Top 5 at each position

[Jukeman]

lol @ the dude bashing Horford.. He may not be a top five center but he isn't that far off c'mon.

Think that joke went over your head lol.

[b2tha2ndpwr]

Re: Top 5 at each position

After letting all the dust settle...

PG
1. Chris Paul
2. Deron Williams
3. Rajon Rondo
4. Derrick Rose (Difficult to place, thought about him 1st, and thought about him 5th)
5. Steve Nash

SG
1. Kobe Bryant (Just barely)
2. Dwayne Wade
3. Russell Westbrook (Getting my inner Bill Simmons on with a bold prediction that will probably not happen... Eric Maynor will be starting at PG for the Thunder by midseason next year moving Russ to the 2. Westbrook will be all for it after learning how much fun the 2 is from backing up and learning from Kobe in the Olympics)
4. Manu Ginobli
5. Joe Johnson

SF
1. Duh
2. Kevin Durant
3. Carmelo Anthony
4. Andre Iguodala (I think he's the 2nd most talented SF in every aspect besides scoring, and he isn't a TERRIBLE scorer... which in turn drops him to 4th)
5. Paul Pierce (Many posters bashing his playoffs forget he played with a sprained knee)


PF
1. Kevin Love
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. Pau Gasol
4. Lamarcus Aldridge
5. Blake Griffin

C
1. Dwight Howard
2. Andrew Bynum
3. Kevin Garnett
4. Tyson Chandler
5. Marc Gasol

[JazzMan]

Re: Top 5 at each position

PG
1. Rajon Rondo
2. Chris Paul
3. Steve Nash
4. Tony Parker
5. Deron Williams
(Left Rose out for injury)

SG
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Manu Ginobili
4. Eric Gordon
5. Tyreke Evans (Assuming he can get back to the level of his Rookie year)

SF
1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Andre Iguodala
4. Rudy Gay
5. Carmelo Anthony
Honorable Mention
6. Danny Granger
7. Paul Pierce
8. Gerald Wallace

PF
1. Kevin Love
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. LaMarcus Aldridge
4. Pau Gasol
5. Chris Bosh
Honorable Mention
6. Amare Stoudemire
7. Paul Millsap
8. Josh Smith
9. Zach Randolph
10. Blake Griffin

C
1. Dwight Howard
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Andrew Bynum
4. Tim Duncan
5. Al Jefferson

[ojandpizza]

Think that joke went over your head lol.

Haha I see it now, my bad!

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Re: Top 5 at each position

This is probably my second favorite list on here.. With mine being 1st of course lol.. I love how your list wasn't swayed by guys who only put up the numbers. Guys like- Griffin, Harden, Westbrook

Thank you I appreciate that .

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Re: Top 5 at each position

PG
1. Rajon Rondo
2. Chris Paul
3. Steve Nash
4. Tony Parker
5. Deron Williams
(Left Rose out for injury)

SG
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Manu Ginobili
4. Eric Gordon
5. Tyreke Evans (Assuming he can get back to the level of his Rookie year)

SF
1. LeBron James
2. Kevin Durant
3. Andre Iguodala
4. Rudy Gay
5. Carmelo Anthony
Honorable Mention
6. Danny Granger
7. Paul Pierce
8. Gerald Wallace

PF
1. Kevin Love
2. Dirk Nowitzki
3. LaMarcus Aldridge
4. Pau Gasol
5. Chris Bosh
Honorable Mention
6. Amare Stoudemire
7. Paul Millsap
8. Josh Smith
9. Zach Randolph
10. Blake Griffin

C
1. Dwight Howard
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Andrew Bynum
4. Tim Duncan
5. Al Jefferson

I was close to putting Amare on my list, but he is injured too much, so I left him out. Healthy he is easily in my top 5 at power forward.

[Jukeman]

Re: Top 5 at each position

Garnett, Bass, Pierce, & a somewhat disabled Ray Allen.

Celtic's Postseason

Pierce- 38% (31% from 3)

Allen- 39% (30% from 3)

Bass- 46% (Low for a PF who deosnt attempt 3's)

Celtic's bench (really speaks for itself)

Only consistent players were KG and Rondo. (and probably were the only healthy starters besides Bass)

17 and 11, shooting 46% while taking a lot of jumpers is very effective...

In fact, he was 3rd in EFFICIENCY behind KD and LeBron...

[wwharton]

Re: Top 5 at each position

Celtic's Postseason

Pierce- 38% (31% from 3)

Allen- 39% (30% from 3)

Bass- 46% (Low for a PF who deosnt attempt 3's)

Celtic's bench (really speaks for itself)

Only consistent players were KG and Rondo. (and probably were the only healthy starters besides Bass)

17 and 11, shooting 46% while taking a lot of jumpers is very effective...

In fact, he was 3rd in EFFICIENCY behind KD and LeBron...

And their offense was garbage most of the post season. They won with great D and a little luck of the draw with the match ups up until the Heat. This is a horrible argument to prove Rondo doesn't need shooters around him to be... Rondo. Take KG off that team, if they shot like that over the course of the year they wouldn't have made the playoffs.

[Jukeman]

And their offense was garbage most of the post season. They won with great D and a little luck of the draw with the match ups up until the Heat. This is a horrible argument to prove Rondo doesn't need shooters around him to be... Rondo. Take KG off that team, if they shot like that over the course of the year they wouldn't have made the playoffs.

You say their offense was horrible but ignore the fact that they missed a ton of wide open jumpers...

Besides, what does that even have to do with anything.

I am not debating how boston won games this post season?

My argument is that he didnt have the shooters "he needed" to be effective to actually be effective..

Rajon needing shooters to be "Rondo" is a terrible myth..

Besides, any smart GM would build a team around a pass first PG with guys who can shoot..

You didnt see Nash on a team with a bunch of guys who couldnt shoot jumpers..

[wwharton]

Re: Top 5 at each position

You say their offense was horrible but ignore the fact that they missed a ton of wide open jumpers...

Besides, what does that even have to do with anything.

I am not debating how boston won games this post season?

My argument is that he didnt have the shooters "he needed" to be effective to actually be effective..

Rajon needing shooters to be "Rondo" is a terrible myth..

Besides, any smart GM would build a team around a pass first PG with guys who can shoot..

You didnt see Nash on a team with a bunch if guys who couldnt shoot jumpers..

I'm not ignoring anything. I specifically said they won because of their defense... you pointed out only playoff stats for a reason. In the same sense it was a KG led defense (and again, a little luck of the draw) that allowed them to keep winning despite shooting horribly. In other words, Rondo played great but that didn't carry them to victories. The point that he needs shooters around him is spot on and is exactly what you were arguing against.

Considering that's what you were arguing against the end of your post doesn't even make sense in this context.

[Jukeman]

I'm not ignoring anything. I specifically said they won because of their defense... you pointed out only playoff stats for a reason. In the same sense it was a KG led defense (and again, a little luck of the draw) that allowed them to keep winning despite shooting horribly. In other words, Rondo played great but that didn't carry them to victories. The point that he needs shooters around him is spot on and is exactly what you were arguing against.

Considering that's what you were arguing against the end of your post doesn't even make sense in this context.

Ok whatever you say my man..

I am not going to even attempt to turn this into another Rondo thread.

You have you opinion and I have mine.

You arguing about who lead the Celtics is something I didnt even type and that is an entire different debate.

So I pass.

[wwharton]

Re: Top 5 at each position

Ok whatever you say my man..

I am not going to even attempt to turn this into another Rondo thread.

You have you opinion and I have mine.

You arguing about who lead the Celtics is something I didnt even type and that is an entire different debate.

So I pass.

Why'd you post the shooting percentages of the players around Rondo in the playoffs? My assumption was to show that he could lead a team to success without shooters as a direct retort to the post saying Rondo needs shooters to be successful. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

That's the only thing I'm responding to. Your sample size has skewed the results to destroy the correlation you're trying to form here. It's not really about who lead the Celtics or a knock on Rondo. But the statement that he needs shooters is accurate, and you said as much yourself. Your data doesn't show much bc it doesn't account for the horrible offenses they faced earlier in the playoffs, or the level of defense the C's played (which everyone knows starts and ends with KG).

It's just a bad argument in reply to "Rondo needs shooters" which you seem to have conceded to by stating as much.

[Jukeman]

Why'd you post the shooting percentages of the players around Rondo in the playoffs? My assumption was to show that he could lead a team to success without shooters as a direct retort to the post saying Rondo needs shooters to be successful. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

That's the only thing I'm responding to. Your sample size has skewed the results to destroy the correlation you're trying to form here. It's not really about who lead the Celtics or a knock on Rondo. But the statement that he needs shooters is accurate, and you said as much yourself. Your data doesn't show much bc it doesn't account for the horrible offenses they faced earlier in the playoffs, or the level of defense the C's played (which everyone knows starts and ends with KG).

It's just a bad argument in reply to "Rondo needs shooters" which you seem to have conceded to by stating as much.

Post I responded to insisted that Rondo needed 3-4 shooters to be effective.

I posted the horrible shooting % of the main players on the Celtics, stated KG was the only player besides Rondo that was consistent in the playoffs.

KG is one player last time I check and Rondo was the guy feeding him the ball and if I remember correctly, KG rarely created for himself...

Either way, KG was not the point.

Rondo was effective with one shooter.

Im not going to argue facts with people's opinions..

OKC's offense wasnt that great neither, you honestly think Westbrook was more effective than Rondo in the playoffs?

That was the original argument anyways..

I also dont see how 19 games is a small sample size at the highest level of NBA basketball.

Plus the C's were just as mediocre in the regular season, where Rondo had MVP votes..

[wwharton]

Re: Top 5 at each position

Post I responded to insisted that Rondo needed 3-4 shooters to be effective.

I posted the horrible shooting % of the main players on the Celtics, stated KG was the only player besides Rondo that was consistent in the playoffs.

KG is one player last time I check and Rondo was the guy feeding him the ball and if I remember correctly, KG rarely created for himself...

Either way, KG was not the point.

Rondo was effective with one shooter.

Im not going to argue facts with people's opinions..

OKC's offense wasnt that great neither, you honestly think Westbrook was more effective than Rondo in the playoffs?

That was the original argument anyways..

I also dont see how 19 games is a small sample size at the highest level of NBA basketball.

Plus the C's were just as mediocre in the regular season, where Rondo had MVP votes..

Again, I'm not arguing against Rondo, I'm arguing against your points. If you want to show how what Rondo does well has more of an impact or is better suited than Westbrook, go for it. But nothing you just said disproves what I posted.

The Celtics scored more than 100 points 5 times throughout the entire playoffs... that's 5 times in 19 games. You're arguing about a guy who's strength is to create offense for others and they just didn't have much offense in this sample size you're using. You want to say it's the shooters faults for missing? Fine, but if you're arguing that Rondo doesn't need shooters by listing how bad the guys shot it doesn't make sense. Their Rondo led offense did not get them through these games.

The teams Boston played combined to score over 100 points a total of two times... and both were against the Heat. The Hawks averaged 82 ppg and the Sixers averaged 85 ppg. It couldn't be more clear that lack of opponent offense and C's defense is what made their bad offense ignorable. In short, it doesn't show Rondo's ability to lead a team to success without guys being able to hit shots around him. KG's presence on defense is very significant here considering these facts (no idea why you keep calling it opinion) since he is most definitely the anchor of their defense. Boston probably loses to Atlanta if KG doesn't play, someone else puts up his offensive numbers and Rondo puts up the same numbers. You're basically arguing team success to try to support the theory of Rondo not needing shooters (which, again, you yourself stated he does).

I know you like the guy but that doesn't mean he's without criticism. If you want to build your team around a player like that, no problem. But the argument you're trying to make doesn't work.

[Jukeman]

Again, I'm not arguing against Rondo, I'm arguing against your points. If you want to show how what Rondo does well has more of an impact or is better suited than Westbrook, go for it. But nothing you just said disproves what I posted.

The Celtics scored more than 100 points 5 times throughout the entire playoffs... that's 5 times in 19 games. You're arguing about a guy who's strength is to create offense for others and they just didn't have much offense in this sample size you're using. You want to say it's the shooters faults for missing? Fine, but if you're arguing that Rondo doesn't need shooters by listing how bad the guys shot it doesn't make sense. Their Rondo led offense did not get them through these games.

The teams Boston played combined to score over 100 points a total of two times... and both were against the Heat. The Hawks averaged 82 ppg and the Sixers averaged 85 ppg. It couldn't be more clear that lack of opponent offense and C's defense is what made their bad offense ignorable. In short, it doesn't show Rondo's ability to lead a team to success without guys being able to hit shots around him. KG's presence on defense is very significant here considering these facts (no idea why you keep calling it opinion) since he is most definitely the anchor of their defense. Boston probably loses to Atlanta if KG doesn't play, someone else puts up his offensive numbers and Rondo puts up the same numbers. You're basically arguing team success to try to support the theory of Rondo not needing shooters (which, again, you yourself stated he does).

I know you like the guy but that doesn't mean he's without criticism. If you want to build your team around a player like that, no problem. But the argument you're trying to make doesn't work.

You are arguing something totally different..

Like serious question, what team doesnt need shooters to win?

Miami wouldnt have won the chip if their role players didnt step up and started making those open shots that they did.

If you dont think averging 17 and 11 with a +25 EFF isnt being effective then more power to you.

You are looking too much into my post man.

Its simple, OSer says a certain player is only effective with shooters, the said player puts up good numbers without players shooting good around him..

KG and PP wasnt shooting that great when he put up 44..