Seems Kevin Love Has Already Mentally Left The Timberwolves

[Greenstrings]

Naw, it's slow in pace because he waits at the top until off-ball screens break off an open player and he dishes (it's not based on this 'Rondo knows how to get players open bullshyt'); followed by a simultaneous J = assist. The majority of his assists are offball-screens/Js and elbow/wing/block throw-downs to Pierce/Garnett (who actually do the work). The team's jumpshooting-style boosts his A#s.


I ain't just talking about the playoffs, shyt was evident all throughout the season. The hypothetical scenarios are relevant because you proclaimed they nearly beat the Heat in the Eastern conference finals. x amount of fortunes went their way in getting that far, if all the teams were on an level-pegging (healthy Rose/healthy Bosh) they would've been ousted from the playoffs in the 2nd round.

As Pierce/KG fall on the decline - his flaws will be more and more exposed.

A lot of half-truths, conjecture and selective stats to wade through in the quoted post (which you can't reasonably expect anybody to have time for) and while I concede that you have an informed opinion on the C's you glaringly overlook how the way the C's play defence is bound to stagnate their offence.

It's not slow in pace because he waits at the top of the key, that's symptomatic of it being slow not a cause. If they were faster in transition (and in general) he'd do it a lot less because they'd be able to catch out opponents before they were able to completely form up defensively. Why would he rush the plays otherwise?

You say Rondo has never had to bear the scoring load of those other PG's but none of those players have had to create clean looks for a team so firmly stuck in the half court, which is exactly what he does. He creates separation and clean looks in the paint and let's not pretend that he only does it in one way (patently untrue) and isn't adept at creating easy scoring opportunities for his team.

You say that KG and Pierce are covering Rondo's flaws but are reluctant to entertain the ways in which having to kowtow to their strengths and limitations holds him back. Of course them leaving will expose his flaws but do you seriously not think he'll be able to up his game enough to compensate?

Rondo was easily the C's best player during the playoffs and incidentally I'm not sure if you understand the difference between hypothetical and true. Did the Celtics come close to beating the Heat in the ECF? Yes. Nothing hypothetical about that. We don't talk about X amount of fortunes because X is a completely arbitrary number that is potentially infinite. Either way let's drop that element, it's completely irrelevant to what we're talking about here.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

A lot of half-truths, conjecture and selective stats to wade through in the quoted post (which you can't reasonably expect anybody to have time for) and while I concede that you have an informed opinion on the C's you glaringly overlook how the way the C's play defence is bound to stagnate their offence.

Naw what I said is all justified. Every single piece of it. And no I made it quite clear in my post that their stagnated offense is down to Doc's game plan - but ultimately it's how Rondo runs it. He's basically allowed to freelance out there for 90% of the time and do practically anything he wants.

It's not slow in pace because he waits at the top of the key, that's symptomatic of it being slow not a cause. If they were faster in transition (and in general) he'd do it a lot less because they'd be able to catch out opponents before they were able to completely form up defensively. Why would he rush the plays otherwise?

How's it not a cause when he handles the ball? The Celtics offense is based on off-ball screens, it's bound to be stagnant if that's the core of all things, offensively. It's not about rushing the plays - it's about balancing out when to be aggressive (by scoring or attempting to) and getting team mates involved: Rondo has failed to grasp this.

We see now what happens when KG and Pierce (who are on the decline) have to handle the bulk of scoring situations for the Celtics, the team falters, simply because they aren't the same players of yesteryear. As I've said for the past x seasons, Rondo will be further exposed as time goes on. We've seen it in the closing of games this season - he doesn't have the ability to carry the team in these situations.

You say Rondo has never had to bear the scoring load of those other PG's but none of those players have had to create clean looks for a team so firmly stuck in the half court, which is exactly what he does. He creates separation and clean looks in the paint and let's not pretend that he only does it in one way (patently untrue) and isn't adept at creating easy scoring opportunities for his team.

None of those players (Westbrook/Parker/Paul/D-Will/Rose) have had TWO/THREE players of equal-caliber that Rondo has had for his entire career. I never said he only does it one way and I never said he doesn't create easy scoring opportunities for the team; I said that's not the basis of the offense. Because it isn't about him creating open looks for his team.

You say that KG and Pierce are covering Rondo's flaws but are reluctant to entertain the ways in which having to kowtow to their strengths and limitations holds him back. Of course them leaving will expose his flaws but do you seriously not think he'll be able to up his game enough to compensate?

'KG and Pierce are holding Rondo back'? Do you even read what you post? They are his security blanket that he scrambles to find far too often. You're arguing that KG + Pierce are holding him back when in reality, they're encouraging him to take more of a expansive role and carry the team on the regular - because they aren't built like they were in 08. This Rondo situation is basically mirroring a coddled-child who simply can't leave the environment of his parents.

The reality is he won't be able to up his game. He's incapable of doing it. He's not a player you can build around. It's as simple as that. This franchise tag the Celtics have plastered on him, will fail dramatically. How do the Celtics expect to be contenders with Rondo as the centerpiece? How do the Celtics expect to compete for a title when their main-player isn't even top 10 PG-scoring threat?

This PG position has evolved into a state in which you can't give the keys to a PG who isn't an elite-scoring threat and expect him to drive the team to their 'destination' (quite frankly I don't think you ever could, but now more so than ever).

Rondo was easily the C's best player during the playoffs

Rondo was not easily the best Celtics player during the playoffs.

Become enlightened: http://www.the-coli.com/coliseum/46086-contrary-popular-belief-most-instrumental-player-celtics.html

 

[Greenstrings]

Naw what I said is all justified. Every single piece of it. And no I made it quite clear in my post that their stagnated offense is down to Doc's game plan - but ultimately it's how Rondo runs it. He's basically allowed to freelance out there for 90% of the time and do practically anything he wants.

You think because you justify what you say that means it's a holistic reflection of reality?
No. It's all coloured by your prejudices, preferences and preconceptions. You've shown me stats that emphasize the defensive strengths of Garnett and expect that to implicitly show how Rondo isn't an asset.

You think you know Docs game plan better than Doc? Because he doesn't appear to have a problem with how Rondo runs his system. Do you seriously think dude is out there just whimsically throwing the ball whichever way the wind blows? Do you not see him calling out the plays as he brings up the ball?

How's it not a cause when he handles the ball? The Celtics offense is based on off-ball screens, it's bound to be stagnant if that's the core of all things, offensively. It's not about rushing the plays - it's about balancing out when to be aggressive (by scoring or attempting to) and getting team mates involved: Rondo has failed to grasp this.

Christ, the point was they run off ball screens because it suits Pierce and Garnett, not because that's the best way to utilise Rondo. At this point in their careers they don't have the legs for much else. The C's on the whole aren't a great perimeter shooting team (now even less so without Ray) so naturally the paint is crowded. Teams often double team Rondo to restrict his passing range as he moves closer to the key. If the players surrounding him had a bit more of a spring in their step he'd have a lot more space in which to operate.

We see now what happens when KG and Pierce (who are on the decline) have to handle the bulk of scoring situations for the Celtics, the team falters, simply because they aren't the same players of yesteryear. As I've said for the past x seasons, Rondo will be further exposed as time goes on. We've seen it in the closing of games this season - he doesn't have the ability to carry the team in these situations.

They're faltering and in kind Rondo has consistently increased his numbers to compensate but there is no steep drop off point. Garnett and Pierce don't stop being the players they are just because it's implicitly understood that Rondo is the future of the team.

He hasn't been closing games very well but he hasn't been expected to in past seasons. You have to concede that it's unreasonable to expect him to instantly be able to thrive at it when they have no real set plays designed to get the ball to him (all of his game winning attempts have been heavily contested) and when personnel wise the core of the team and how it operates is still very much the same. He's stepped up and has been willing to take clutch shots but any reasonable human being would give him more than a quarter of a season to grow accustomed to it, especially considering the fact that he has never been a score first PG.

None of those players (Westbrook/Parker/Paul/D-Will/Rose) have had TWO/THREE players of equal-caliber that Rondo has had for his entire career. I never said he only does it one way and I never said he doesn't create easy scoring opportunities for the team; I said that's not the basis of the offense. Because it isn't about him creating open looks for his team.

bullshyt.
Parker hasn't been playing with 2 greats for 10 years?
Westbrook hasn't been surrounded by all star options these past few years and isn't playing with the best scorer in the NBA?
Rose hasn't had a great supporting cast in Chicago (Who are still 14-9 without their star)?
Please, the only guys who have had to put up numbers because of a limited supporting cast are Paul and D-Will and what exactly do they have to show for it?

And when did I say it was the basis of the teams offense? My point is his ability to do so is peerless.

'KG and Pierce are holding Rondo back'? Do you even read what you post? They are his security blanket that he scrambles to find far too often. You're arguing that KG + Pierce are holding him back when in reality, they're encouraging him to take more of a expansive role and carry the team on the regular - because they aren't built like they were in 08. This Rondo situation is basically mirroring a coddled-child who simply can't leave the environment of his parents.

I could ask the same question!
Or are you actually naive enough to believe that Pierce and Garnett have actually taken anything like a significant step back?
The Captain of the team is still Paul Pierce, as long as he's starting on the team he's always going to take the most shots. Garnett is and has been the C's only real option in the low post and he will continue to dominate possessions for as long as that is the case. There's no real way of knowing how much longer the two will play and until that becomes clearer their roles will stay the same.

The reality is he won't be able to up his game. He's incapable of doing it. He's not a player you can build around. It's as simple as that. This franchise tag the Celtics have plastered on him, will fail dramatically. How do the Celtics expect to be contenders with Rondo as the centerpiece? How do the Celtics expect to compete for a title when their main-player isn't even top 10 PG-scoring threat?

Well I simply disagree. Temperament aside, there's no real reason why you can't build around him. In terms of potential he has a very high ceiling and no matter what you have against him (honestly I have never seen someone expend so much metal energy on the game of a player they so clearly dislike) you have to acknowledge that. He does things that no other player in the league can.

And please, the Spurs won two championships without a single player in the top 25 for scoring in 05 and 07. There's more than one way to win a championship despite what Stern would want you to believe. Surrounded by the right personnel he stands as good a chance as any.

This PG position has evolved into a state in which you can't give the keys to a PG who isn't an elite-scoring threat and expect him to drive the team to their 'destination' (quite frankly I don't think you ever could, but now more so than ever).

I can't actually believe that people actually buy into that crap. The evolution of scoring PG's does not preclude the existence or effectiveness of facilitators. Unless you're suggesting this has been made gospel by the amount of the new generation of elite scoring point guards that have actually won championships?

What's happened is fools look at the trend and take it to mean anybody that doesn't put up numbers is ineffective regardless of whatever else they contribute. There has always been more than one way to lead a team and this fantasy that score first point guards are the only way simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Rondo was not easily the best Celtics player during the playoffs.

Become enlightened: http://www.the-coli.com/coliseum/46086-contrary-popular-belief-most-instrumental-player-celtics.html

You are completely wrong on this even if we disregard what we saw throughout the series and just look at cold hard stats.
Averaged 17 pts 12 ast 7 Rbs shooting 47%
Highest efficiency rating with 22 (2 higher than Garnett)
Led the team in offensive Rbs
Had a higher defensive AND offensive rating than Garnett
Had by far the highest Win Share of any player.

You can correctly argue the regular season but you can't in your right mind believe that Rondo wasn't their best player in the Playoffs.


2011-12 Boston Celtics Roster and Stats | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

You think because you justify what you say that means it's a holistic reflection of reality?

No. It's all coloured by your prejudices, preferences and preconceptions. You've shown me stats that emphasize the defensive strengths of Garnett and expect that to implicitly show how Rondo isn't an asset.

You think you know Docs game plan better than Doc? Because he doesn't appear to have a problem with how Rondo runs his system. Do you seriously think dude is out there just whimsically throwing the ball whichever way the wind blows? Do you not see him calling out the plays as he brings up the ball?

Of course it is, because it’s based on statistical portions and the result of their ineffective offense system and why they struggled in the regular season + playoffs. The other is based on why Rondo puts up full-scaled box scores without being a 1st option/leader/franchise player. It’s not based on prejudices, preferences nor preconceptions – I’m about as objective as you’ll get on this board. I showed you the defensive importance of Garnett because this is how the team is successful; it isn’t through their offense and hasn’t been for some time. This is why you can’t equate their success to Rondo, because he isn’t the shepherd of the aforementioned.

"I’m concerned, not as far as him getting tired, but I don’t want him to save himself on the floor," said Rivers. "There’s a minutes number for him, we don’t know what it is for him yet -- we’ll figure it out -- where he can play his minutes at full pace, instead of knowing he’s going to be on the floor too long and then he starts pacing himself. We need him to be a fast, quick, aggressive player."

Doc has called for Rondo to be more aggressive (on both sides of the ball) many of times. It isn’t about him throwing the ball around without any care - it’s about how he balances out scoring/getting teammates involved and his inability to this at a regular rate in order for them to break down halfcourt defences. I’ve mentioned before – there’s no constant offense fluidity anymore because now x (Pierce) and y (KG) are getting older and there’s no longer z (Jesus); it minimises the ground, team’s defensive (+ help) schemes need to cover because Rondo doesn’t assert himself on the regular to be a scoring threat. It halts everything because he isn’t even playing to a level of having a placebo effect – defenders are still giving him a shooting cushion.

Christ, the point was they run off ball screens because it suits Pierce and Garnett, not because that's the best way to utilise Rondo. At this point in their careers they don't have the legs for much else. The C's on the whole aren't a great perimeter shooting team (now even less so without Ray) so naturally the paint is crowded. Teams often double team Rondo to restrict his passing range as he moves closer to the key. If the players surrounding him had a bit more of a spring in their step he'd have a lot more space in which to operate.

Naw it doesn’t suit Pierce and Garnett – what would suit Garnett and Pierce is a PG who actually is a threat to score and opens up lanes and commands second/third defenders. I’ve seen countless times this season; defenders floating around Pierce in key situations because they know Rondo ain’t gonna do shyt.

And stop it with the blaming of teammates on why Rondo doesn’t have enough room to operate – this shyt is on him to create.

They're faltering and in kind Rondo has consistently increased his numbers to compensate but there is no steep drop off point. Garnett and Pierce don't stop being the players they are just because it's implicitly understood that Rondo is the future of the team.

He hasn't been closing games very well but he hasn't been expected to in past seasons. You have to concede that it's unreasonable to expect him to instantly be able to thrive at it when they have no real set plays designed to get the ball to him (all of his game winning attempts have been heavily contested) and when personnel wise the core of the team and how it operates is still very much the same. He's stepped up and has been willing to take clutch shots but any reasonable human being would give him more than a quarter of a season to grow accustomed to it, especially considering the fact that he has never been a score first PG.

Increased what #s ? He’s never gonna increase them where they need to be in order for him to be worthy of this ‘franchise tag’. Of course they don’t but because they’re aging, what should be a natural occurrence “out with the old and in with the new” is an artificial transition, because they’re been asked to do x-duties that Rondo should be taking care of.

Pierce/Garnett should no longer be the biggest offensive threats on this team if this franchise wants to go down the path of having Rondo as their centerpiece.

It’s not unreasonable to expect that at all, the fukk is you talking about? He’s mentioned alongside Paul, D-Will, Parker, Rose etc etc and is even regarded in some circles as better than a # of them. All those players handle late game situations on the regular. This is why I have a problem with folk mentioning him with the elite PGs in the league because they take on roles that Rondo isn’t capable of playing. How the fukk can he be their equal when he don’t do the shyt they do? It doesn’t add up.

He’s not capable of being the main guy, he can’t carry a franchise. He hasn’t shown over his career that he can be operate being the #1 scorer for his team on the regular; regardless of his personal, simply because he doesn’t have the shooting/scoring tools nor does he have the mentality- we would've seen the indicators there by now but we haven't. He still doesn’t have a jumper, doesn’t have adequate finish ability, no post moves, avg athleticism in comparison to the other 'elite' PGs – he basically has nothing in his favour to carry a bulk scoring load. They’re forcing a role on him that he isn’t capable of fulfilling.

Parker hasn't been playing with 2 greats for 10 years?
Westbrook hasn't been surrounded by all star options these past few years and isn't playing with the best scorer in the NBA?
Rose hasn't had a great supporting cast in Chicago (Who are still 14-9 without their star)?
Please, the only guys who have had to put up numbers because of a limited supporting cast are Paul and D-Will and what exactly do they have to show for it?

Parker has not played with the level of talent Rondo. Parker lead the Spurs to a championship as arguably their best player plus he has lead his team as the #1 scoring threat in a # of regular/playoff seasons. Parker has proven he can get it done as being the ‘main player’. Westbrook hasn't played with the talent Rondo has been fortunate of playing with either, over his career. And Rose, well what do I really have to say about him? He’s basically been asked to be the #1 player since he came in the league. What happened to the Bulls last season (1st seed) when they were comprehensibly beaten by an 8th seed without Rose? Stop acting like Rose has had a great supporting cast for his career, because he hasn’t.

Paul and Williams don’t have anything to show, but they have both proven they’re worthy of wearing franchise tags.

I could ask the same question!
Or are you actually naive enough to believe that Pierce and Garnett have actually taken anything like a significant step back?
The Captain of the team is still Paul Pierce, as long as he's starting on the team he's always going to take the most shots. Garnett is and has been the C's only real option in the low post and he will continue to dominate possessions for as long as that is the case. There's no real way of knowing how much longer the two will play and until that becomes clearer their roles will stay the same.

This is because Rondo hasn’t stepped up (because he’s incapable of doing so). I don’t expect Rondo to be taking the most shots every game or anything that significantly lowers Pierce’s/KG’s output. But they’re basically asked to do the same things this season that they’ve been asked to do for the last half of a decade – this shouldn’t be the case. He’s never showed any indications of an elite-scorer or anything to the level that is required of him to be a player that you can build AROUND – he’s closer to a role player than he is a franchise player.

Tony Parker
Kyrie Irving
Derrick Rose
Russell Westbrook
Deron Williams
Chris Paul
Monta Ellis
Stephen Curry
Jrue Holliday
Brandon Knight
Kemba Walker
Ty Lawson
Raymond Felton
Mike Conley
Damian Lillard
Etc etc

All of the above PGs have a larger scoring-repertoire and are patently bigger scoring threats and although the position isn’t quantified by its scoring traits; how does one expect him to gather these attributes to a certain level, where can at the very least be an adequate leader of a playing-body (Celtics). He isn’t ‘good’ any in any scoring-area let alone ‘elite’ in one. He’s nearly 27 years old, he isn’t gonna spontaneously start playing Monstar ball. What you see with Rondo now is what you get.

Well I simply disagree. Temperament aside, there's no real reason why you can't build around him. In terms of potential he has a very high ceiling and no matter what you have against him (honestly I have never seen someone expend so much metal energy on the game of a player they so clearly dislike) you have to acknowledge that. He does things that no other player in the league can.

And please, the Spurs won two championships without a single player in the top 25 for scoring in 05 and 07. There's more than one way to win a championship despite what Stern would want you to believe. Surrounded by the right personnel he stands as good a chance as any.

I’ve already covered the majority of this. But to add on: Rondo – potentially a very high ceiling? What game are you watching? He’s practically met his ceiling already – how does one come to the conclusion that a near 27-year old PG who has shown minimal growth in a scoring game, has ‘a very high ceiling’?

That “he does things no other player in the league can” phrase is almost synonymous with his name. It’s past bordering on a cop-out term for his basketball flaws. Oh he doesn’t have a jumpshot but he does things no other player in the league can. Oh he doesn’t score much but he sure does things no other player in the league can. Oh he may miss some wide open lay ups but it still doesn’t really matter cause he does things no other player in the league can.

What are these things that he can do that other players can’t? Cause I’ve never seen them.

I can't actually believe that people actually buy into that crap. The evolution of scoring PG's does not preclude the existence or effectiveness of facilitators. Unless you're suggesting this has been made gospel by the amount of the new generation of elite scoring point guards that have actually won championships?

What's happened is fools look at the trend and take it to mean anybody that doesn't put up numbers is ineffective regardless of whatever else they contribute. There has always been more than one way to lead a team and this fantasy that score first point guards are the only way simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

In order for the PG to be the #1 player of a team of course the evolved-PG outweighs the effectiveness of a straight-out facilitator. We’re talking about building around Rondo not with him. The evolved PG (Rose) as the #1 player of a team has a considerable more %chance of winning a championship than the traditional/straight-out facilitator (Rondo) does as a #1 player.

No there isn’t another way to lead a team (franchise player) and it isn’t about just putting up the scoring #s . Paul is disproving that theory right now - he’s third in scoring for his team yet he’s still their #1 player. It’s about having the offensive tools to lead your team in scoring + leading them in key situations.

You are completely wrong on this even if we disregard what we saw throughout the series and just look at cold hard stats.
Averaged 17 pts 12 ast 7 Rbs shooting 47%
Highest efficiency rating with 22 (2 higher than Garnett)
Led the team in offensive Rbs
Had a higher defensive AND offensive rating than Garnett
Had by far the highest Win Share of any player.

You can correctly argue the regular season but you can't in your right mind believe that Rondo wasn't their best player in the Playoffs.

I don’t take Rondo’s #s seriously for a start so you can throw all of that in the bushes; everything is all impacted and unequally rated through #s that don’t equate to his overall impact. The points, assists, rebounds, shooting percentage (which aren’t true to form) all affect his offensive rating and win shares.

This is why I can immediately tell you didn’t watch the Celtics in the playoffs.

Every single person knows that Garnett had more of a defensive impact than Rondo ever did in the playoffs. Rondo’s defense has been awful for the last few seasons. He got burned time and time again by his opposite in every series.

Celtics' defense allowed 123.28 points per 100 possessions - Garnett off court; ranked last in the league.

Top ranked Celtic players:

Kevin Garnett +32.63 points
Avery Bradley +11.1 points
Marquis Daniels +4.0 points
Mickeal Pietrus +2.4 points
Player(s) gap
Rajon Rondo -2.1 points

He was the difference between the Celtics being the BEST defensive team in the playoffs and being the WORST.

He lead the team in offensive rebounds, because Doc’s scheme is for the players to get back on defense and for Rondo to wait in the half court for the PG to bring the ball up – he simply has more opportunity to gather an offensive rebound than any other player on the team. That’s why they rank near last in the league for offensive rebounds for a # of previous seasons.

 

[infamous003]

Rubio is top 3 PG breh

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I find it hard to comprehend that folk actually think Rondo is a player you can legitimately build 'AROUND'.

 

[Walt]

Does anyone really think you can build around Rajon, though?

Thoroughly enjoying this debate, by the way.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Does anyone really think you can build around Rajon, though?

Thoroughly enjoying this debate, by the way.

I believe that Celtics think they can build a team around him. And although it may not directly be of design that he gets the ball in late game situations, we've seen it on more than one occasion this season.

 

[Styles]

Morey, get him to Houston you bum

 

[Youhadasparkwhenustarted]

This debate is serious right now

Gil-Scott and Greenstrings going back and forth has been seriously entertaining

 

[Greenstrings]

*sighs* We'll probably be here exchanging increasingly verbose paragraphs until new years if we continue like this, so let me attempt to find the points at which our opinions deviate and wind this shyt down because realistically we're not going to change each others minds about this.

Of course it is, because it’s based on statistical portions and the result of their ineffective offense system and why they struggled in the regular season + playoffs. The other is based on why Rondo puts up full-scaled box scores without being a 1st option/leader/franchise player. It’s not based on prejudices, preferences nor preconceptions – I’m about as objective as you’ll get on this board. I showed you the defensive importance of Garnett because this is how the team is successful; it isn’t through their offense and hasn’t been for some time. This is why you can’t equate their success to Rondo, because he isn’t the shepherd of the aforementioned.

"I’m concerned, not as far as him getting tired, but I don’t want him to save himself on the floor," said Rivers. "There’s a minutes number for him, we don’t know what it is for him yet -- we’ll figure it out -- where he can play his minutes at full pace, instead of knowing he’s going to be on the floor too long and then he starts pacing himself. We need him to be a fast, quick, aggressive player."

Doc has called for Rondo to be more aggressive (on both sides of the ball) many of times. It isn’t about him throwing the ball around without any care - it’s about how he balances out scoring/getting teammates involved and his inability to this at a regular rate in order for them to break down halfcourt defences. I’ve mentioned before – there’s no constant offense fluidity anymore because now x (Pierce) and y (KG) are getting older and there’s no longer x (Jesus); it minimises the ground, team’s defensive (+ help) schemes need to cover because Rondo doesn’t assert himself on the regular to be a scoring threat. It halts everything because he isn’t even playing to a level of having a placebo effect – defenders are still giving him a shooting cushion.

Firstly let me just say it is profoundly unwise to ever buy into the idea that statistics are of their own accord a reflection of reality, or as Mark Twain put it, "Lies, damn lies and statistics". They do not exist in a vacuum. It is how we choose to interpret them that decides what they mean.

Secondly, never claim to be anything approaching objective. You are not and nobody is. We do not set out to prove a point and then entertain ideas that may contradict what it is we're trying to say. This conversation we're having right now is a case in point. You are a human being not a robot, we all carry prejudices, preferences and preconceptions and to claim otherwise and not recognise the way in which they shape our opinions, leads one to the conclusion that it's possible to be unequivocally right about something like this. It is not.

Thirdly, you've taken that quote completely out of context as it came at a time earlier in the season when Rondo was playing 42 minutes a game. It had absolutely nothing to do with scoring and you know it.

With that out the way what this essentially comes down to is you not believing that Rondo contributes anything meaningful to their defense or offense and me believing that the stats you used to support this assertion are nowhere near a complete reflection of what is actually going on on the floor. Also defenders have been far more reluctant to sag off him now that he's making j's. I don't think we're going to reconcile this. I watched nearly every Celtic game this and last year and besides Pierce and KG no other C's player is capable of consistently creating their own shots. His facilitation is key. Incidentally Garnett's +/- split is at its highest when he's on the floor with Rondo. Take from that what you will.

Naw it doesn’t suit Pierce and Garnett – what would suit Garnett and Pierce is a PG who actually is a threat to score and opens up lanes and commands second/third defenders. I’ve seen countless times this season; defenders floating around Pierce in key situations because they know Rondo ain’t gonna do shyt.

And stop it with the blaming of teammates on why Rondo doesn’t have enough room to operate – this shyt is on him to create.

Celtics play slow ball, Rondo is probably among the fastest players in the league and you really think they're getting the most out of him this way? We're not going to agree on this. The Celtics play is very compact. This inevitably helps defenders cover more ground but that's always going to be the case for a mid-ranged jump shooting team. I'd say you're greatly overemphasising the extent to which defenders are willing to lay off him but that's neither here nor there.

And he does create. You can't average 12.7 assists (you think the stats are empty but we'll get to that) unless you are creating good looks for your team.

The way you've framed this suggests that Rondo has nothing to do with anything that makes them contenders and everything to do with why they struggle. If I read your posts with no prior knowledge regarding the NBA I would think that the C's are in a state of disarray with a bucket load of tension between the players which simply is not the case.

Increased what #s ? He’s never gonna increase them where they need to be in order for him to be worthy of this ‘franchise tag’. Of course they don’t but because they’re aging, what should be a natural occurrence “out with the old and in with the new” is an artificial transition, because they’re been asked to do x-duties that Rondo should be taking care of.

Pierce/Garnett should no longer be the biggest offensive threats on this team if this franchise wants to go down the path of having Rondo as their centerpiece.

It’s not unreasonable to expect that at all, the fukk is you talking about? He’s mentioned alongside Paul, D-Will, Parker, Rose etc etc and is even regarded in some circles as better than a # of them. All those players handle late game situations on the regular. This is why I have a problem with folk mentioning him with the elite PGs in the league because they take on roles that Rondo isn’t capable of playing. How the fukk can he be their equal when he don’t do the shyt they do? It doesn’t add up.

He’s not capable of being the main guy, he can’t carry a franchise. He hasn’t shown over his career that he can be operate being the #1 scorer for his team on the regular; regardless of his personal, simply because he doesn’t have the shooting/scoring tools nor does he have the mentality- we would've seen the indicators there by now but we haven't. He still doesn’t have a jumper, doesn’t have adequate finish ability, no post moves, avg athleticism in comparison to the other 'elite' PGs – he basically has nothing in his favour to carry a bulk scoring load. They’re forcing a role on him that he isn’t capable of fulfilling.

Well of all the elite guards you mention Rondo has been the most efficient scorer whilst taking the same amount of shots he did last year. He's quietly developed a consistent jumper (over 50% from 16-23) There has obviously been no real emphasis behind the scenes on him taking an increased scoring role despite the talk of him becoming the teams figurehead because they understand that there is more than one way to lead a team. Has he completely taken a hold of the role yet? No of course not, it's very much a work in progress but I think it's far too early to write him off.

What you suggest here simply doesn't make sense. There cannot be an "out with old and in with the new" while "the old" is still very much in the picture. Do you think Jrue Holliday would be able to do what he's doing with Bynum in the picture? Do you think OJ Mayo would have blossomed the way he did if Dirk wasn't out? This is essentially a zero sum game, you can't add without first taking away and as I said as long as Garnett and Pierce are starting on that team they are going to want to be playing in a dominant offensive role. If they felt otherwise they'd let him know on and off the court.

Of course it's unreasonable. If somebody hasn't performed a role over the course of their career and a team isn't set up to facilitate somebody performing that role, there is a likelihood that they may initially struggle at it. A sensible individual would give it time to see if there's any improvement before passing judgement. It's one element of the game. It does no define who is and who isn't an elite PG but admittedly it's something he needs to improve on.

Well up until now he hasn't had to prove that he is. The fact that he was even able to break out from under the big three and even come into this kind of consideration at all is a testament to his talent. And we aren't going to agree on whether a player has to be the number one scorer to lead a team. I think he does have the tools to play an increased scoring role and we'll find out in coming years how this pans out. Chris Paul and Steve Nash on paper are average athletes there's is and has always been more to playing the point than that, and as I've said he has terrific footspeed and agility. He's shooting the j more consistently than nearly all of the elite guards you mentioned and post moves? because of all the other PG's in the game that have post moves? I really hope you weren't being serious.

Parker has not played with the level of talent Rondo. Parker lead the Spurs to a championship as arguably their best player plus he has lead his team as the #1 scoring threat in a # of regular/playoff seasons. Parker has proven he can get it done as being the ‘main player’. Westbrook hasn't played with the talent Rondo has been fortunate of playing with either, over his career. And Rose, well what do I really have to say about him? He’s basically been asked to be the #1 player since he came in the league. What happened to the Bulls last season (1st seed) when they were comprehensibly beaten by an 8th seed without Rose? Stop acting like Rose has had a great supporting cast for his career, because he hasn’t.

Paul and Williams don’t have anything to show, but they have both proven they’re worthy of wearing franchise tags.

Well then I must have imagined Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli Stephen Jackson, James Harden and Kevin Durant. And you have to see how losing your Star in the middle of a playoff series is not comparable grounds for anything. This season they've done well without him. Deng, Noah and Boozer (on his day) are great players and they have a slew of others capable of contributing significantly.

But realistically all this talk of the way other PG's play is tangential. what it comes down to is whether you believe a PG must be the main scoring threat to lead a team and none of this goes any way towards addressing that.

 

[Greenstrings]

This is because Rondo hasn’t stepped up (because he’s incapable of doing so). I don’t expect Rondo to be taking the most shots every game or anything that significantly lowers Pierce’s/KG’s output. But they’re basically asked to do the same things this season that they’ve been asked to do for the last half of a decade – this shouldn’t be the case. He’s never showed any indications of an elite-scorer or anything to the level that is required of him to be a player that you can build AROUND – he’s closer to a role player than he is a franchise player.

Tony Parker
Kyrie Irving
Derrick Rose
Russell Westbrook
Deron Williams
Chris Paul
Monta Ellis
Stephen Curry
Jrue Holliday
Brandon Knight
Kemba Walker
Ty Lawson
Raymond Felton
Mike Conley
Damian Lillard
Etc etc

All of the above PGs have a larger scoring-repertoire and are patently bigger scoring threats and although the position isn’t quantified by its scoring traits; how does one expect him to gather these attributes to a certain level, where can at the very least be an adequate leader of a playing-body (Celtics). He isn’t ‘good’ any in any scoring-area let alone ‘elite’ in one. He’s nearly 27 years old, he isn’t gonna spontaneously start playing Monstar ball. What you see with Rondo now is what you get.

Either you want Rondo to step up (in which case KG and Pierce step back) or you don't. This contradicts everything you've said before. For as long as a player is able to play they will operate as close to their ceiling as they can manage, in whatever manner they have grown accustomed to playing. Whether or not they should be exerting themselves in that way is for Doc and the players themselves to decide and they appear to be fine with it. The fact that you think things should be otherwise is immaterial. And again you contradict yourself. You say you don't expect him to take the most shots but all the players you mention that are elite scorers do average the most shots taken on their respective teams.

Some of the suggestions on that list are patently ridiculous (I mean Mike Conley?) but we'll put that aside. I believe there's more to come from him based on what I've seen, you clearly think otherwise. We're not going to reconcile that.

I’ve already covered the majority of this. But to add on: Rondo – potentially a very high ceiling? What game are you watching? He’s practically met his ceiling already – how does one come to the conclusion that a near 27-year old PG who has shown minimal growth in a scoring game, has ‘a very high ceiling’?

That “he does things no other player in the league can” phrase is almost synonymous with his name. It’s past bordering on a cop-out term for his basketball flaws. Oh he doesn’t have a jumpshot but he does things no other player in the league can. Oh he doesn’t score much but he sure does things no other player in the league can. Oh he may miss some wide open lay ups but it still doesn’t really matter cause he does things no other player in the league can.

What are these things that he can do that other players can’t? Cause I’ve never seen them.

Ceiling is a term usually used in description of younger players but you're being narrow minded if you don't see how various players over the years have started off somewhat innocuously but thrived later into their careers as they rose to the fore.

You keep falling back on the jumpshot argument but so far this season he's made it moot. Until reality tells otherwise you can't keep falling back on that.

Hate to be that guy but right now he is far and away the best passer in the NBA.
Rajon Rondo Assists Highlights 2011-2012 - YouTube

His scoring repertoire is also far more diverse than you'll be willing to concede.

In order for the PG to be the #1 player of a team of course the evolved-PG outweighs the effectiveness of a straight-out facilitator. We’re talking about building around Rondo not with him. The evolved PG (Rose) as the #1 player of a team has a considerable more %chance of winning a championship than the traditional/straight-out facilitator (Rondo) does as a #1 player.

No there isn’t another way to lead a team (franchise player) and it isn’t about just putting up the scoring #s . Paul is disproving that theory right now - he’s third in scoring for his team yet he’s still their #1 player. It’s about having the offensive tools to lead your team in scoring + leading them in key situations.

This is where things stop making sense. So this whole time you've emphasized scoring as the key component that a franchise PG needs in order to compete right now but only in acknowledging Paul do you stop and consider anything to the contrary before then going back on it to suggest it IS about the scoring. Nash won an MVP on a team in which he was 4th best scorer averaging just 15ppg because efficient as he was he prioritised his team mates shots over his own. The league may have changed somewhat but I still believe there is a place for that kind of player.

I don’t take Rondo’s #s seriously for a start so you can throw all of that in the bushes; everything is all impacted and unequally rated through #s that don’t equate to his overall impact. The points, assists, rebounds, shooting percentage (which aren’t true to form) all affect his offensive rating and win shares.

This is why I can immediately tell you didn’t watch the Celtics in the playoffs.

Every single person knows that Garnett had more of a defensive impact than Rondo ever did in the playoffs. Rondo’s defense has been awful for the last few seasons. He got burned time and time again by his opposite in every series.

Celtics' defense allowed 123.28 points per 100 possessions - Garnett off court; ranked last in the league.

Top ranked Celtic players:

Kevin Garnett +32.63 points
Avery Bradley +11.1 points
Marquis Daniels +4.0 points
Mickeal Pietrus +2.4 points
Player(s) gap
Rajon Rondo -2.1 points

He was the difference between the Celtics being the BEST defensive team in the playoffs and being the WORST.

He lead the team in offensive rebounds, because Doc’s scheme is for the players to get back on defense and for Rondo to wait in the half court for the PG to bring the ball up – he simply has more opportunity to gather an offensive rebound than any other player on the team. That’s why they rank near last in the league for offensive rebounds for a # of previous seasons.

Well I'm afraid that is a double standard you're going to have to overcome. You can't use a single stat to suggest that he does not contribute then instittue in a blanket dismissal of all stats that are suggestive of his effectiveness as a floor leader because those self same stats no doubt go into determining the stats that you are willing to accept. Your reasoning concerning rebounds is clearly flawed as players don't usually start to retreat until it's clear if a basket has been made or not, at which point the front court is still most likely to dominate in this area. The Celtics aren't the only bad rebounding team in the NBA but other PG's with similarly limited front courts aren't able to capitalise on this. The fact is he is a good rebounding guard. You feel the assists are an empty stat and that it's his domination of possession that allows him to pad them but as a team they're second in the NBA with 23.5 of which he accounts for 12.5 so clearly there is an emphasis on shot creation that extends beyond just Rondo.

Well believe it or not I did watch every Celtic playoff game (at this point I have to assume you'd realise that). Also it is nonsense to suggest that Rondo struggle against his opposite numbers in the playoffs when he was largely guarded by Wade and Iggy.

Also you should probably provide a source because I can't seem to find those stats you keep quoting anywhere and mine seem to suggest that Rondo had a higher defensive and offensive rating than Garnett during the playoffs.

And I apologise but I'm pretty much done with this. I'll reply to whatever write in response out of courtesy but what I have to say will largely be perfunctory. We've both made good points but this has taken up too much of my time.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Firstly let me just say it is profoundly unwise to ever buy into the idea that statistics are of their own accord a reflection of reality, or as Mark Twain put it, "Lies, damn lies and statistics". They do not exist in a vacuum. It is how we choose to interpret them that decides what they mean.

Secondly, never claim to be anything approaching objective. You are not and nobody is. We do not set out to prove a point and then entertain ideas that may contradict what it is we're trying to say. This conversation we're having right now is a case in point. You are a human being not a robot, we all carry prejudices, preferences and preconceptions and to claim otherwise and not recognise the way in which they shape our opinions, leads one to the conclusion that it's possible to be unequivocally right about something like this. It is not.

Thirdly, you've taken that quote completely out of context as it came at a time earlier in the season when Rondo was playing 42 minutes a game. It had absolutely nothing to do with scoring and you know it.

With that out the way what this essentially comes down to is you not believing that Rondo contributes anything meaningful to their defense or offense and me believing that the stats you used to support this assertion are nowhere near a complete reflection of what is actually going on on the floor. Also defenders have been far more reluctant to sag off him now that he's making j's. I don't think we're going to reconcile this. I watched nearly every Celtic game this and last year and besides Pierce and KG no other C's player is capable of consistently creating their own shots. His facilitation is key. Incidentally Garnett's +/- split is at its highest when he's on the floor with Rondo. Take from that what you will.

I never attributed the statistics as the sole reason for their offensive inefficiency - I used them as evidence to back up my perception of their situation (+ weighing Doc's defensive mentality/schemes into the equation).

I never said I was robotically-objective, I said "I’m about as objective as you’ll get on this board"; with the majority of the board's discussions based on homerism, stan-wars, troll-baiting etc etc.

Once again, I never quoted it solely for his scoring-mentality - I quoted it because it targets his pacing (offense/defensive roles) issues.

It essentially comes to Rondo not being the "#1 " on the team, therefore his statistics don't accurately reflect in comparison to actual #1 players (PGs = Paul, D-Will, Parker, Rose etc etc), therefore I don't think it's level to compare him to 'main pieces' when he's a 'complimentary piece'. It's not a complete picture because the variables are near ball-infinite, but it's one that covers the face-majority of his issues/inabilities. Defenders still give him a cushion, they aren't bodying him on the perimeter (especially in late-situations when they swallow up x and y spots on the floor where Rondo intends to pass to). 1-4 positions + Barbosa can create their own shot this season - 1-3 and 5 + Dooling could create their own shot last season; they're practically on-par with the other teams in the league for 'players that can create their own shot on the regular' (which nullifies his facilitation as the key). If anything is the key to their success, it's KG's defense.

Celtics play slow ball, Rondo is probably among the fastest players in the league and you really think they're getting the most out of him this way? We're not going to agree on this. The Celtics play is very compact. This inevitably helps defenders cover more ground but that's always going to be the case for a mid-ranged jump shooting team. I'd say you're greatly overemphasising the extent to which defenders are willing to lay off him but that's neither here nor there.

And he does create. You can't average 12.7 assists (you think the stats are empty but we'll get to that) unless you are creating good looks for your team.

The way you've framed this suggests that Rondo has nothing to do with anything that makes them contenders and everything to do with why they struggle. If I read your posts with no prior knowledge regarding the NBA I would think that the C's are in a state of disarray with a bucket load of tension between the players which simply is not the case.

They only play slow ball because their offense is based on off-ball screens; basis = off-ball movement and 'no ball movement'. This is why it appears Rondo is doing EVERYTHING, because there's little to no ball movement and players are rotating off the 4p/5p-screens finding their OWN desired placements on the floor. It isn't this perceived-notion of Rondo creating an open look, it's the player himself (off-ball movement) creating the shot. That's not to say Rondo doesn't create open looks but the offense is structured on player movement rather than ball movement. Combine the aforementioned with a j-shooting mentality it ain't hard to see why he averages the assists he does. The system boost's his A#s, assists he wouldn't average for example on the Spurs - which in a sense, have an antithesis offensive structure to the Celtics.

In no way, whatsoever am I overemphasizing the shooting-cushion he gets. You need to get on your gamepass and go over them Celtics games again.

At no point do my posts reflect or even allude to the fact there's a 'bucket load of tension between the players, due to Rondo's play.

Well of all the elite guards you mention Rondo has been the most efficient scorer whilst taking the same amount of shots he did last year. He's quietly developed a consistent jumper (over 50% from 16-23) There has obviously been no real emphasis behind the scenes on him taking an increased scoring role despite the talk of him becoming the teams figurehead because they understand that there is more than one way to lead a team. Has he completely taken a hold of the role yet? No of course not, it's very much a work in progress but I think it's far too early to write him off.

What you suggest here simply doesn't make sense. There cannot be an "out with old and in with the new" while "the old" is still very much in the picture. Do you think Jrue Holliday would be able to do what he's doing with Bynum in the picture? Do you think OJ Mayo would have blossomed the way he did if Dirk wasn't out? This is essentially a zero sum game, you can't add without first taking away and as I said as long as Garnett and Pierce are starting on that team they are going to want to be playing in a dominant offensive role. If they felt otherwise they'd let him know on and off the court.

Of course it's unreasonable. If somebody hasn't performed a role over the course of their career and a team isn't set up to facilitate somebody performing that role, there is a likelihood that they may initially struggle at it. A sensible individual would give it time to see if there's any improvement before passing judgement. It's one element of the game. It does no define who is and who isn't an elite PG but admittedly it's something he needs to improve on.

Well up until now he hasn't had to prove that he is. The fact that he was even able to break out from under the big three and even come into this kind of consideration at all is a testament to his talent. And we aren't going to agree on whether a player has to be the number one scorer to lead a team. I think he does have the tools to play an increased scoring role and we'll find out in coming years how this pans out. Chris Paul and Steve Nash on paper are average athletes there's is and has always been more to playing the point than that, and as I've said he has terrific footspeed and agility. He's shooting the j more consistently than nearly all of the elite guards you mentioned and post moves? because of all the other PG's in the game that have post moves? I really hope you weren't being serious.

Again, this is why I only view his statistics as a complimentary player. He doesn't get the attention, doesn't carry the scoring-load (responsibility), doesn't have defensive-schemes set for his scoring-play and isn't relied upon to bail his team out in key situations all throughout the game; in comparison to other 'elite' PGs. I don't think it's far too early to write him off, he's shown no indication he's capable of getting to that next level. He's nearing 27, that growth-ceiling is just about closed.

I already made myself abundantly clear in my previous post, I said I don't expect Rondo to significantly lower KG's/Pierce's output (not to take them out of the picture completely) but rather in a manner that indicates he's their #1 player. There's no equal-level in those Jrue and Mayo comparisons; they've both proved over their careers, that they have extended scoring-repertoires.

There has been an adequate enough time to accurately judge where his game is gonna improve to. He's had 6-7 seasons in the league, he doesn't have the scoring-pieces to complete the puzzle. He isn't a 18/19-year old rookie he's a near 27-year old PG; the scoring-set he has now isn't gonna move into this projection of being the Celtics' centerpiece, simply because his own player curve (+ passive mentality) won't allow him to reach that level.

It's not a testament to his talent that he's being considered for this franchise role, it's merely a result of blind faith. They've seen how 'important' he's been for them and they have the belief that can he replicate what x-#1 PG does for their team. What will essentially be a trial and error process could all be avoided, if they trade him now (more so 2012 playoffs), where his stock is practically at it's peak. I used the athleticism-e.g because it's an aspect a player can fall back on when they don't tick the boxes in other areas. Paul and Nash don't tick the box for elite-athleticism but they do in the majority of others, Rondo on the otherhand doesn't tick any boxes (to an adequate level). The post moves example was just me basically covering all scoring aspects, regardless of position (due to combo guards and combo forwards).

Well then I must have imagined Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli Stephen Jackson, James Harden and Kevin Durant. And you have to see how losing your Star in the middle of a playoff series is not comparable grounds for anything. This season they've done well without him. Deng, Noah and Boozer (on his day) are great players and they have a slew of others capable of contributing significantly.

But realistically all this talk of the way other PG's play is tangential. what it comes down to is whether you believe a PG must be the main scoring threat to lead a team and none of this goes any way towards addressing that.

I hope you're not suggesting Manu and Jackson are on the career-levels of Pierce and Allen. Both Westbrook and Parker have actually contributed significantly to their teams scoring and have been 1a/1b scoring options on the regular. How does it not go any way towards addressing the issue?- when my PG-examples have actually shown they're capable of fulfilling this type of role.

Either you want Rondo to step up (in which case KG and Pierce step back) or you don't. This contradicts everything you've said before. For as long as a player is able to play they will operate as close to their ceiling as they can manage, in whatever manner they have grown accustomed to playing. Whether or not they should be exerting themselves in that way is for Doc and the players themselves to decide and they appear to be fine with it. The fact that you think things should be otherwise is immaterial. And again you contradict yourself. You say you don't expect him to take the most shots but all the players you mention that are elite scorers do average the most shots taken on their respective teams.

Some of the suggestions on that list are patently ridiculous (I mean Mike Conley?) but we'll put that aside. I believe there's more to come from him based on what I've seen, you clearly think otherwise. We're not going to reconcile that.

I don't care either way - IMO he won't. There's no contradiction on my part, I said in order for him to be comparable to x-#1 PG he has to have a same/similar role, I think he's incapable of ever reaching the point. The play he's been accustomed to playing is catered to his actual ability, it doesn't extend past that, he hasn't shown anything in his career to suggest otherwise. Some players just aren't built for it. Once again I didn't contradict myself, I said 'I don't expect him to take the most shots every game' (not all of those PGs average the most shots on their respective teams) nor do I expect him to outweigh PP's/KG's output either (to a fault). The list is based on SCORING ABILITY (and the success they've had with it) and what range they've shown.

Ceiling is a term usually used in description of younger players but you're being narrow minded if you don't see how various players over the years have started off somewhat innocuously but thrived later into their careers as they rose to the fore.

You keep falling back on the jumpshot argument but so far this season he's made it moot. Until reality tells otherwise you can't keep falling back on that.

Hate to be that guy but right now he is far and away the best passer in the NBA.

Rajon Rondo Assists Highlights 2011-2012 - YouTube

His scoring repertoire is also far more diverse than you'll be willing to concede

I'm not being narrow-minded, yes players have showed progression past their initial-years in the league, Rondo, however isn't one of them. He hasn't made the jumpshot argument moot, he only takes uncontested jumpshots and his % is only a reflection of a complimentary player, not a player that is relied upon to score. Reality tells me he CONSTANTLY passes up contested jumpshots, passes up layups, passes up any sort of contested shot for a pass; which either results in a forced-shot from a teammate, shot-clock violation, turnover, etc etc. Reality tells me he is far too passive to be dependent on, as the #1 player on the regular.

He's not a far and away better passer than Rubio. You can dead that right now.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

This is where things stop making sense. So this whole time you've emphasized scoring as the key component that a franchise PG needs in order to compete right now but only in acknowledging Paul do you stop and consider anything to the contrary before then going back on it to suggest it IS about the scoring. Nash won an MVP on a team in which he was 4th best scorer averaging just 15ppg because efficient as he was he prioritised his team mates shots over his own. The league may have changed somewhat but I still believe there is a place for that kind of player.

They stop making sense to you, because you fail to understand the picture I'm painting. I mentioned Paul, because he's proved he has the scoring-tools to lead a team, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT LEADING THE TEAM IN SCORING, it's about being able to. Paul has lead his team in scoring before and folk don't question his ability to turn it on at any given time. He's still viewed as the Clippers #1 scoring option in key situations. Nash is one of the greatest shooting PGs in history, Rondo isn't (+ Nash is the master in juggling the importance of when to shoot/pass). That's the difference. Paul is in relatively the same position Nash was in during his Suns-years. Rondo only prioritizes team mates shots over his own because he's incapable of adequately providing that type of offense for his team.

Well I'm afraid that is a double standard you're going to have to overcome. You can't use a single stat to suggest that he does not contribute then instittue in a blanket dismissal of all stats that are suggestive of his effectiveness as a floor leader because those self same stats no doubt go into determining the stats that you are willing to accept. Your reasoning concerning rebounds is clearly flawed as players don't usually start to retreat until it's clear if a basket has been made or not, at which point the front court is still most likely to dominate in this area. The Celtics aren't the only bad rebounding team in the NBA but other PG's with similarly limited front courts aren't able to capitalise on this. The fact is he is a good rebounding guard. You feel the assists are an empty stat and that it's his domination of possession that allows him to pad them but as a team they're second in the NBA with 23.5 of which he accounts for 12.5 so clearly there is an emphasis on shot creation that extends beyond just Rondo.

Well believe it or not I did watch every Celtic playoff game (at this point I have to assume you'd realise that). Also it is nonsense to suggest that Rondo struggle against his opposite numbers in the playoffs when he was largely guarded by Wade and Iggy.

Also you should probably provide a source because I can't seem to find those stats you keep quoting anywhere and mine seem to suggest that Rondo had a higher defensive and offensive rating than Garnett during the playoffs.

I only dismiss his stats (as an individual bearing) when comparing him to other af-PGs. I'm aware these dismissals effect absolutely EVERYTHING and everyone involved, but Rondo#s are not an acceptable 'clear' picture of his actual impact on a game. You're adding unnecessary weight to your argument, by trying to prop up this unrealistic viewpoint that somehow Rondo has a bigger defensive impact than KG. It's not flawed, they start to get in a defensive set (from perimeter-shots) and Rondo is usually hanging around down low to pester the opp-rebounders. He doesn't take shots out on the perimeter like other PGs (who have limited front courts), so he has an added amount of chances of 'rebound-activity'; anticipating and f-projecting of where a rebound's gonna go. The way their system is structured it isn't, their assists are cause-and-effect of instantaneous jump shoots off passes + Pierce's and KG's passing ability + inability as a unit to get to the rim.

When has Wade and Iggy ever guarded Rondo on the regular? Wade guarded Allen and Iggy guarded Pierce for the most part. You're telling me that Collins used Iggy as the primary defender on Rondo when Pierce was on the floor?

You want a source for those defensive stats - Garnett's Completely Off the Charts Defensive Impact This Postseason - CelticsBlog + the added #s are from Synergy Sports and Hoop Data.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

And I apologise but I'm pretty much done with this. I'll reply to whatever write in response out of courtesy but what I have to say will largely be perfunctory. We've both made good points but this has taken up too much of my time.

No need to. I think we've covered what needs to be covered, in order for our OG viewpoints to be understood.