Is Rondo Finally the best PG in the NBA?

[Aeternus]

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.......(cut massive pic)

Same as before, by paragraphs:

On the Cs there were three elite off the ball players, on the Mavs an elite post-ISO and pick&pop guy plus an out of his prime ballhog not even close to Pierce. You can't tell me with a straight face you think that's the same setup. And yet that offense was far better than the '08 Cs.
And the Celtics practiced both offense and defense. Every team does, and one must be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to think otherwise. Anyone willing to watch the games sees that Nash plays D anyway, he's just not that good at it. Same as Allen really, and Doc has played him plenty. And as a good coach, I would expect him to make all the changes required to get more out of his team.

Magic did that in the same measure Nash does, with the difference that Nash never had other good shot creators on his team other than before-his-prime Joe Johnson, whereas we have an all time great offensive C and another all star level offensive player for Magic.
No Magic didn't run around much in the half court, but he created out of the post and he dribbled using just as much possessions. That's just style of play really.

Once again Nash haters can separate the team's accomplishments from player's. Since the Bulls repeated in the nineties every champion team had both a batter supporting cast and a better main player than Nash's Suns (aside Billups, who just had massive, massive help), so what's the point?

It's pretty damn arguable whether Rondo is the main offensive player on the Cs right now, nevermind when he was a 29mpg sophomore. It's deluded to think he was any more than the 4th best offensive player on the team in 2008, if even that. And not even the most homerish Celtic fan would say Rondo is more important than Garnett for their defense, now as then.

[Aeternus]

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.

Boxscore and impact stats laugh heartily at Rondo being the Cs best player since 09. Garnett has been and still is a clearly better player and Pierce was clearly better till 2011. Allen can be argued around, but not the other two. Beside only the Lakers of the teams you mentioned were as good as the Spurs anyway.

1b means he had a better player than himself on the team, so Stockton is still out.

"Much closer than suggested" sounds empty when you consider that Nash was robbed of the chance to win any further games with his teammates suspended, and the team he was playing against was SRS wise better than the team that demolished Kidd's.

Pray tell me how a team lacking any form of interior defense, rebounding and a secondary shot creator is "one of the best supporting cast in history".

My point stands as before.

[Doctor MJ]

I've been a huge critic, but at this point I don't really see anyone playing at a higher level outside of paul

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

Hmm. Technically it sounds like you're being entirely consistent, but it still weirds me out, so to be clear:

If you thought Rondo was amazingly good last year, and just a bit better this year, then the fact that the team's offense was horrible last year with Rondo running everything is still relevant because you have to explain how you came to be blown away by a point guard running an incompetent offense in the first place.

Additionally, if the difference between the incompetence of last year and the nice but not great offense this year is due to Rondo, which is what you're implying here, then you should either be saying that Rondo wasn't impressive last year despite his league leading stats, or that Rondo's potential for impact is so huge that even with a slight improvement that can boost a team up 20 spots in offensive efficiency. It's hard for me to really imagine people holding either of these beliefs.

Last I will add that while I won't knock a guy for having the 10th best team offensive efficiency in the league, it's really nothing to crow about in a "is he the best in the league?" discussion, since nearly half the point guards in the league are still running better offenses than he is.

[Doctor MJ]

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......

Did you watch the two links Krodis posted? Look at where Rondo is getting his teammates the ball compared to Nash. If a point guard were being given the option of doing one of those two things, what Nash is doing would be the choice every single time. I don't see what's more complicated to this than that. Why would you ever not want your point guard to get his teammates easy scores like that if it was possible for him to do it?

Re: great in any system. As I've said many times before, no player is great in every system. Force Shaq to take corner treys and he sucks. The fact that no one is stupid enough to misuse prime Shaq doesn't make him a better player, it just makes him someone more likely to hit his potential. Granted the staggering scale of Shaq's potential makes him hard to miss, but first and foremost it's his size & agility that make his proper usage almost moron-proof.

A mental player like Nash is much easier to use poorly, but this coaching incompetence is simply incompetence, not a reflection on the player's abilities.

Now you may say, "Well no matter how you look at it, he's going to have some redundancy with Kobe!", and sure there's truth there, but there's no player in history who can avoid all redundancy, so the fact that the redundancy exists is not itself damning. While you'd love for a player to be infinitely versatile, the reality is that if you're hiring a guy known for the best distribution abilities in the league, and then choosing an offense that outsources as much distribution as possible from the guy, this is moron territory, just as it would be to refuse to let Kobe shoot enough to hit 20 PPG.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Ah, I see what you're saying. That's not how I read his post at all, but maybe that's just my different starting point.

To be clear:

-I really don't care that much about the assist stat anyway because I realize how political it is. Scorekeepers are on record for talking about how they've manipulated it in the past to get stars triple doubles, etc. I believe if was Nick Van Exel's career highlight of 20 assists that the scorekeeper just decided give Van Exel credit every time he passed the ball to the guy who scored to see if anyone would notice, and he then chuckled in amusement when the announcers started raving about Van Exel's incredible game.

-What I care about is the opportunity that a distributor is actually creating for his teammates, and if you see in a guys' huge assist game that most of those assists are coming from contested jumpers, that's basically telling you that even when he's on, he's not actually doing anything that astounding in general on that front.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Just for comparison, here are the normalized yearly RAPM numbers for Rondo vs Garnett:

'09: Garnett 3.31, Rondo 0.80
'10: Garnett 2.12, Rondo 0.09
'11: Garnett 2.92, Rondo 0.40
'12: Garnett 2.59, Rondo 0.46

I have no idea if that stat means anything to you, suffice to say that Celtics are basically always FAR more dependent on Garnett's presence than Rondo's.

Also of note, in case you're curious about scaling, what I've found is that a score of 1-1.5 is someone who is a borderline all-star, and a score of 2.5-3.0 is someone who could be argued to be an MVP candidate. This isn't just saying Garnett's more impactful than Rondo, it's saying he's way, way, WAY more impactful.

All the other point guards you mention here typically did much better by this measurement than Rondo does.

[Rapcity_11]

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.

This is what he said:

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)

Seems you've misinterpreted.

[MisterWestside]

Reading Krodis's post again I am inclined to agree. Apologies for the mix-up.

To be clear:

-I really don't care that much about the assist stat anyway because I realize how political it is. Scorekeepers are on record for talking about how they've manipulated it in the past to get stars triple doubles, etc. I believe if was Nick Van Exel's career highlight of 20 assists that the scorekeeper just decided give Van Exel credit every time he passed the ball to the guy who scored to see if anyone would notice, and he then chuckled in amusement when the announcers started raving about Van Exel's incredible game.

-What I care about is the opportunity that a distributor is actually creating for his teammates, and if you see in a guys' huge assist game that most of those assists are coming from contested jumpers, that's basically telling you that even when he's on, he's not actually doing anything that astounding in general on that front.

Precisely, and the +/-numbers also show this. Even for the box score, assists aren't what you use for shot-creation. Oliver recognized this as well (which led to his off % used stat, a more "complete" form of usage).

Since '10, Rondo is 2nd in the league in ast%, yet in usage he's 98th out of 165 players who've played significant minutes. He's also behind a bevy of PGs and his teammates Pierce, Garnett, and Allen.

http://bkref.com/tiny/T1COK

[Rapcity_11]

How do Rondo guys feel about Jose Calderon and his offensive impact? How does he compare to Rondo offensively? He's another guy with a very high assist rate due to his playing style.

[MacGill]

How do Rondo guys feel about Jose Calderon and his offensive impact? How does he compare to Rondo offensively? He's another guy with a very high assist rate due to his playing style.

LOL, you beat me too it. Man he missed some good opportunities today, especially with Demar/JV.

I would say Jose is a step below Rondo from a court vision perspective but I would put them in almost the same tier in how they acquire their assists.

One thing about Rondo that bugs the hell out of me is how many wide open layups he blows. Scary for a PG but no question overall talent between the two is Rondo.

[G35]

How do Rondo guys feel about Jose Calderon and his offensive impact? How does he compare to Rondo offensively? He's another guy with a very high assist rate due to his playing style.

Ummmm I suppose I would say that it's the same as Kobe and Jordan right. They both play the same so then the end product is the same......

[Rapcity_11]

How do Rondo guys feel about Jose Calderon and his offensive impact? How does he compare to Rondo offensively? He's another guy with a very high assist rate due to his playing style.

Ummmm I suppose I would say that it's the same as Kobe and Jordan right. They both play the same so then the end product is the same......

.......Where did I say that?

I just asked a question which you chose to spin into a typical G35 tangent.

[tsherkin]

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.

Right, and it primarily affected people's ability to hit their jumpers, which Rondo isn't very good at doing anyway, so he was naturally less impacted.

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).

He's had a few good games and some compelling averages, but his raw scoring averages are underscored by his uselessness at the line and his consistently poor scoring efficiency. Teams give the shot to Rondo in order to contain more dangerous options and he doesn't regularly make them pay as much as do his peers, including Paul.

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.

Rondo did well in a better situation, that's about what I can say. As I've commented elsewhere, he's quite talented and one of the best PGs in the league. I wouldn't take him over a superior offensive player like Paul, though, and complaining about a down year from Paul when Rondo's team did its best when his role was the smallest isn't exactly a rigorous line of debate to me.

Rajon Rondo drops 44 and 10 along with 8 rebounds against the Miami Heat and people still question his scoring.

You're talking about raw totals, though. You ignored that he did that in 53 minutes, and that he got insensibly and unreliably hot that game (66.7% FG, 10/12 from the line) and that they lost. I'm not sure how that equates to a performance you can use as an indicator of anything consistent in his game. It's not common, it's nothing something he's shown himself capable of doing on command, and he's failed to do so in other situations where it would have helped. He had a hot night and it didn't affect the outcome of the came. Now, he certainly wasn't the REASON they lost that game, but making a big fuss about a single-game performance as if it's predictive of anything seems kind of pointless and empty to me.

[tsherkin]

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.

Nash could fill Rondo's role better than Rondo could fill Nash's, however, so this is a moot point. Meantime, no, Nash's numbers aren't skewed by his role compared to Rondo's. Both of them are the primary ball-handlers for their teams. Rondo's maxed out at 11.2 FGA/g (this season aside), so looking at seasons where Nash has managed a comparable number of FGA/g, we've still seen him score way more effectively while still producing comparable raw assist averages and running higher-efficiency offenses... so I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. This is an entirely empty paragraph.

[G35]

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.......(cut massive pic)

Same as before, by paragraphs:

On the Cs there were three elite off the ball players, on the Mavs an elite post-ISO and pick&pop guy plus an out of his prime ballhog not even close to Pierce. You can't tell me with a straight face you think that's the same setup. And yet that offense was far better than the '08 Cs.
And the Celtics practiced both offense and defense. Every team does, and one must be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) to think otherwise. Anyone willing to watch the games sees that Nash plays D anyway, he's just not that good at it. Same as Allen really, and Doc has played him plenty. And as a good coach, I would expect him to make all the changes required to get more out of his team.

Magic did that in the same measure Nash does, with the difference that Nash never had other good shot creators on his team other than before-his-prime Joe Johnson, whereas we have an all time great offensive C and another all star level offensive player for Magic.
No Magic didn't run around much in the half court, but he created out of the post and he dribbled using just as much possessions. That's just style of play really.

Once again Nash haters can separate the team's accomplishments from player's. Since the Bulls repeated in the nineties every champion team had both a batter supporting cast and a better main player than Nash's Suns (aside Billups, who just had massive, massive help), so what's the point?

It's pretty damn arguable whether Rondo is the main offensive player on the Cs right now, nevermind when he was a 29mpg sophomore. It's deluded to think he was any more than the 4th best offensive player on the team in 2008, if even that. And not even the most homerish Celtic fan would say Rondo is more important than Garnett for their defense, now as then.

Tell me who is better on offense Dirk or ANY of the Celtic trio. Dirk destroys any of them on offense.

Who is the better offensive coach Doc Rivers or Don Nelson? You may not remember this but Doc was seen as another "dumb ex player coach" until he got gifted Allen and KG. Nash proponents are the biggest ones to point out that Nash needs to be put in the right situation to maximize his talents but then they think that only counts for Nash. Nash in the Celtics system is not nearly the same player.

This is why I am enjoying the excuses coming from Nash fans about how "he isn't being used properly" and the ever reliable, "It's the coach's fault!". Yeah that's what they said with Terry Porter and so Alvin Gentry got hired because he pretty much let Nash do whatever he wanted on offense and skipped any implementation of defense. If Nash fans can't admit that only working on the offensive side of the ball hasn't helped the teams he has been on then they are being intellectually dishonest.......

[G35]

How do Rondo guys feel about Jose Calderon and his offensive impact? How does he compare to Rondo offensively? He's another guy with a very high assist rate due to his playing style.

Ummmm I suppose I would say that it's the same as Kobe and Jordan right. They both play the same so then the end product is the same......

.......Where did I say that?

I just asked a question which you chose to spin into a typical G35 tangent.

You compared two players with your interpretation of similar playing styles. I don't see that at all, but I didn't get butt hurt. I went with your two player comparison. Kobe and Jordan have been compared forever, so the logical conclusion would be they have similar impact. If you can't handle your own words being used against you perhaps you should choose them more carefully......

[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.

Nash could fill Rondo's role better than Rondo could fill Nash's, however, so this is a moot point. Meantime, no, Nash's numbers aren't skewed by his role compared to Rondo's. Both of them are the primary ball-handlers for their teams. Rondo's maxed out at 11.2 FGA/g (this season aside), so looking at seasons where Nash has managed a comparable number of FGA/g, we've still seen him score way more effectively while still producing comparable raw assist averages and running higher-efficiency offenses... so I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. This is an entirely empty paragraph.

Preface that with on offense....because Nash couldn't come close on defense......No Nash team has ever come close to being as good on defense as SEVERAL Rondo teams.....

[MacGill]

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.

Nash could fill Rondo's role better than Rondo could fill Nash's, however, so this is a moot point. Meantime, no, Nash's numbers aren't skewed by his role compared to Rondo's. Both of them are the primary ball-handlers for their teams. Rondo's maxed out at 11.2 FGA/g (this season aside), so looking at seasons where Nash has managed a comparable number of FGA/g, we've still seen him score way more effectively while still producing comparable raw assist averages and running higher-efficiency offenses... so I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. This is an entirely empty paragraph.

Prefact that with on offense....because Nash couldn't come close on defense......No Nash team has ever come close to being as good on defense as SEVERAL Rondo teams.....

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

[G35]

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.....

[MacGill]

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.....

Ah gotcha. Rondo would have put those Suns teams over the hump because of his defensive impact