How YOU doin'? It hurts less seeing Kobe do it than Ben "Madison Square" Gordon a few years ago with the Bulls. God, that shit was embarrassing. The Melo stuff has been dragged out far too long, though, considering that somehow the Lakers are now rumored to be a player. That's what happens when deals aren't made months after they should have been: stupid stuff like that gets speculated. I really don't get what the holdup is. Last I heard, nobody but Amare was untouchable, but then again I don't follow trade rumors that closely because of how quickly they can die off. I'd be nice if they could pull of the trade and somehow keep Gallinari, because I truly believe he'll eventually become a top-tier player, like a smaller, more aggressive Dirk Nowitzki, but if that's what it takes to get Anthony, I'd prefer they deal him. He's not that valuable right now. Didn't hear the thing about Kobe talking trash to Gallo, though. That's fucking funny. It's conflicting watching him beat up on the Knicks, though, because I've always been a major fan of his.
Dude, if that's true, my respect for Kobe just went up a notch. I mean, I knew he spoke Italian, and I knew he was a shit talker, but if there is some sort of audio of that or it's proven to be 100% true, that's one of the funniest fucking things I've heard in sports in a long time.
I don't know who is officiating this Lakers Magic game but they need to teach all the other refs how to call a game. They are letting these guys play and the game is excellent. No one on either side is getting called for bitch shit. If more games were called like this, the league would be better.
The games are called the way they are for a reason. Mere "Incompetence" isn't why. After all, reason regular season games have a much higher standard of reffing than the play-offs, despite the latter being more of a slowed-down, half-court game, and thus, easier to call. Focus- It continues to amaze me that there are people earning a good living writing shitty basketball articles (not just Rick Bucher, either), while lots of guys write amazing articles in their spare time for free. For instance, I recently got linked to <a class="postlink" href="http://nbaplaybook.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://nbaplaybook.com/</a>, which is a terrific resource, and I'm friends with a guy who writes some pretty damn smart things about the game, heavily incorporating stats into his analysis; <a class="postlink" href="http://www.shoot-hoops.com/defensive-pace-factor-the-nbas-shot-clock-defense-era/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.shoot-hoops.com/defensive-pa ... fense-era/</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.shoot-hoops.com/the-art-of-the-interior-post-pass-gone-from-the-nba/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.shoot-hoops.com/the-art-of-t ... m-the-nba/</a>
On the front page of ESPN, there is a story that asks "Who is the best point guard in the NBA? Rose or Rondo?" While he is a GREAT point guard, and I understand why he is overrated (he plays for a popular, huge market team that made the Finals last year), I don't think Rajon Rondo deserves to be a part of these discussions. Rose, D Williams, and Paul are all better than him right now, and Westbrook and Nash are at least comparable. The reason is simple enough. In this, the Golden Age of point guards, you have to be able to score. Both over the course of the game, and especially in crunch time. Among the point guards listed above, Rose is averaging 24.7 ppg, Westbrook 22.5 ppg, D Williams 21.6 ppg, Nash 16.8 ppg, and Paul 16.5 ppg (career-low by far for him). All of these guys are terrific scorers in crunch-time, too. Rondo is at 11.0 ppg, and defers to Pierce and Allen at the end of games. Two great scorers, but also two guys who no longer have the speed and athleticism to break down the defense and get to the basket. And historically, even a heavily pass-first point guard who wasn't a great scorer, like John Stockton, averaged 17.2 ppg over his three-year peak, and 13.1 ppg over his career. Sure, Rondo is averaging a few more assists, but the guys in the first group are all between 8.1 apg and 11.2 apg, while Rondo is at 12.3 apg playing on the best team and shooting way less. Is he even the best passer out of the bunch? I personally don't think so. Rondo is a great, great point guard on a championship contender, but I don't believe there is an argument for him being a top 3 point guard, let alone the best.
Best point guards in the league? Go ahead and add Parker up there too. Not on the same level as a Chris Paul or Nash, but you can be damn sure I'd rather have him than, say, Westbrook. Parker is easily top 7, if not top 5.
Yeah, I would agree that he cracks the top 7 (with Rose, D Will, Paul, Westbrook, Rondo, and Nash), although I don't think you can compare him to the top 2 (Rose and Williams). I haven't see a great deal of Parker this year (only like 3 or 4 Spurs games), so it's hard to tell who is better between him and Westbrook. Both guys have unique strengths and weaknesses, and have different roles on their respective teams.
I get the impression that you consider Deron Williams a clear-cut better PG than Chris Paul, and you've even stated several times that you consider him the best in the league. While there isn't really a "wrong" choice between the two and either one could be argued to be the best in the league (along with Rose), I'm genuinely curious why you have so much more love for Williams. It could be homerism (I think you're a Jazz fan, but I can't remember), but I don't want to chalk it up to that just yet. What say you?
Okay, let me clear some things up; 1. As of right now, I consider Derrick Rose the clear-cut, best point guard in the world. Chicago traveled to Utah (the one where Sloan and Williams had a shouting match at halftime), and Rose outplayed Williams by a considerable margin. And his team won a very close game because of that. I consider Williams number two. 2. Deron Williams is unquestionably better than Chris Paul this season. The past 6 seasons of their respective careers, Paul was better. Paul has also had the better overall career, individually. What's different this season? Well, Paul had his entire meniscus removed, and he now wears a giant knee brace on his left leg. He has lost a noticeable amount of explosiveness, is getting to the basket less, and is averaging fewer points than he has in any season since his rookie one. Meanwhile, Deron Williams has been better than ever, evolving into an unstoppable scorer on offense as well as a tremendous passer and facilitator. By the way, throughout their respective careers, Williams has generally outplayed Paul head-to-head, even the seasons when Paul was better overall. So yeah, hardly "homerism".
I think you're mis-remembering. Or it was inappropriately labeled. Because I read that article, and it repeatedly made a point of saying that it was about the best point guard IN THE EAST. Which those two almost indisputably are. I'm a known Boston homer and Rondo is neck-and-neck with Pierce for my favorite player to watch in the NBA, and even I would never claim that he's the best point guard in the NBA. Top 5? Yes. Best? Definitely not. To respond to your points: his defense is light years ahead of Nash. It's not even close. Nash's defense is horrific. Rose has historically been horrible on defense, and has only recently managed to upgrade himself to "passable." And yes, I know what his defensive win shares is quite high. I think it's an overstatement. Rondo isn't the best passer out of the bunch. That's Paul, at least in the halfcourt set. But Rondo is probably the best transition player of the bunch. I would put Paul at 1 because I think he is the second best defender (to Rondo) in the group, and Williams 2. How I rank the others might depend on what day you ask me, but right now I'd say: Rose, Rondo, Nash and Westbrook a tossup. Paul and Williams are ahead of the rest due to their lack of an obvious weakness (Rondo can't shoot, Nash and Rose can't defend, and Westbrook is sloppy with the ball and not an exceptional passer). By the way, your assertion that Williams is UNQUESTIONABLY superior to Paul this year is just silly. Sure, you can definitely make the case (as you have, quite well too), but considering that Paul has the highest PER of any point guard in the league and the highest win shares of ANY player this year, your use of the word unquestionably is completely unwarranted. Another thing worth saying is that Rajon Rondo might be the best point guard for his team. I think if you were to add a lot of other point guards to the Celtics, the net effect would be for the worse. He doesn't score, but he cuts to the hoop and opens up shots for others. He's great on defense. I think if you were to switch Rose and Rondo, both teams would be worse.
Possibly. I only glanced at the headline. Sure; that's why I didn't say Nash was strictly better than Rondo. Williams and possibly Nash are better passer in the halfcourt than Paul is. As for transition, I think Paul, Westbrook, and Rose are all on the same level as Rondo is. (By the way, Deron Williams is horrible at the transition game, the subject of a recent NBAPlaybook column) From what I have seen this season, Rose has been a good defender. Him being poor during his first two seasons is irrelevant; virtually every point starts off that way when they first come into the league. Then, they gradually improve. The same was true of Rondo, by the way. Dude, this isn't fantasy basketball. I could write an entire article on why PER is a moronic stat. It literally tells you nothing new; it can distinguish between a crappy player and a good one, but it doesn't say anything about two GREAT players who are both in the top 3 of their position. Or do you want to tell me that Marion was right up there with Garnett and Duncan in the mid 2000s based on his PER? By the evidence of my eyes, Paul was better than Williams for the first five years of their respective careers, and undoubtedly worse this season. He can't take over a game like Williams can, since he is no longer such a weapon offensively. That's a common argument, but I'm not sure how true it is. If we assume that Rose would sublimate and translate his game to what the Celtics want out of him (yeah, I know that's a huge assumption, but this is purely hypothetical anyways), I think Boston would be even better. There's obviously no way to prove this, and Rondo is fantastic for Rivers' system, but Rose would potentially be even better. By the way, while I am disliking Boston Billie Simmons more and more these days (as an inverse relationship with how much I'm learning about basketball, among other things), check out his podcast with David Stern. This the second time Stern has been on, and each time, the commissioner impresses the hell out of me. His smooth, precise answers, and attitude are absolutely perfect for the interview. Stern always manages to paint the league in a good light, and even when he tells a bald-faced lie, he does it so damn well, with a bunch of well-told truths surrounding it, that any good liar (like myself) has to tip his cap to the man. That is a true Master and very intelligent man at work, folks. In the rare instances where Simmons even tries to disagree with Stern on something, it's like a six foot tall white guy on the high school JV squad trying to take on LeBron James.
Rondo puts in his best work in the playoffs...remember this? All I know is, he's got the potential to play like that a lot more.
Yeah, and so does every other great point guard in the league. Last postseason, Derrick Rose went from 20.8 ppg and 6.0 apg during the regular season up to 26.8 ppg and 7.2 apg during the play-offs. Deron Williams went up from 18.7 ppg in the regular season to 24.3 ppg on similar percentages, and roughly the same number of assists (10.5 apg to 10.3 apg). Rajon Rondo went from 13.7 ppg to 15.8 ppg and his assists went down a tick, from 9.8 apg to 9.3 apg. All of these great point guards stepped up their games, so Rondo is not the least bit unusual in that sense. DWill and Rose both saw greater statistical improvement than Rondo did, actually.
I'll be honest, I haven't listened to Bill Simmons in nine months, intentionally. When Boston teams are good, he's horrific to suffer through. Also, evaluation of Rondo should take into account rebounding. Same for Westbrook. They're amongst the best rebounders at the position in the league. Not sure that it really changes any of what's been said, though. Apparently we have different definitions of the word unquestionably. "By my eyes" certainly isn't enough of an argument to deserve the term. I don't think Williams over Paul is unreasonable. I just fail to see why it's apparently an obvious or inevitable conclusion, and instead would put it in the category of "things people can reasonably disagree about."
OK, I'm going to preface this with the fact that I'm a Celtic fan, but I'm trying not to let homerism cloud my judgment: Rondo has a ring, and it isn't a "tag-along" ring, he helped deliver that. PPG, APG, RPG, whatever. Of all those guys, the only one with hardware is Rondo. Now, Robert Horry has a shitload of rings, and that doesn't make him one of the best small forwards of all time, but a ring needs to count in a discussion like this when other things are being put in the mix. Paul Pierce dominates the ball. By dominates the ball, I mean, he pounds that fucking thing into the ground. Rose, Westbrook et al don't have any serious ball pounders. Westbrook is the only one on that list who has anyone else who can really score in the Durantula. Look at who else is on Rondo's team: Pierce. Allen. KG. Shaq. Even Glen Davis can score. Part of the problem is that Rondo doesn't need to score because KG and Shaq both need to be double teamed down low, Allen is a sniper, and Pierce (although he drives me fucking crazy sometimes) is a hell of a scorer. Ray Allen is not a break down the defense and get to the basket guy, he is a screen shooter, and he's pretty damn deadly. Even though teams know he's going to get the ball, he's consistently won games. Pierce no longer has the speed and athleticism, but he still manages to create his shot. That's the thing with the Celtics: They all know their role, they all know what they need to do, and they all do their jobs. Pierce is the captain of the offense. KG is the captain of the defense. Rondo needs to facilitate the offense. Ray runs around screens. Shrek and Donkey bring energy off the bench. Everyone is expected to do only what they are supposed to do. And let's be honest here: You put any one of those point guards on that list on the Celtics, I promise you that A) their points per game would all go down, B) their assists per game would all go up, and C) they'd probably defer to Ray and Paul, too. Hell, put any of them on the Lakers: You think they wouldn't defer to Kobe (or maybe even Pau Gasol) at crunch time? When you have weapons like Ray, Paul and KG, you use them. That's the reason why Boston went to the Finals last year (and could/should have won the championship) and won it in 2008. Those guys aren't scrubs. And I'm sure that if NBA games were played at the pace they used to be, we'd have a lot more guys up there with assists and scoring. Hell, I used to do a lot of rotisserie leagues, and I remember when even shitty teams had PGs averaging 9+ apg. The only way to know if he's "a top-3 PG" would be to put him on another team. The reason he plays the way he does is because of who he is surrounded by: He plays with 4 guaranteed lock Hall of Fame players, including the best 3-point shooter in NBA history. He is expected to be a team-first, pass-first point guard. His team has the best record out of any of the other PGs you listed as well, which means he's running his team well enough to win games and be in first place in the Eastern Conference. He does what the team needs him to do, and he does it well enough to have a championship and a second trip to the Finals. He doesn't score 20+ ppg, but he doesn't need to, either.
Just some stats to consider: Boston shoots 49.4%, Rondo shoots 50.4%. The Bulls shoot 46%, Rose is at 44.6%. OKC shoots 46.1%, Westbrook is at 43.9%. Rondo has 12.3 apg, 2.4 steals per game and 3.8 TO per game. Rose has 8.1 apg, 1.0 spg and 3.5 TO per game. Westbrook has 8.5 apg, 1.8 spg and 3.9 TO per game. I'm a big believer in that you need to do an "(assist+steals)/TO" ratio rather than just "assists/TO" ratio. Rondo AS/T is 3.87:1. Rose: 2.6:1. Westbrook: 2.64:1. Neither of those guys is as offensively efficient as Rondo. Sure, you can argue that "Well, Boston shoots a high percentage so there!" but that just means Rondo is making the right decisions.
Like I said, he is a great point guard. And winning a ring helps solidify that fact. But it doesn't mean he is top 3 in the league; Rondo is not in the same category as Derrick Rose, Deron Williams, and Chris Paul. There are a lot of people on both Westbrook's and Rose's team that can score, too. In fact, both those teams average more points per game than Boston does; Chicago is at 98.2 ppg and OKC at 104.7 ppg, while Boston is at 98.0 ppg. However, the difference is that neither Chicago nor OKC have the outstanding spot-up perimeter shooters Boston does. (Pierce and Allen are phenomenal from 15 feet to the 3 pt line, and KG from 10-20 feet out) Ergo, the main reason why Rondo gets more assists this season. However, he has never been anywhere near the scorer the other points have, since Rajon has no jumper and can't even hit free throws. Nowadays, that is a must for a top-tier 1, and not having it is a HUGE liability, something that I can't believe Boston fans ignore so easily. You're calling a guy who can't freaking shoot the best point in the league? A) Yeah, but not the extent that it has with Rondo! If we look at more advanced stats, Rondo has never been a good scorer, either before the arrival of the Big Three, or even when his usage is ridiculously high. He can't shoot. B) That's the thing; the apg of the other point guards isn't THAT much worse than Rondo's to begin with. In fact, last season, Williams, Nash, and Paul were all averaging more assists than him, despite having teammates less capable and efficient in scoring in the half-court. C) No way. The Lakers run the Triangle, which doesn't require a typical PG. Not the case for Boston. None of the guys you mentioned are remotely the scorers these days that a Kevin Durant, Carlos Boozer, or Amare Stoudemire are, and not that much better than an Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, Jason Richardson, Luol Deng, etc. They're better defenders though, and Boston has been the best defensive team in the league over the last three years. Without getting into a huge, off-topic statistical post, this is incorrect. Throughout much of the 90s and early 2000s, 9+ apg meant you were leading the league in the stat. 8+ apg was top 5. Nowadays, there are a lot of guys with 8+ and even 9+ apgs. And scoring has gone up now compared to the late 90s, early 2000s, thanks to the handcheck and defense rule changes. No one, least of all myself, is criticizing him for not scoring 20+ ppg. But the guy can't score much outside of the paint, period! And that is hugely problematic, especially the end of games, when Boston struggles mightily with scoring. You can always take stats out of context. Boston shoots a higher percentage from the field, but they also get to the foul line much less (they're 26th in attempts), which is part of why they average fewer points And considering many PGs are leading the league in free throw attempts, much of that is on Rondo, who can't make his defender respect his outside shot, and rarely gets there. Rondo average a scant 2.0 FTA (and has an abysmal 54.2% FT), whereas a guy like Westbrook is at 8.1 FTA and makes 84.7% of them. Look, if Rondo could shoot, he might well be the best point guard in the league. But he can't, and so he isn't in the top 3. In fact, him being in the top 5 in the Golden Age of Point Guards is at testament to how incredible Rondo is in all the other faucets of the game.
I hate Rondo, for basically no reason. But if Rondo could shoot well, he'd be a top 5 PLAYER in the league. The rest of his game is that good, and his shooting is that terrible. It's a weird combination to judge, but I agree, he's perfect for that system.
It just seems like the entire argument you are making is based on scoring. There was a time when Jason Kidd was "the best PG in the NBA", and he put up numbers very similar to Rondo's. It's like people who complain that all Dwight Howard can do is dunk or shoot from 4 feet from the basket: Why would he do anything else? If he can get the ball 4 feet from the rim and make 50+% of his shots, why shoot anywhere else? Rondo doesn't need to shoot 18 foot jumpers: The Big 3 + Glen Davis can all hit those. Rondo doesn't need to shoot 3's. Ray, Paul and Nate Robinson can all hit those. Rondo needs to create easy shots for his teammates, so that's what he does. Personally, I'd like to see him develop an 18 foot jumper just because it would make the rest of his game that much easier, and hopefully he'll add that. In the meantime, success is the best measuring stick, and the Celtics are winning games, winning playoff games, and have won a championship with him doing what he's doing.
I was interested in this, so I nerded the fuck out. I even made Excel graphs. Some things I found (more as a tangent than to answer either of you): The trough for assists was from about 2001 to 2004. those years, we were seeing leaders (JKidd) in the high 9's (~9.7 on average). The "top 5" dipped to the high sevens, whereas it has been consistently around 9 during the 1990s. But this actually wasn't necessarily due to less passing; it was largely pace-based. Those years, the percentage of all baskets assist was only slightly below its peak in the early 1990s, but it was a percentage of significantly fewer baskets (made shots declined about 12 or 13%). The assist percentage has been in decline since a peak in 1994 (57% today vs. 62% then). One interesting thing about this "golden age of point guards" is that the assist leader/top 5 numbers have picked back up, almost to early 1990s level...but overall assist haven't. In fact, the percentage of baskets assisted over the past 3 seasons is the lowest its been (at least, within my sample of 1990 to 2010). I'm kind of curious why this is. My guess would be 1) more "combo guards" such as Nate Robinson, and 2) declined big man passing. Thoughts? Also, I need to get out more.