Chalmers might be in the discussion if we were talking WNBA.
Correct. When you take into account winning, ability, efficiency, passing & leadership there is no question TP is top 5. None. Just because you don't respect him doesn't make it true.
He is definitely a top 5 PG. He is also a very underrated defender, better than almost all other PG's you might have in the top 5. That combined with his offense puts him top 5.
CP3
Williams
Rondo
Rose
Parker
Nash is definitely in the top 5 IMO.. 1 on 1 D from the PG position is so overrated..Nash is a decent team defender, that's all that really matters..teams "exploiting" Nash on the defensive end is so overplayed, it's annoying..when has Nash EVER had a decent defensive supporting cast around him?..if you stick him on the Lakers, Celtics, Magic or a few other teams, it wouldn't even be talked about..
In all honesty, the only top PGs that are very good defenders are Rondo and Paul..all the others are either just decent, or bad, just as bad as Nash, tbh..Parker is good team defender that has experience on elite defensive teams, Rose is currently on an elite defensive team, but neither guy is great defensively..
I have Paul, Williams and Rose as the top 3, I don't have any doubts at all that I would put them on their own tier..picking between them is a matter of preference..Williams and Rose both have great size, and they're both more likely to take shots in clutch time, unlike Paul, who defers too often..however, Paul is a much better defender than either of them..he's one of the most underrated defenders in the NBA..people love to talk about Paul's lack of size and how it could be exploited on the defensive end, but as I've pointed out before, only 4% of opponents play calls were against Paul in the post, it's not something that a team can continuously run without disrupting the rest of their offense..his ability as a team and help defender is a major reason for the Hornets' elite defense..
As for #4, I'd go with Nash..while Rondo's advantage on D makes this close, Nash has no exploitable flaws on offense..he can fit in as an off-ball player, due to his elite shooting..he can obviously run both half court and transition based offenses..there's nothing a defense can really do to take him out of a game..
Rondo's inability to shoot often hurts the Celtics, which was evident vs. the Lakers..he loses confidence in his already shaky jump shot, which leads to stalling in the Celtics' offense, often putting them in a position to take bad shots at the end of the shot clock..while he's still a top 5 or so PG IMO, this is a clear flaw vs. other elite defensive teams..
I was high on Westbrook to start the year, but his weaknesses have been exploited, to an extent..his defense has been horrible this year..he has trouble attacking complex defenses, sophisticated zones in particular..his ability to run an offense is relatively limited when the opposing team can shut down the lane and limit transition opportunities..
Parker is still underrated..one of the best playoff performers of the bunch..he has even improved his 3-point shot..he has a killer instinct that most of these guys haven't shown during the playoffs..his team D has been solid for most of this season..
#1. Chris Paul
#2. Deron Williams
#3. Derrick Rose
#4. Steve Nash
#5. Rajon Rondo
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 01-27-2011 at 06:30 PM.
I don't know much about Chalmer's defense, but I can't imagine it being much better than Rondo's. Also, he's shot about 40% for his career.
Nevermind I'm not ever going to continue to respond to this because I feel stupid.
lolz @ Chalmers
Actually, in thinking about it, I would put it like this:
CP3
Williams
Rose
Nash
Parker
Rondo/Westbrook
Well, just stop right there and re-read some of my posts from earlier. Then see why you/we/anyone should not take TEAM wins into account.
I read your post. Why some points are valid and winning is not the end all be all, to ignore it altogether it is flat out stupidity.
And I hear the point you are making.
But think about it: when valuing big men..a dominant PF/C is gonna get his no matter which team. If you're truly one of the best big men in the league, any team you're on you're gonna be rebounding and putting in work down low. Maybe it'll effect your shooting percentages negatively due to more double teams, defense focusing more on you than your team.
But a point guard? Look at Rondo.
He comes onto the court to start a game along with Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Shaquille O'Neal. Some solid ass players off the bench too. Basically the whole offense can create their own offense, individually, if they want. Look at the people he's passing too, the defenses crumbling and not being able to contain so many great players, having one man chase Ray Allen's ass and around all of his screens on the floor, getting open, easy passes.
Whatever, you see Rondo's situation. Nash is averaging 11 assists with his current team, and it's been changed dramatically earlier as we all know. And neither periods did it involve Amare Stoudemire. Nash's team isn't doing too well win-wise compared to Rondo's, is it??
Other cases:
Tony Parker plays on the Spurs, of course his winning %-age is high. He has 2 other All-Stars on his team. The fact that he/they (Rondo too) are winning takes nothing away from the same exact guy who is doing the exact same things, except on a bad team. At least it shouldn't, yet some are allowing it to.
To see it another way, KG was the same player in Minnesota as he is/was in Boston. Except younger and better due to the former. Can we agree on this? Because if we can, then really the only difference is the Celtics compared to the Wolves. He didn't get any better when he came to Boston.
I think wins/losses shouldn't have much weight at all.
To elaborate on my Rondo point: I, literally, could average 6 assists per game on that team. So could Adam Morrison, Derek Fisher, or Gary Neal. Just by virtue of the players on that offense, and the offense itself.
So, no maybe we shouldn't ignore wins/losses completely...not entirely..but we should come pretty close to doing so.
I'm assuming it's the same size basketball. Jordan is a bit of an outlier though, both in skill and hand size.
It just seems that players with bigger hand size sometimes have issues with FTs (going by centers mostly, like Dwight, Duncan, Shaq, etc). I would assume most centers have larger hand sizes on average than guards/forwards, and seemingly shoot a lower percentage on FTs. Why that is, I don't know.
So Rondo is worth about +7 more assists per game than your average PG? Sounds about right.
Who is this clown?
Be that as it may, it shouldn't matter how big a player's hands are compared to his height, length, and overall size. It's only an issue as it relates to the size of the basketball. There have been other guards/perimeter players with exceptionally big hands. Dr. J, Connie Hawkins come to mind. Forwards and centers with very good touch outside with big hands. Chris Webber has enormous hands and developed himself into a good shooter. Jack Sikma likewise, although I'm only assuming he had big hands. Arvydas and Vlade. I bet Yao Ming has enormous hands as well. Players with big hands can be good shooters.
Point is, hand size is an excuse, not a reason, to be a poor shooter. If we're talking about Rondo having hands the size of a 32 inch flat screen TV, that's one thing. But if "freakishly" large means 9-10 inches in length, it's just a poor excuse. I watched him in that 3 point contest with Kevin Durant in that horse contest. He's fully capable of hitting jumpers if he works at it.
It's interesting to think about basketball in these ways, factoring all of this differences of the different body types and how they translate to the game.
I've though about this one on different occasions. Perhaps it's not solely the actual hand size, as opposed to other parts being out of proportion as well for the taller players = worse FT %. It could be that players having long arms also makes it harder to have a good, reliable jumper down. Perhaps if your forearms are too long (as a taller player), it has the same effect as bigger hands, or maybe forearm size is the real variable and therefore it gets meshed with the larger hands idea. Perhaps since having a longer forearm, you can imagine the ball is traveling a larger distance, maybe it affects the control you have in the release, whereas you may have more control naturally with more regular sized arms
really who knows, the point is I think it'd be cool to eventually have some organized list in a few years that explains each and every crucial part of the body for basketball and which proportions of different parts have which effects on certain different parts of the game.
Not very followable, probably shouldn't try
rambling is fun
Fair enough Jam. I don't think his hand size means he can't get a consistent jumper. Was just wondering if larger hand size meant, on average, less consistency when it came to FTs. I don't think there's enough data though to come up with any solid conclusion.
No, I'm not saying this.
I actually have Rondo high on my list (tied for 3rd w/ Rose), I know he's a great player. I'm simply stating why we can't take away from PGs on terrible teams simply because they aren't winning.
I'm not saying that Rondo is not a good PG because his team is awesome.
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 know, I'm agreeing with you. I agree that an avg PG would probably be able to avg 5 or 6 assists with the Celtics. That would mean that Rondo is worth about 7 more assists per game than an "average" PG (he's currently avg 12.9 rebounds per game.)
Also, I put Nash at number 5 in my rankings.
Everything about this post is correct. Rondo most certainly should not get knocked out of anyone's top 5 simply because of his shooting. His shooting is largely what separates Rondo from CP3 + Deron Williams.
What separates Rose is that he isn't exactly the PG those guys are. He could develop into a CP3, but he doesn't have the vision that guys like Steve Nash do..guys that simply exude pointguard.
1. Chris Paul
2. Derrick Rose
3. Deron Williams
4. Steve Nash
5. Rajon Rondo
Oh ok, now I see the aim of your other post. Well, just because of those numbers, I don't think it's fair to say he's worth more than 7 more assists. The players I mentioned, along the likes of Adam Morrison and myself, are NOT average PGs. Below average is conservative, lol. Your average PG in the NBA better be able to average 6 a game on the Cs, otherwise they aren't an average PG.
But I also consider another factor that inflates Rondo's averages, and I kind of touched on it in my initial post but barely.
Rondo 2009/10: 13.7 points, 9.8 assists, and 11.2 FGA per game
Rondo 2010/11: 10.5 points, 12.9 assists, and 9.2 FGA per game
Clearly, he's been playing a different way, and prior to even looking for these stats I already had this idea in my head because it's so damn apparent when I watch the Celtics play. Whenever I watch, it seems like Rondo is out there running around looking for assists, instead of them naturally happening. I mean, if it works it works, I'm not taking anything away, but he's playing a different way for sure. His drop in FGA per game is pretty significant from one year to the next on a team with little changes to its makeup, it's core players. I think he's simply taking less shots per game knowing he's not gonna make those outside jumpers anyway, and he's really putting an emphasis on assists.
Honestly, this is what I believe, or some combination of those different possibilities. I'm sure the dude would want to be considered amongst the elite PGs of the league, it shows in his interviews and really there's nothing wrong about that, it's human. I'd definitely want the same. But I really think he's specifically trying to get his assists averages up this year, more so than only doing it naturally; he's running around almost forcing assists, but hey it's working.
When you speak about Rondo being 7 assists average better than the average PG, I have to disagree due to the above. How else can you explain such a drastic jump in his assist averages on a team that is virtually very similar to last year. Both year very very solid ass teams, same core starters. It's his 5th season by now, how did he jump an average of 3 whole assists per game from his 4th to his 5th season? -->my opinion is that he's searching for it, specifically.
I think his 9.8 assist average of last season is more reflective of his true PGing skills
07/08: 5.1
08/09: 8.2 Here is where Rajon made that jump.
09/10: 9.8
Come on now, he ain't any more pointguard than CP and DW.
I'd say that's a fair assessment. I don't know if it's more or less successful; the Celtics are shooting better this year, and their record is pretty good. Maybe he is looking to inflate his assists stat, but if it's helping the team then I'm not too concerned.
I'll rank the top seven, because there are seven elite PG's . . .
1. Paul
2. Williams
3. Rose
4. Parker
5. Rondo
6. Nash
7. Westbrook
Curry and Wall are next in line to join the elite.
I think Rondo has actively tried to look for more assists, but I don't think it's solely to selfishly pad his assists total. There is a difference between this Celtics team and last year's team. The emergence of Glen Davis as a key scorer off the bench and the addition of Shaq. Those two guys are more scoring threats than Perkins/Rasheed last year, not only in shot attempts but in terms of getting touches and getting to the line. Secondly, having Nate Robinson since day 1. He has never been shy when it comes to taking shots. That's where I think Rondo loses some of his shot attempts and gains in the assist column.
Now I do think he tries from time to time to just go assist hunting. But I don't think it's that bad a thing, especially considering how well they've played for much of the season. When the Celtics are healthy, they should prefer Rondo focus on getting assists instead of looking for his own scoring opportunities. They have plenty of other guys that can make baskets.
Another good post, but both of you guys are not concentrating on the context we're discussing here. The argument I made was for comparing Rondo to the other elite point guards. If CP3, D-Will, Nash all wanted to average 13 assists a game via assist-hunting, they definitely could. They could probably do it on teams not as good as the Celtics as well.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
