Rank the Point guards

[LnGrrrR]

I only brought it up under the context that his 13 a game is somewhat inflated, and shouldn't be viewed as superior to Nash's 11 a game, for example.

Yeah I'll buy into that. I've said in other threads that if Rondo was on a different team with less options, he'd probably put up 9 to 10 APG.

[DesignatedT]

1.DWill
2.Rose
3.CP3
4.Rondo
5.Tony
6.Nash

[JamStone]

Using Nash's assist totals as a gauge is somewhat skewed as well since his assist totals are also inflated due to the pace the Suns have played at since Nash's second tour in Phoenix. Nash was playing just about the same number of minutes in Dallas the 4 seasons before going back to Phoenix and he wasn't putting up 10-11 APG. He was putting up 7-8 APG.

I'd say Rondo's 13 APG is more impressive or superior than Nash's 11 APG because the Celtics play at a much slower pace.

[J_Paco]

My list would go something like this:

1. Chris Paul - The most complete point guard in the NBA. Does everything well, although his one-on-one defense can be inconsistent at times. Is a tremendous rebounder for a guy that stands just 6' tall. Is an extremely efficient scorer and passer.

2. Deron Williams - Is slightly below the level of Paul, but can dominate more scoring wise than Paul (IMO). His strength is only matched by a handful of point guards and he uses his strength to both score through, over and passed his defender. His passing can be erratic at times and he does have trouble guarding quicker guards.

3. Derrick Rose - Rose is the most athletic and explosive point guard in the NBA. His improved shooting stroke has helped make him the the best "scoring" point guard in the L. Is an equally impressive rebounder and play-maker at this point in his career. Rose is a solid team defender, but his one-on-one ability leaves a lot to be desired.

4. Rajon Rondo - Is only challenged by Nash as the best passer in the NBA. Understands how to set-up his teammates, and in the favorite spots, better than any other point guard. His defensive skills are also the best amongst all points guards. Rondo ability to rebound at a high level should also be mentioned. His erratic shooting is the only thing holding him back from becoming the best of the bunch.

5. Parker - Is the deadliest point guard in the open-court. Has tremendous touch and skill scoring around the basket. Has the best shot-selection and is underrated as defender. Plays extremely well within the team system and the limited minutes he is given. His perimeter shooting is his greatest weakness and his assist numbers could be better.

Honorable Mention: Steve Nash, Russell Westbrook and Stephen Curry

[ALVAREZ6]

Using Nash's assist totals as a gauge is somewhat skewed as well since his assist totals are also inflated due to the pace the Suns have played at since Nash's second tour in Phoenix. Nash was playing just about the same number of minutes in Dallas the 4 seasons before going back to Phoenix and he wasn't putting up 10-11 APG. He was putting up 7-8 APG.

I'd say Rondo's 13 APG is more impressive or superior than Nash's 11 APG because the Celtics play at a much slower pace.

Alright, alright, I used Nash for no reason, off the top of my head because he is a great PG.

Subs ute Williams for Nash. I'm just saying, Rondo averaging 13 is not putting in the same work that DWill and CP3 have to.

[LnGrrrR]

Alright, alright, I used Nash for no reason, off the top of my head because he is a great PG.

Subs ute Williams for Nash. I'm just saying, Rondo averaging 13 is not putting in the same work that DWill and CP3 have to.

I could buy that argument if Rondo wasn't averaging 4+ more assists per game. I'd say Rondo/Rose/DWill/CP3 all put in the same work. It may be harder for them to get their assists totals up, sure. But I don't think you can discount 4+ more assists per game due to his teammates being good offensively.

Otherwise, Parker and Rose should be averaging 10+ APG at least, and Fisher + Chalmers/Arroyo should be averaging 5+ APG with the talent on their respective teams.

[LnGrrrR]

Another point Alvarez: Boston is averaging the lowest amount of FGs per game, yet averaging the highest assist rate AND highest shooting percentage.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...GoalsAttempted

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...neous-per-game

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...t/fieldGoalPct

So, if you're talking about the PG running an efficient offense, Rondo is definitely up there with the best.

[ALVAREZ6]

Another point Alvarez: Boston is averaging the lowest amount of FGs per game, yet averaging the highest assist rate AND highest shooting percentage.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...GoalsAttempted

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...neous-per-game

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...t/fieldGoalPct

So, if you're talking about the PG running an efficient offense, Rondo is definitely up there with the best.

Definitely. The C's are very efficient. They're playing style is parallel to the Spurs this past decade, minus this year and probably another year as well.

They just execute really really well as a team, and Rondo gets a lot of assists despite Boston not playing a very fast paced game. Not all of that is on Rondo of course, I'd say Doc's offense in combination with the talent in combination with the experience of said talent also all play huge roles in the efficiency of that offense, Rondo only a part.

[ALVAREZ6]

I could buy that argument if Rondo wasn't averaging 4+ more assists per game. I'd say Rondo/Rose/DWill/CP3 all put in the same work. It may be harder for them to get their assists totals up, sure. But I don't think you can discount 4+ more assists per game due to his teammates being good offensively.

Otherwise, Parker and Rose should be averaging 10+ APG at least, and Fisher + Chalmers/Arroyo should be averaging 5+ APG with the talent on their respective teams.

I am a Spur fan, but I will never make a case for Tony being of the elite among true point guards. So yes, if Parker were the PG that Rondo is, and if he played Rondo's minutes, yeah his averages should also be sky high.

Rose scores 25 points a game...I can't expect him to also average Rondo's assists. But yes, despite this, he is not the PG that the other elite PGs are. He's probably better than most of them as a player, but not quite so as a PG.

Fisher...Chalmers..Arroyo...I'm not going to address this.

[jestersmash]

In defense of Rondo's poor free throw shooting, it's important to acknowledge that he only attempts 1.5 per game. It's not uncommon to see him go 1-1, 0-1, 1-2, 1-2, so on and so forth. You have to wonder if lack of attempts is preventing him from getting into a good "rhythm" from the free throw line.

For example, he went 12-15 from the line during a preseason game which is more than respectable.

[ALVAREZ6]

In defense of Rondo's poor free throw shooting, it's important to acknowledge that he only attempts 1.5 per game. It's not uncommon to see him go 1-1, 0-1, 1-2, 1-2, so on and so forth. You have to wonder if lack of attempts is preventing him from getting into a good "rhythm" from the free throw line.

For example, he went 12-15 from the line during a preseason game which is more than respectable.

Definitely a good point, # of attempts is a big factor. His % is obviously a combination of both things going on though, he's not a great FT shooter.

You can't find a guard that's good at perimeter shooting but bad a FTs. Rondo simply can't jump shoot.

[Killakobe81]

To me, Rondo solidified himself as a top PG in the 2009 playoffs when KG was out and Ray Allen was playing largely inconsistently. Rondo goes on to unquestionably being the best player on the team, and nearly averages a triple-double for the entire playoffs.

I don't see why he's getting knocked so hard for his inability to shoot though. He shoots over 50% from the field, so even if he's a poor shooter, he knows his limitations enough so that it's not a detriment to the team. It's similar to what some have brought up about Tony Parker early in his career. He wasn't a great outside shooter, but no one could stay in front of him and he was such a great finisher at the rim. Rondo scores efficiently and he's steadily improving his outside jumper. Of course, he needs to get better and continue to improve his stroke. But it shouldn't preclude him from being a top 5 PG, especially considering it doesn't affect his FG%. It's just like Jason Kidd for much of his career not being a very good shooter, but he was still widely considered a top 5, even top 3 PG, even when he couldn't shoot at all.

I agree with this AND Alvarez's reply: Rondo does enough to be in the discussion but he wont be at the top without improving his shooting. He does have a ring though and that matters too ...

Didnt bring that up here. Because I wanted everyone's opinion without going by that, but of course that matters.

[HarlemHeat37]

Not really..Rondo got a ring before he established himself as a star player..he was a role player during that le run..

[redzero]

at people bringing up Rondo's ring as a role player.

[ALVAREZ6]

I agree with this AND Alvarez's reply: Rondo does enough to be in the discussion but he wont be at the top without improving his shooting. He does have a ring though and that matters too ...

Didnt bring that up here. Because I wanted everyone's opinion without going by that, but of course that matters.

Ehh...sure it matters, but it says little.

With all of the other variables, you could probably compare them from player to player and they'd be relevant. But rings, very much compared to wins/losses, is a team comparison dude.

Rondo wouldn't win a ring with Paul's or Williams's team either. When we compare player side by side like this:

Rings
Rondo: 1
Paul: 0

All we can say is that Rondo has a ring, and Paul does not.
Rondo plays for the Celtics, Paul does not.

What exactly does Rondo's championship add to this argument???

Are you trying to imply that Rondo has an edge over Nash, Paul, Williams, Jason Kidd prime, and John Stockton because none of those won a championship?

Where do you put Stockton and Kidd, all time PGs? I would hope not top 10 all time for either, since they didn't win one single damn ring, when many other players on these lists have won multiple.

Where do you put Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone among their positions???

I personally would put both very high, others however may not be adhering to their own standards if they include them high.




Everybody off with wins/losses, champions, and any other team metrics.

[Killakobe81]

he was but he won regardless ...
And genius I said it should not matter here, but it DOES matter to me ...

[Killakobe81]

Everyone has their citeria for me it matters. Ewing and Stockton are great but not at the top of my all-time list BECAUSE they are ringless ...

But I created the topic, and I said who was the BEST right now ...

This was not about all-time rankings or les ...

[ALVAREZ6]

he was but he won regardless ...
And genius I said it should not matter here, but it DOES matter to me ...

Sorry I misinterpreted your post.


I thought you were explaining that you did not bring it up initially because you wanted to hear what people had to say without talking about rings (for once, because everyone loves the championship arguments), and then by saying "but of course that matters", I thought you meant that yes, indeed, rings do matter. (in this discussion)

Sorry, but I just like to keep everything in context. You brought up rings in an argument where they don't matter.

[ALVAREZ6]

Everyone has their citeria for me it matters. Ewing and Stockton are great but not at the top of my all-time list BECAUSE they are ringless ...

But I created the topic, and I said who was the BEST right now ...

This was not about all-time rankings or les ...

Listen, even if Stockton DID win a ring, I still wouldn't put him with Magic.



The point is as basketball fans we have more ways of judging players, using observation, etc. We don't need championships to tell us who the greatest players are. We don't read the paper in June and find out who ended up as the best bball team.

Let's think of it this way:

If KG never wins his only ring, how weaker of a career did he have, in terms or production and play? How much less of a player is he had he never won that championship? (assuming he doesn't win another)


How about if the Lakers lost game 7 last year...and the Celts come out on top. That means the Lakers were very damn close, but not quite there. 0.003% off. Yet 100% effect on legacy, what stupid people remember.

The rings argument is a simple way of dismissing other factors.

[Killakobe81]

Sorry I misinterpreted your post.


I thought you were explaining that you did not bring it up initially because you wanted to hear what people had to say without talking about rings (for once, because everyone loves the championship arguments), and then by saying "but of course that matters", I thought you meant that yes, indeed, rings do matter. (in this discussion)

Sorry, but I just like to keep everything in context. You brought up rings in an argument where they don't matter.

No prob. wasnt pulling it here here I really wanted everyone else's opinion I have mine ...

But rings or no I would still vote the way I did ...without rings Parker drops in my own personal rankings ...

Just like some people here love Duncan, and Robinson because they are good guys, good sports. It has NOTHING to do with ball ...but for those fans it matters. Nothing wrong with that ...Those guys are great players and top it off by being great guys.

[ALVAREZ6]

No prob. wasnt pulling it here here I really wanted everyone else's opinion I have mine ...

But rings or no I would still vote the way I did ...without rings Parker drops in my own personal rankings ...

Just like some people here love Duncan, and Robinson because they are good guys, good sports. It has NOTHING to do with ball ...but for those fans it matters. Nothing wrong with that ...Those guys are great players and top it off by being great guys.

Well then, here you are indirectly admitting your ranking is not 100% objective.

[Killakobe81]

Listen, even if Stockton DID win a ring, I still wouldn't put him with Magic.



The point is as basketball fans we have more ways of judging players, using observation, etc. We don't need championships to tell us who the greatest players are. We don't read the paper in June and find out who ended up as the best bball team.

Let's think of it this way:

If KG never wins his only ring, how weaker of a career did he have, in terms or production and play? How much less of a player is he had he never won that championship? (assuming he doesn't win another)


How about if the Lakers lost game 7 last year...and the Celts come out on top. That means the Lakers were very damn close, but not quite there. 0.003% off. Yet 100% effect on legacy, what stupid people remember.

The rings argument is a simple way of dismissing other factors.

Obviously diffrent argument. But if the goal of a team sport is to win a championship shouldnt the players that HELP lead their team to a le get a boost for that?

David was great player and had a great career BEFORE Tim. But did not win until Tim got there ...does that make him less great? No. But when compared to Duncan and Hakeem who led their team to les he comes up short.

[Killakobe81]

Well then, here you are indirectly admitting your ranking is not 100% objective.

No, follow me. I posted this thread because I had som e doubts about who is the best PG right NOW. I listed the criteria I used for evaluating HS PG's (I used to coach girls and boys team at fairly high level). And i ranked the PG's by that criteria.

Where i am biased is in my personal rankings my list I used was based on the factors i listed today.

[Killakobe81]

Check my posts I always said Dwill but Rose and and Paul's resurgence had me re-thinking my stance.

[ALVAREZ6]

Obviously diffrent argument. But if the goal of a team sport is to win a championship shouldnt the players that HELP lead their team to a le get a boost for that?

Davis was great player and had agreat career BEFORE Tim. But did not win until Tim got there ...does that make him less great? No. But when compared to Duncan and Hakeem who led their team to les he comes up short.

Well the way you make that Tim/David comparison, rings are relevant.



But in this discussion, we're having Paul vs. DWill vs. Rondo vs. Rose vs. Nash etc etc

The fact that Rondo won, does not boost him against another player like Paul, for example. If we remove Rondo and put CP3 on that team, does he win a championship? A resonating YES. what about Dwill? YES.

Does it give him points against the Rose argument? NO. Rose was not on that fully developed 2008 Celtics team.


Conclusion: Nothing.

That championship says nothing in this discussion.