn't an effective counterpoint. Defense, rebounding and coaching have been strengths for the Celtics and a foundation for the team. They won a title with Rondo playing a role comparable to that of a 6th man. The Nash-era Suns had a cash-starved owner and a coach who didn't maximize the value of what defensive players he DID have. How that translates to a negative in your mind, I do not understand. It wasn't "carte blanche" to not play defense, if was a lack of proper roster and coaching support. Nash didn't fail to give effort on the defensive end, that's an invention on your behalf that doesn't match with reality. Remember that Amare Stoudemire is one of the worst defenders in the league and was a mediocre rebounder for the 5 (where he often played in Phoenix), and that's at basically the most important defensive position. Then consider that Marion was frequently played out of position, and thus constantly surrendering 3-5 inches of height to the guy at his position, and we start to see a problem, yes?

As is your customary MO, you ignore a lot of basic context when you discuss Nash. It's impressive, at times, the mental gymnastics you go through in an effort to diminish what Nash has accomplished.

For the sake of argument, let's recap the Phoenix playoff record and see if Nash's defense actually impacted Phoenix's chance to contend for a title.

05, they lost to the eventual-champion Spurs 4-1 in the WCFs.

Joe Johnson misses two games with a broken face (Phoenix's only win in the series came with him in the game). Barbosa only played 2 games, McCarty 1. Nash put up basically 23/10.5 on 57.5% TS. The Spurs kind of let Amare play in single coverage and focused their D on everyone else.

Nash's primary check was Tony Parker, who had a good series in general, apart from FT shooting. That said, he shot worse in that series than he did during the RS, despite scoring a higher volume. He dropped from 52.8% TS in the RS and 49.0% TS in the playoffs overall to 48.96% TS in that series. So, in essence, brutally inefficient. 49% was 4% below league average.

Parker's piss-poor scoring efficiency, even at ~ +3.5 ppg compared to his seasonal average, really wasn't make or break for the Suns. He shot 13/38 over the last two games of the series (34.2% FG), didn't get to the line, averaged 3.5 apg and 15.5 ppg. He fell apart as the series moved on.

Nash's defense? Not the problem. Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili picking the Suns apart? Yeah, that was a problem. San Antonio's team defense? Yeah, still a problem. Shawn Marion totally disappearing on offense? Yeah, that was a problem. Joe Johnson's broken face and 2 missed games? A problem. San Antonio holding a +6 advantage in team RPG? Yeah, that was a problem. Remember that this was title #3 for a 4-time champion, a team that included a player better than Nash in Tim Duncan.

Nash's defense, not an issue in that series. In fact, Parker's play was abominable in the back half of that series, so it's kind of laughable to look at Nash as being any kind of negative, especially rocking 23/10.5 on that kind of efficiency (actually, 23.2 and 10.6).

Then you look at 06, when they were without Amare Stoudemire and running Boris Diaw in his stead. Dallas versus Phoenix... noting that the Suns weathered the lost of a dominant offensive weapon in Amare Stoudemire (notably much more effective with Nash than without, of course) and returned to the WCFs. 6-game series loss to the Dallas Mavericks. Bell missed 2 games, House missed a game. Kurt Thomas played only 1 game (and he was a big part of their defensive efficacy). Phoenix played pretty well on offense (Bell couldn't hit a 3 when he did play, though) but James Jones sucked, which hurt a bit. Nash stank from the field but passed well in game 5. Not his greatest performance. Jason Terry had a solid, but unremarkable game and Devin Harris sucked. Not exactly a world-beating performance from a backcourt that should have been torching him if he was that bad on D. Basically a repeat performance from Terry in Game 6, Nash himself played very well. Harris had a very good game, going 4/5. He hit both of his shots in the 1st quarter, also coughing up the ball to a Steve Nash steal. Made two shots in the second, and then wasn't heard from for the rest of the game. Not exactly a brutal weapon employed to exploit Nash's defense. 28/13/3.5 from Dirk? That hurt. 19/8 from Josh Howard? That hurt. The backcourt production? Not so bad.

In 07, they lost to the eventual-champion Spurs in the second round. Parker had another 49% TS series with notable volume, shooting 16/40 (40%) over the last two games (5/13 and 11/27). He was 8/11 FT in 40 minutes in the elimination game (that's 47.1% TS in the elimination game, FWIW).

Again, the Spurs dominated based on Duncan. Basically 27/14 from him (26.8 and 13.7), with 18/7/4 from Manu, both on way better efficiency than Parker's dud series. ~ 40% 3pt shooting from Michael Finley, 48% 3P shooting from Bowen, these things helped. All of them were more important than the backcourt issues.

This is a big, long rant, but it is spawned from fatigue over hearing endlessly how Steve Nash's defense was some major issue holding the Suns back from the title. Their crap, undersized and weak-rebounding frontcourt was a MUCH more serious problem than anything Nash brought to the table as an average to middling defender (which is what he was, not some brutal liability).

So when you start talking about defensive gap, I feel like you continue to massively misrepresent the Phoenix context and Steve Nash's defensive ability.

[tsherkin]

And yet he was able to post better usg/ortg splits and oRAPM numbers that season than Rondo

Right... but again, this is related to how he was used and with whom he was playing. This would not remain the same in Boston.

PnR can't be a hindrance here, as the Celtics avoided running it with Rondo's inability to hit a jumper coming off a screen (that play is not as effective when defenders don't have to respect the open space for the shot that the pick creates). Even now Garnett and Pierce are still high-usage players partly because Rondo can't be relied upon to put the ball in the hoop consistently even while the offense is actually doing the work for him. Calderon isn't a high-usage guy by any means, but being able to shoot would make a difference in what you can run offensively as well as force defenses to think about something other than KG/Pierce.

This is a lot of nothing. Calderon in place of Rondo wouldn't change the basic usage patterns. When you've got those kind of scoring talents, there's no incentive to push more usage on a guy who's gun-shy and defers by default anyhow. Calderon would immediately defer to those guys.

Again, with the focus actually being on KG/Pierce, Calderon would still get plenty of looks with that shot.

He would get some, but again, the Boston offense is REALLY good at generating 3s and other looks for the 2/3 players and, when they have one, a stretch 4. There wouldn't be a ton of reason to make Jose shoot a lot, and his assist percentage would go down on his 3s, because most of them would be end-of-clock bail-outs when the offense didn't get a look in the right way for others. His percentages would go down as a result.

[MisterWestside]

Right... but again, this is related to how he was used and with whom he was playing. This would not remain the same in Boston.

The question is how, though. You originally talked about pace, and I gave a season with high team pace and less than ideal roster conditions in which Calderon still outperformed Rondo on offense. I'm arguing that Boston would benefit him when you consider the context.

This is a lot of nothing. Calderon in place of Rondo wouldn't change the basic usage patterns. When you've got those kind of scoring talents, there's no incentive to push more usage on a guy who's gun-shy and defers by default anyhow. Calderon would immediately defer to those guys.

I'm not referring to changing usage here, but floor spacing. Calderon would still defer of course, but unlike Rondo you can't leave him open. Even if he takes shots at the same low rate as he does now that's more points the Celtics get than if Rondo is left alone on the perimeter.

He would get some, but again, the Boston offense is REALLY good at generating 3s and other looks for the 2/3 players and, when they have one, a stretch 4. There wouldn't be a ton of reason to make Jose shoot a lot, and his assist percentage would go down on his 3s, because most of them would be end-of-clock bail-outs when the offense didn't get a look in the right way for others. His percentages would go down as a result.

That's what, a couple shots a game? With a lesser roster around him Calderon's efg% on those shots has been better than Rondo's anyway, and it doesn't outweigh the sheer benefit he would enjoy with his other open shots on the floor next to KG/Pierce.

[tsherkin]

The question is how, though. You originally talked about pace, and I gave a season with high team pace and less than ideal roster conditions in which Calderon still outperformed Rondo on offense. I'm arguing that Boston would benefit him when you consider the context.

And I'm disagreeing, and waiting for you to address the issues of roster and mentality that would affect Calderon, IMO. Calderon was able to succeed in Toronto because all he does is play PnR.

I'm not referring to changing usage here, but floor spacing. Calderon would still defer of course, but unlike Rondo you can't leave him open. Even if he takes shots at the same low rate as he does now that's more points the Celtics get than if Rondo is left alone on the perimeter.

I think he'd shoot as much or less than Rondo.. and Rondo doesn't take a lot of threes. The Boston offense actually doesn't generate a lot of opportunities for Rondo to take 3s aside from the previously mentioned low-efficiency bail-outs. Calderon wouldn't take MORE 3s.

That's what, a couple shots a game? With a lesser roster around him Calderon's efg% on those shots has been better than Rondo's anyway, and it doesn't outweigh the sheer benefit he would enjoy with his other open shots on the floor next to KG/Pierce.

Again, though, his shot selection in Toronto has been dictated by a different roster context than exists in Boston. Calderon takes 2-4 3PA/g in Toronto. Rondo takes 0.5 - 1. Calderon doesn't seek shots by nature, so he's not going to go looking for shots that he doesn't have to take. I'm sure that his 3pt shot would help a little, but I think that you're not necessarily appreciating how differently the two teams operate and how that might affect Calderon. Toronto's offense generates more assisted 3PAs for its PGs, so unless Jose starts bombing away freely from 3 out of the PnR, which seems highly unlikely given his reticence towards shooting, it's not likely that this would be a significant part of his contribution to Boston's offense... and what they'd gain there, some of it would be taken back with his lesser usage of transition opportunities, isolations and his FAR less creative passing.

[GAME TIME]

edit

Good point. I thought the Celtics won that game

[tsherkin]

I dunno if you call that stat padding, he was making good passes to Sullinger. I suppose that one sits on Doc's shoulders for playing Rondo all through the fourth in a 20-point loss, right?

[MisterWestside]

Well an offense is a reflection of your player's talents (or it should be, at least), so I don't see why you're looking to project Calderon in the current Rondo-style offense. Calderon uses PnR more? Well, use it then; and work some of it into your playbook. I also don't get the Calderon "reticence to shoot" claim in comparison to Rondo. Even in '12 Calderon took one less shot per 36 minutes than Rondo (and ~3 less true shooting attempts/36), and I don't think he would necessarily have to shoot a ton more 3/shots in general on this team once you integrate him into the lineup. The technical passing edge that Rondo provides would be absent, but I think the whole idea is that the Celtics weren't exactly thriving off of Rondo's assists in the first place.

As usual, you're formidable with your posts I'll respectfully disagree with you here.

[tsherkin]

Well an offense is a reflection of your player's talents (or it should be, at least), so I don't see why you're looking to project Calderon in the current Rondo-style offense. Calderon uses PnR more? Well, use it then; and work some of it into your playbook.

Again though, Rondo does use a lot of PnR... but they have too many superior options, so it wouldn't make sense to much adjust their offense in order to get him going a lot, you want to be sending the ball where it belongs, to the better scorers.

I also don't get the Calderon "reticence to shoot" claim in comparison to Rondo. Even in '12 Calderon took one less shot per 36 minutes than Rondo (and ~3 less true shooting attempts/36), and I don't think he would necessarily have to shoot a ton more 3/shots in general on this team once you integrate him into the lineup.

The point is more than a) he shoots less b) he doesn't like to shoot and c) he wouldn't assert himself in order to shoot a lot more of any specific type of shot when he could just let the set offense run or dump the ball off to someone else for an isolation (be it post or wing), so he's not going to normalize his attempts much beyond what Rondo produces.

I don't see it. And remember, this is purely from an offensive standpoint. Calderon would make a good backup to someone like Rondo, I think. He's always been best as a change-of-pace guard who can run with a unit that works well with the PnR and doesn't require much from him. The starting 5 is pretty self-contained in Boston, but precisely because of that, I don't see much involvement for Rondo and not a ton of improvement in their ORTG. Spot-ups would be better, FT% would be better, so I'm sure there'd be a cosmetic difference in their ORTG. Last year's an obvious one, of course, because Ray Allen missed a third of the season, so any extra edge would help. In 2011, though? KG missed almost a dozen games, and I don't think Glen Davis would be quite what Jose needs as a PnR partner to REALLY make a difference, and of course they had a ton of turnover problems (including from Davis, notably).

But yeah, I guess agree to disagree here. I don't see Jose making a huge difference in Boston and I suspect they'd get worse because he's too limited. I think you'd see it more in close games and in those matchups with upper-third defenses.

[Copperhead]

There should be a "he** no" option.

[GetItDone]

No, but he has solidified himself as the 2nd best PG right after Chris Paul.