Timmy Dunks injury

[ziggy]

Ziggy, I see your post.  I am going to read it and follow the link.  Then I will make an attempt to make a half way decent response to you LOL.    For the record there has only been 1 time where I felt like you were talking down to me on this board.  I respect your views on basketball so I see it nothing more than two people debating their side of the issue.  No talking down at all.    If I come across like anti-stats I don't mean to be.  I just think that so much stat crunching has been done over the years you can honestly skew numbers to prove a lot of things.  There are a million different stats and number break down to the point where I could probably prove Lebron James isn't that good in some way.  Numbers usually are not bias so I think stats is a great way to help strengthen a persons argument but I don't think it's the only way to prove a point.  Btw, I was wrong about Kevin Durant.  You were right.

As you read the article, recognize the essential paradox the writer has created, and I don't even think he recognizes in inherent contradiction of his premise.

[westkoast]

Wk here is a very interesting article that I found fascinating.
 
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

Now, I ask that you indulge my hubris for a moment, as I am going to go Edith Bunker on you and go off on a seemingly random tangent.  I see this article as a metaphor for this discussion, but it will seem as if this has nothing to do with Rajon Rondo or basketball.  Once I am done, feel free to go Archie on me, and call me a dingbat if you want.

That essentially sums up what I am getting at as far as numbers/formulas not always being perfect.   No need for me to call you a ding bat.  It was a good (but very dry) article. 

The essence I took out of the article, broken down into a few sentences, is that people are constantly searching for the one simple thing the explains/measures/encapsulates everything in a nice tidy neat little formula that expresses the nature of some complex interaction, or some metaphysical truth.  People do this constantly, be it with religion, economics, politics, finance, sports, and life in general.  They are constantly searching for that answer that explains it, and sometimes they think they find it, and they then begin to operate using that, sometimes making bets for or against it.  Life though doesn't work that way.  There are 5 absolutes, death and the 4 forces in the universe. E=Mc2 is just such an equation, and it works because the 4 forces of the universe are absolutes, don't change, but nothing else in life works that way.  Life is all about assessing risk, because no matter how brilliant the beautiful formula you have may describe the world, it has a margin for error, and the challenge is to always fairly assess the risk that the equation is wrong.  You assess that risk using your life experience, which create and formulate your bias'.  Because your assessment is influenced by those biases, often you misinterpret what the equation is telling you, or you choose the equation which best comports with your biases.  If you do a great job of properly assessing that risk (ie. your bias and the equation you use are in congruence), then you will be successful, but if you do a poor job of assessing that risk then you will be a failure.

Well said!

So now you say that I am a stats guy, and yeah I like to use numbers to articulate points.  I use the equations, numbers and evaluations that comport with my experience and bias, and you use the evaluations you use.  We both use those to articulate points, ideas and concepts.  I like everybody love to find that holy grail number that truly expresses the essential nature of the universe.  I like everybody gets caught up in believing that once you find it, then you give away yourself to that equation, and let it drive all of your decision making.  If you don't properly assess the risk that the equation is wrong, then at some point you will make a bet on the equation, and it will go against you.  Sometimes I do a good job of assessing the margin for error relating to some number I use

Like Kevin Durant, which is why I said that you were right about him and I was wrong.  That is a very good example of you using numbers that backed up your claim.  I was using what I had seen from him and ended up being wrong.  After seeing him a bit more the last month or so I was wrong about him.  There are times when I see guys on off nights and I need to take that into consideration.   When I see smaller market teams it's usually because they are playing the Lakers, Celtics, Magic, and some of the more popular, stronger teams so they tend to be over matched and it hurts them.  Durant obviously being a clear example of that.

I will be the first to admit that my take on a lot of what I speak on is based solely on what I see and know of the players/teams.  I could do a much better job of using stats to go along with what I see on the court.  With thanks to this board I have got better about it. 

 Sometimes I struggle to find an equation that articulates what my biases may tell me, and I follow my biases, hoping to find a number that explains that bias.  I had a bias regarding Shane Battier, which said he was a good, and highly under-appreciated  player, but I struggled to find a way to measure that.  The other article I posted did a good job of articulating what I thought and observed.  That of course doesn't make it right or wrong, just that it articulates what I believe.  The margin for error for it though may in fact be very low.  I would hope that when I use a "stat" to rationalize a bias, that I do properly assess the margin for error, but obviously I can be wrong.

As do I.  Another problem of mine is I over simplify in drive by posts which lead to these type of debates.  Had I explained why I disagreed in a bit more detail like I have over the course of multiple posts off the bat maybe this wouldn't have stretched so far (and Skander wouldn't want to smack his head).

Being that basketball if very complex and there is a lot of things that play into a pro basketball teams success I tend to look at those first as a basis and stats second.  Maybe that is wrong at times.   It sure is hard to prove.

All that being said, please understand exactly what I am saying about Rondo.  Do I have a beautiful magical equation that will perfectly articulate how good of a player he is?  No, it is all in context, which is the point I believe you are trying to make.  I am not arguing that point.  I think we both agree that Rondo's performance must be considered in the context of his circumstances, and his circumstances are different from Jameer Nelson's, or Derrick Rose's, or Derek Fisher's, or Steve Blake's.  Fair enough.

I get it.  I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, I was just saying that I don't agree.  He is a solid player.  He's made me very happy in fantasy on a number of nights.  When I watch him though I don't feel he is exception on a consistent basis.  You know what?  I bet I could find numbers to prove that!

So when I make the argument that Rondo is one of Boston's Big 4, I am looking at his outcome.  Perhaps others could do very well, perhaps even better than him, in the same context.  That of course does not have anything to do with Rondo's contribution within his context.  Rondo's contribution is significant, and he should get measured on his actual contribution.  He may not be as talented as a shooter as say Paul Pierce, but he is more effective at shooting the ball than Paul Pierce.  He may not be as good a passer as say Chris Paul, but he is very effective at passing the ball.  He may not be a great rebounder, but within the context of the Boston Celtics, he is a better rebounder than Paul Pierce.  I believe that Rondo is a very effective NBA player.  So what is more important, being a better player, or a more effective player?

My apologies for misunderstanding.  I took it as you thought he was a super star and was that 4th star.  I took it as the "Big 4" in a more broad sense, like 4 super stars.  As oppose to "BOSTONS Big 4" just like the "Spurs Big 3" and the "Lakers Big 3".

I can agree he is effective.  I cannot agree with you that he is exceptional.  Agree to disagree?  To me there is a different.  A lot of guys are effective in this league but very few are exceptional.

Wk, now I know how I am, so I reread this post.  Even though it may sound like I may be talking down to you, please recognize that is not my intent.  Just trying make an observation.

Like I said, I didn't take it that way and don't really ever do.

I think you guys might not realize but I actually enjoy when shots are sent back and forth.  I don't take them to heart.  I see it as a bunch of guys giving each other a hard time.  Almost as if we were drinking beers and watching games together.  JoMal is my favorite poster to be honest and he's taken many a shots. 

[WayOutWest]

First of all, let me do a bit of educating people to the value of Rondo:

Start with this premise:  HE PLAYS ON A TEAM WITH GARNETT, RAY ALLEN, AND PIERCE.

In such a case, Rondo is putting up .274 shots per minute.  Last year, he put up .309.  And for those shots, he's shooting .518 this year, and .492 last year.  Add to that his assists per minute:  .252 assists per minute this year, and .170 per minute last year.

Let's compare this with a certain starter from a championship team (who shall, at this point remain nameless).

Comparing his second year, when he won the title, with Rondo's second year, when he won the title, you get these numbers from the older guy:

Shooting percentage:  .464
Shots per minute:  .376
Assists per minute:  .156

And the older guy currently:
Shooting percentage:  .487
Shots per minute:  .507
Assists per minute:  .196

You see, Rajon Rondo UNDERSTANDS that he's on a team with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett...so he GIVES THEM THE BALL.  Even better, he figured out that he ought to give them the ball MORE - and cut back on the shots he's taking.

Tony Parker, on the other hand, didn't feel like giving the ball to Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu Ginobilli.  And today, he takes his own shot even more often.

Or let's look at these numbers, from a guy with 3 championship rings - Sam Cassell.

Last year, in Boston, he shot .385, took .435 shots per minute, and got .117 assists per minute.  That's veteran leadership for you right there - come right into the game, take the ball out of the hands of your better players, and shoot you out of the game.  And while he won those other rings?  .418 FG%, .346 shots per minute, .171 assists per minute as a rookie.  .427 FG%, .315 shots per minute, .215 assists per minute his second year.  And his third year?  .439 FG%, .391 shots per minute, .165 assists per minute.  Small wonder they jettisoned him;  he couldn't find it in his heart to pass to Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, and Robert Horry.

Now let's look at someone a bit different:  Derek Fisher.

Fisher's second season, when he started getting into the starting line-up, he shot .434, took .215 shots per minute, and dished out .189 assists per minute.  During the three Laker championship seasons, here are his numbers:  .346, .412, .411 FG%;  .268, .264, .337 shots per minute;  .120, .123, .092 assists per minute.  (The assists per minute numbers are ATROCIOUS.)

Look at Fisher last year and this:
FG%:  .436, .427
SPM:  .345, .283
APM:  .106, .114  (Again, atrocious.  And if you think it's because he's in the triangle, his year in Utah, he was .120.)

While Fisher isn't an outstanding passer, if you look at it, he DOESN'T SHOOT A LOT.  He knows to give the ball up.  I don't have the splits for his last season before and after the Gasol deal, but I'd bet good money that his shots per minute went DOWN when Gasol got there.

And for a comparison point - John Stockton's CAREER:  .515 FG%, .286 shots per minute, .331 APM.  (I had to do a double-check when I saw the career APM number.)

Another comparison point - Maurice Cheeks Career:  .523 FG%, .269 shots per minute, .212 APM.  So this year, Rondo is shooting a little worse, and a little more often, but passing better than Maurice Cheeks.  That ain't bad.

The value in Rondo is that he is learning he doesn't HAVE to shoot.  He has the option of PASSING the ball to folks who are better shooters.  That's what a point guard is supposed to do - DIRECT the offense, not take it over.

So - in summary - Rondo's value is found in the fact that he's shooting a good percentage because he's not taking bad shots, not taking too many shots, and is giving the ball up and improving as a passer.

Never has Rondo's "over rated ness" been more obvious than in the 4th quarter of todays game.  Rondo reminds me alot of D Fish, defensive minded PG who drives 90% of the time because he can't shoot for SHYTE!   Rondo is average at best, no way he's in the upper class let alone the "elite". 

Watch a game Mr Bear.

[westkoast]

First of all, let me do a bit of educating people to the value of Rondo:

Start with this premise:  HE PLAYS ON A TEAM WITH GARNETT, RAY ALLEN, AND PIERCE.

In such a case, Rondo is putting up .274 shots per minute.  Last year, he put up .309.  And for those shots, he's shooting .518 this year, and .492 last year.  Add to that his assists per minute:  .252 assists per minute this year, and .170 per minute last year.

Let's compare this with a certain starter from a championship team (who shall, at this point remain nameless).

Comparing his second year, when he won the title, with Rondo's second year, when he won the title, you get these numbers from the older guy:

Shooting percentage:  .464
Shots per minute:  .376
Assists per minute:  .156

And the older guy currently:
Shooting percentage:  .487
Shots per minute:  .507
Assists per minute:  .196

You see, Rajon Rondo UNDERSTANDS that he's on a team with Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett...so he GIVES THEM THE BALL.  Even better, he figured out that he ought to give them the ball MORE - and cut back on the shots he's taking.

Tony Parker, on the other hand, didn't feel like giving the ball to Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Stephen Jackson, Manu Ginobilli.  And today, he takes his own shot even more often.

Or let's look at these numbers, from a guy with 3 championship rings - Sam Cassell.

Last year, in Boston, he shot .385, took .435 shots per minute, and got .117 assists per minute.  That's veteran leadership for you right there - come right into the game, take the ball out of the hands of your better players, and shoot you out of the game.  And while he won those other rings?  .418 FG%, .346 shots per minute, .171 assists per minute as a rookie.  .427 FG%, .315 shots per minute, .215 assists per minute his second year.  And his third year?  .439 FG%, .391 shots per minute, .165 assists per minute.  Small wonder they jettisoned him;  he couldn't find it in his heart to pass to Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, and Robert Horry.

Now let's look at someone a bit different:  Derek Fisher.

Fisher's second season, when he started getting into the starting line-up, he shot .434, took .215 shots per minute, and dished out .189 assists per minute.  During the three Laker championship seasons, here are his numbers:  .346, .412, .411 FG%;  .268, .264, .337 shots per minute;  .120, .123, .092 assists per minute.  (The assists per minute numbers are ATROCIOUS.)

Look at Fisher last year and this:
FG%:  .436, .427
SPM:  .345, .283
APM:  .106, .114  (Again, atrocious.  And if you think it's because he's in the triangle, his year in Utah, he was .120.)

While Fisher isn't an outstanding passer, if you look at it, he DOESN'T SHOOT A LOT.  He knows to give the ball up.  I don't have the splits for his last season before and after the Gasol deal, but I'd bet good money that his shots per minute went DOWN when Gasol got there.

And for a comparison point - John Stockton's CAREER:  .515 FG%, .286 shots per minute, .331 APM.  (I had to do a double-check when I saw the career APM number.)

Another comparison point - Maurice Cheeks Career:  .523 FG%, .269 shots per minute, .212 APM.  So this year, Rondo is shooting a little worse, and a little more often, but passing better than Maurice Cheeks.  That ain't bad.

The value in Rondo is that he is learning he doesn't HAVE to shoot.  He has the option of PASSING the ball to folks who are better shooters.  That's what a point guard is supposed to do - DIRECT the offense, not take it over.

So - in summary - Rondo's value is found in the fact that he's shooting a good percentage because he's not taking bad shots, not taking too many shots, and is giving the ball up and improving as a passer.

Never has Rondo's "over rated ness" been more obvious than in the 4th quarter of todays game.  Rondo reminds me alot of D Fish, defensive minded PG who drives 90% of the time because he can't shoot for SHYTE!   Rondo is average at best, no way he's in the upper class let alone the "elite". 

Watch a game Mr Bear.

I didn't want to say anything 

Also like Derek Fisher he is a solid defender but you can see he's not a real lock down defender when the anchor is out like KG was today.

[WayOutWest]

I didn't want to say anything 

Also like Derek Fisher he is a solid defender but you can see he's not a real lock down defender when the anchor is out like KG was today.

WK, I think you are hitting a little below the belt by actually watching a game.

[SPURSX3]

This reminds me of a buddy of mine who tried to explain how the movie "A Thin Red Line" was so deep and had a message in each scene and that it went beyond the acting, blah blah blah.  To me it was garbage - I don't consider it a great - not even a good - movie.  It blew.  I see this Rondo argument the same way.  No matter how you try to point out the silver lining with Rondo, he is still not going to make me want to call Boston "The Big 4."  It's like The Boston Big Three are Scott Fargus and Rondo is their Grover Dill.  You don't go from big 3 to big 4 for being a tag along.  Is Rondo essential to Boston winning?  I don't think so.   

[Skandery]

'koast,

I don't remember seeing where I called him WORTHLESS.  I certainly don't remember typing that.    I did say he could be replaced by any of the young PGs (whom I listed).

Semantics.

Not sure if you understand what LOL means on the Internets but it means laugh out loud.

Well I didn't know you weren't being serious, it sounded like you believed what you were writing.  My bad.

He does get attacked and if he was exceptional I don't think he would be the main plan of attack for rivals.

What do you mean by attacked?  A decade ago teams posted Jeff Hornacek, did that make him the weakest link on the Jazz?  And if you think yes to that, I'll let Ted take over . . .

. . . and I'll tell you if Rajon Rondo IS the weakest link, than you must have a darn good team.  My opinion, Boston's bench is the weakest link.  And after their depth, I'd say Perkins is a weaker link than Rondo.  I think Pierce is still prone to becoming selfish offensively and becoming the weakest link.  Certainly when Ray Allen goes on the funk like he did through 2 series in the playoffs last year he can be the weakest link. 

========================

Never has Rondo's "over rated ness" been more obvious than in the 4th quarter of todays game.

 

Ah yes WOW, never let an extensive and thorough statistical and observational evaluation over the course of games and seasons get in the way of one, isolated example.  

[Joe Vancil]

I didn't want to say anything 

Also like Derek Fisher he is a solid defender but you can see he's not a real lock down defender when the anchor is out like KG was today.

Hey - aren't you the guy who was saying you can't wait for Marbury to get there and start lighting up the stat sheet?  I mean, let's be fair.  If we're going to bash Rondo, we ought to be beating Marbury into a bloody pulp for yesterday's game.  Missed every shot he took, taking more shots per minute than Rondo, committing as many fouls in a little more than a third of the time....

Marbury is showing exactly why he's a waste.  Great job of fitting in by him.  Perkins and Powe are the guys actually hitting the shots they're getting, and Marbury is shooting more than either of them.

So when exactly is this "stat sheet lighting up" supposed to happen?  The guy has as many turnovers as assists, for crying out loud.

[westkoast]

I didn't want to say anything 

Also like Derek Fisher he is a solid defender but you can see he's not a real lock down defender when the anchor is out like KG was today.

Hey - aren't you the guy who was saying you can't wait for Marbury to get there and start lighting up the stat sheet?  I mean, let's be fair.  If we're going to bash Rondo, we ought to be beating Marbury into a bloody pulp for yesterday's game.  Missed every shot he took, taking more shots per minute than Rondo, committing as many fouls in a little more than a third of the time....

Marbury is showing exactly why he's a waste.  Great job of fitting in by him.  Perkins and Powe are the guys actually hitting the shots they're getting, and Marbury is shooting more than either of them.

So when exactly is this "stat sheet lighting up" supposed to happen?  The guy has as many turnovers as assists, for crying out loud.

Calm down Joe, it's been TWO games.  I am not rooting for him.  However there is going to be nights when he gets extra playing and posts up solid numbers.   He is going to get open shots thanks to those 3 other guys and he will get assists for the same reason..  He had 13 points in 8 minutes the other night.  The reason I brought him up is to prove even a guy who hasn't played in a while is going to be able to post stat lines that look good from time to time.  Rondo is a starter who gets a bulk of the minutes so you can't directly compare the two.

Honestly I've seen you argue harder for Rondo in this thread than you have Deron Williams vs Chris Paul.  That I find strange.

[westkoast]

What do you mean by attacked?  A decade ago teams posted Jeff Hornacek, did that make him the weakest link on the Jazz?  And if you think yes to that, I'll let Ted take over . . .

. . . and I'll tell you if Rajon Rondo IS the weakest link, than you must have a darn good team.  My opinion, Boston's bench is the weakest link.  And after their depth, I'd say Perkins is a weaker link than Rondo.  I think Pierce is still prone to becoming selfish offensively and becoming the weakest link.  Certainly when Ray Allen goes on the funk like he did through 2 series in the playoffs last year he can be the weakest link.

Plenty of teams in this league give Rondo open jumpers in hopes that he hurts the team.  This has worked a number of times this season.   Also putting larger defenders on Rondo also hurts the Celtics offense. 

As for Jeff Hornacek, he wasn't being touted as one of the top 3 in his position at the time was he?  He was a great shooter and obviously made the life of Stockton/Malone easier.  Though I do not remember him being as hyped as Rondo is.  Correct me if I am wrong.  It's not like other shooters of the time were being pushed aside to talk about Hornacek.

Boston is not just a darn good team but a helluva defensive team.  Their team defense is very impressive and Rondo benefits from it.  Now that KG has been out for a few games you can see it much more clear.   It is a lot easier to play defense when guys are reluctant to attack the middle.

You are right their bench is the weakest link but I am talking about the starters....

[Reality]

I didn't want to say anything 

Also like Derek Fisher he is a solid defender but you can see he's not a real lock down defender when the anchor is out like KG was today.

Hey - aren't you the guy who was saying you can't wait for Marbury to get there and start lighting up the stat sheet?  I mean, let's be fair.  If we're going to bash Rondo, we ought to be beating Marbury into a bloody pulp for yesterday's game.  Missed every shot he took, taking more shots per minute than Rondo, committing as many fouls in a little more than a third of the time....

Marbury is showing exactly why he's a waste.  Great job of fitting in by him.  Perkins and Powe are the guys actually hitting the shots they're getting, and Marbury is shooting more than either of them.

So when exactly is this "stat sheet lighting up" supposed to happen?  The guy has as many turnovers as assists, for crying out loud.

I saw two of the three Marbury shots.  He split the defense, just missed the drives, but left his teamates in great position for the O rebound and putback. Which they did both times.  He was not getting lit up on D, in fact held his own and Boston when from being down to up 2.  He was +6 for the game.   Now I don't know what he did the next time he came in, but theres no way this game can be blamed on MeBury.

That being said, i wish everyone, i mean everyone would boycott all NBA games the day after MeBury was bought out by the Knicks and signed with Boston.  Completely empty stadiums sans the employees, the prima donna players and the suits.

[Lurker]

I have read through all of this and don't have time for a long reply.  But I stand by what I said.  Rondo SUCKS as a shooter.

His high shooting percentages are because 60% of his shots are layups.  I find it very amusing that Joe especially hammers Parker as a poor shooter because all he takes is layups but gives Rondo a pass just because he shoots less often. 

Rondo is a very effective player for the Celtics.  Would he duplicate that performance if he was a top 2 option for a team?  IMO no.  Would he be as effective if he was the #2 player on the Celtics?  IMO no...and the Celtics wouldn't be as good either.

He is a strong defender.  But he is also a lousy jumpshooter.  He has long arms and good quickness...but is a lousy jumpshooter.  He runs the Boston offense effectively but is a lousy jumpshooter.

Bottom line IMO is that Rondo is a horrible shooter.  Effective scorer...even efficient since over half his shots are layups.  But a lousy shooter.

[Joe Vancil]

Make no mistake;  I'm not saying Rondo is a good shooter.  He takes a few easy shots, makes a reasonable number those easy shots, and spends his time passing to his teammates.

I'd be on the Tony Parker bandwagon if he 1) took fewer shots, and 2) passed more often.

Put it into perspective using Spurs:  Avery Johnson wasn't a good shooter, was barely an okay passer, but was smart enough not to shoot much.

1998:  .250 FGA/Min, .478 FG%, .221 A/Min
1999:  .276 FGA/Min, .473 FG%, .221 A/Min
2000:  .331 FGA/Min, .473 FG%, .191 A/Min
2001:  .232 FGA/Min, .447 FG%, .184 A/Min

Johnson was a LIMITED SHOOTER who knew NOT TO SHOOT.  He was a weak passer (although better than Parker), but at least knew, "If I can't shoot, I shouldn't shoot."  As it stands, that's where Rondo is at.  That type of player can be a team leader.

Parker, on the other hand, is trying to be a star.

Rondo isn't a "big 4th" on the "big 3," but he's not chopped liver.  He's effective and efficient - and most importantly, HE'S NOT TRYING TO BE THE BIG 4TH.

Johnson, I can respect (despite the fact he can't pass).  Rondo, I can respect.  Parker, however, is the kind of nightmare that I want nothing to do with.

So, just to be accurate, Rondo gets a pass because he shoots less, at a better percentage, and passes more and more effectively to his teammates.

[Skandery]

Westkoast:

Rondo is a starter who gets a bulk of the minutes so you can't directly compare the two.

Yes you can.  That's what efficiency and per minute statistics are for.  A representation of their impact regardless of time on the floor. 

As for Jeff Hornacek, he wasn't being touted as one of the top 3 in his position at the time was he?

Who is touting Rondo a Top 3 point guard?  Ziggy stated he thought Boston was more a Big 4 than Big 3, and honestly, I stand more behind that statement than somebody saying "a large majority of PGs in the NBA could replace Rondo on the Celtics and they wouldn't miss a beat."  I also never said Rondo was a Top 3 PG, I argue the notion that he is overrated and easily replaceable for Boston.  I mean isn't this whole argument proof that he isn't overrated?

So back to the premise, you say that teams let Rondo shoot outside making him the weakest link.  Well, teams let Dennis Rodman shoot outside for the Chicago Bulls (96-98), did that make him the weakest link on that team.  I remember teams letting Gary Payton shoot from outside for those 90s Sonics, did that make him the weakest link.  So Rondo can't shoot, so what!  There's more to basketball that perimeter shooting and I'm surprised a Parker fan like Lurker can't admire that in a player like Rondo.

You are right their bench is the weakest link but I am talking about the starters....

I did too, Perk is a weaker link IMO . . . . (while Pierce and Allen can be occassionally).

Lurker:

He is a strong defender.  But he is also a lousy jumpshooter.  He has long arms and good quickness...but is a lousy jumpshooter.  He runs the Boston offense effectively but is a lousy jumpshooter.

Bottom line IMO is that Rondo is a horrible shooter.  Effective scorer...even efficient since over half his shots are layups.  But a lousy shooter.

Agreed.

Parker, on the other hand, is trying to be a star.

Rondo isn't a "big 4th" on the "big 3," but he's not chopped liver.  He's effective and efficient - and most importantly, HE'S NOT TRYING TO BE THE BIG 4TH.

Johnson, I can respect (despite the fact he can't pass).  Rondo, I can respect.  Parker, however, is the kind of nightmare that I want nothing to do with.

So, just to be accurate, Rondo gets a pass because he shoots less, at a better percentage, and passes more and more effectively to his teammates.

Yeah guys, you have to remember that Joe has been a Point Guard since Don Buse was a Phoenix Sun.  He's really sensitive about this stuff.

[westkoast]

Yes you can.  That's what efficiency and per minute statistics are for.  A representation of their impact regardless of time on the floor. 

Yet another example of a stat that doesn't fully factor everything in.  You have a guy who is starting vs a guy who doesn't have a solid place he fills in at yet and you think they can directly be compared?

Rondo gets to play every single game no matter what.  Marbury on the other hand has his minutes based on what is going on with Rondo.  Clearly a stat doesn't fully factor in the difficulty of coming off the bench, at random times, when you are in the role Marbury is.

Who is touting Rondo a Top 3 point guard?  Ziggy stated he thought Boston was more a Big 4 than Big 3, and honestly, I stand more behind that statement than somebody saying "a large majority of PGs in the NBA could replace Rondo on the Celtics and they wouldn't miss a beat."  I also never said Rondo was a Top 3 PG, I argue the notion that he is overrated and easily replaceable for Boston.  I mean isn't this whole argument proof that he isn't overrated?

A lot of people call him one of the very best PGs in the league.  The guy gets talked about on ESPN and the likes more than Deron Williams does.  Have you not noticed that?    This whole argument is not proof that he isn't overrated btw.  It's just an argument.  You have 3 people arguing for Rondo (yourself, joe, ziggy) and 3 people who say he is not exceptional (wow, myself, lurker).

So back to the premise, you say that teams let Rondo shoot outside making him the weakest link.  Well, teams let Dennis Rodman shoot outside for the Chicago Bulls (96-98), did that make him the weakest link on that team.  I remember teams letting Gary Payton shoot from outside for those 90s Sonics, did that make him the weakest link.  So Rondo can't shoot, so what!  There's more to basketball that perimeter shooting and I'm surprised a Parker fan like Lurker can't admire that in a player like Rondo.

He wasn't the strongest link was he?  He certainly was not the 3rd guy in the Big 3 was he?  No.  He was a solid role player who did what he needed to do.  I don't deny that is what Rondo is.  What I am saying is he is a solid player on an exceptional team but by no means exceptional himself.

Not only does his jump shot stink, he really is not that great of a passer.  I can think of a lot of point guards who are better passers than he is.  Including Andre Miller and Devin Harris.  Two guys not exactly at the very top of the PG list in this league (again back to my point of him NOT being exceptional)

I did too, Perk is a weaker link IMO . . . . (while Pierce and Allen can be occassionally).

Nope, Perk provides toughness in the paint.  Part of the reason the Celtics are so good is they really wear teams down with their defense and their physical style of play.

If Rondo was exceptional or as good as you guys want to make him out to be I think it would show on the court more often against quality opponents.  Yesterday was a big game, he didn't have to chase AI, and he came up short.   The same can be said at the home loss to the Spurs and the home loss to the Lakers. 

15-16 points a game and 7 assists he solid and effective but it is not exceptional.  To me exceptional and to warrant constantly being talked about on SportsCenter looks more like a Chris Paul or Deron Williams stat line.  Where you see CP3 get 30 and 15 with 4 steals.  Or Deron go 25 13.