Insider: Jason Kidd and Rajon Rondo's ratings?

[kushmir]

both of these guys seem a tad bit too high...

although Rondo certainly filled a nice role on a championship team, he is what he is currently. A ROLE PLAYER. let's not overrate him to make the celtics better...let his rating reflect what he is. A role player with GREAT quickness, a very good defender/penetrator who you want to beat you from the perimeter. rondo closely compares in rating to Louis Williams of the sixers (although williams is a more complete offensive player) who's rating is a 79...rondo's rating should be close to this as well...with maybe a 1-2 point bump for the intangible of helping a team bring home a championship. let's not get into the habit of overrating players that play on championship teams tho.

here are their stats from last year:
rondo - 49% fg, 26% 3pt, 4.2 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.7 spg, 61% ft and 10.6 ppg in 30 minutes.

williams- 42% fg, 35% 3pt, 2.1 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.5 spg, 78% ft and 11.5 ppg in 23 minutes.

now kidd? there's only one question...is he still an elite 90+ rated player? no...he isn't. and there's hardly shame in that, FATHER TIME catches everyone...Kidd clearly struggled to hit his stride with the Mavs last year and most agreed that trading away young talent that hadn't reached it's potential (Devin Harris) for Kidd (who got dominated by Chris paul in the playoffs) was a mistake...while Kidd is still a supremely well-rounded player, he's more of a complimentary player who picks his spots in the mold of Mike Bibby (who's rated an 85) now based on the age difference (kidd's 35, while Bibby is 30) a better rating might be 85 for bibby and 83 for kidd...

here are their stats from last year:
kidd ( in dallas) - 42% fg, 46% 3pt, 6.5 rpg, 9.5 apg, 2.1 spg, 81% ft and 9.9 ppg in 35 minutes.

bibby (in atlanta) - 41% fg, 36% 3pt, 3.2 rpg, 6.5 apg, 1.1 spg, 79% ft and 14.1 ppg in 33 minutes.

too high ratings are where most of the problems from sports games BEGIN, wanna know why there are too many 3 pointers, blocks, steals or dunks or a too-high FG percentage (a looong time issue) in gameplay? look no further than too-high ratings. let's hope that the 1st year on the Living Roster rectifies errors like these....

p.s. while i'm a "2Ker" for life after being a former "Liver" from 1995 - 2000...i have to say that Live's ratings were just about perfect this year, 90 + ratings were reserved for truly "elite" players, 2nd-tier players were in the 80's, rookies and 2nd-year players who've proved NOTHING in the 60's and 70's, and serviceable players in the 70's (see Kendrick Perkins' and Dampiers' 70's...perfect ratings if i ever saw them) and they topped out at a 97 (Kobe and Lebron) while 2K's gameplay is ATLEAST 2 light-years ahead, this is what we really should see ratings look like.

FYI, the following player's ratings in LIVE were: rondo 71 (spot-on...a lower-tier serviceable PG) williams 67(one-dimensional: scorer off the bench) jason kidd 85 (declining superstar) and bibby 77 (solid, scoring PG on the decline) not bad huh?


see those ratings here: http://www.pastapadre.com/3936/nba-live-09-player-ratings#more-3936

[TalinLwgrss]

well if rondo rating is too high then paul peirce is way too low he should be atleast a 96 . also they are the champs

[Problem-Chyld]

they won the championship everyone gets overrated on that team now

[kushmir]

a 96?

see...this is the type of thing we're trying to avoid, honestly...pierce at a 91 is FINE. keep in mind, the celtics beat the Lakers with their overall team talent, depth and defense. none of the big three is an equal for Kobe individually..

I for one love the Live ratings that have Kobe at a 97. i'd go with Lebron next at at 95, KG at a 94 and D. Wade at about 93. then you have the carmelo's, pierce's, AI's and and CP3's in the 92 range.

we want the ratings LOWER (we dont want player's never missing shoots and the like, correct? because this is what happens when you rate TOO HIGH))...not higher. and the funny thing is, these ratings are indicative of talent level as far a where these players rank.

[VIGALANTE]

Rajon's layup package is a bit much too. Really hard to defend that.

[walk with me]

yeah rondo is rediculous....

derek fisher also needs to get toned down...



everyone ive played against mirrors their real life coutner parts as far as game play is concerned but derek fisher will literally cross you over then shoot a pull up three in your face like he is ai..

they need to bring him down to earth

[kushmir]

i'd also rate fisher a lil higher than the other two: he's an established player (but like you pointed out, certainly doesn't initiate the Lakers offense) he averaged 11.7ppg on 40% fg% and shot 43% from 3pt. land.

i still think a player like Kidd has more "game impact" than he does. so i'd rate him in the 82/83 range.

[VIGALANTE]

Kidd's definitely dropped alot, but I think he's actually going to have a pretty damn good season. Rick Carlisle is a good coach, and Jason's not over yet. He'll do well this season.

I'm happy they raised up Fisher's stats because he never misses wide open shots in real life, and I had trouble making shots with him last year, but they made him a bit too good. I actually like his defense better then his offense.

[kushmir]

OOOOhhhhh!

With all due respect, I can't tell you how much i HATE "going to", "about to", "guaranteed" or "potentially" the nice thing about ratings is that people's rating can reflect their CURRENT LEVEL OF PLAY, feel me?

we don't have to add or subtract a single point from a player's stats until he WARRANTS IT.

Kidd still deserves a rating in the low 80s based on the fact that he's still EXTREMELY well-rounded and leaving the ELITE category...but his GREAT ratings can wait on his GREAT season if you get my drift :)

don't get me wrong i'm not knocking Jason...but the 92 he's rated currently is BAD, BAD, BAD....

and you're right, Fisher's defense is waaaaaay underrated. the "high percentage on open shots" comment is spot-on too...

[RapboY]

i dont get it, how could you give someone who averages almost a triple-double such a low rating? 83? wow.. wtf r u smoking?

[Rene]

I agree, Rondo is overrated, mostly Boston fans like him. I don't know what the hell got him an 83, I don't believe he was a big part of the Celtic's championship run. The man can't shoot, literally has a non existent offense, and this earns him a higher rating then say, (ironically) Derek Fisher! Derek Fisher may not be as quick as Rondo, but Fisher has great D, great offense, a reliable spot up/ 3PT shooter, is clutch, and comfortable taking big shots, yet Rondo can pass better, and penetrate better, which 80% of the time he penetrates to pass, and he gets a 83 and Fish a 78? To me, Rondo has the advantage in rebounding, and assisting, as well as quickness (on defense), over Fisher, everything else goes to DFish's favor.

I think Fisher should be an 80 and Rondo a 78-80. 83 is waaaay too high.

[Rashidi]

I agree, Rondo is overrated, mostly Boston fans like him. I don't know what the hell got him an 83, I don't believe he was a big part of the Celtic's championship run. The man can't shoot, literally has a non existent offense, and this earns him a higher rating then say, (ironically) Derek Fisher! Derek Fisher may not be as quick as Rondo, but Fisher has great D, great offense, a reliable spot up/ 3PT shooter, is clutch, and comfortable taking big shots, yet Rondo can pass better, and penetrate better, which 80% of the time he penetrates to pass, and he gets a 83 and Fish a 78? To me, Rondo has the advantage in rebounding, and assisting, as well as quickness (on defense), over Fisher, everything else goes to DFish's favor.

I think Fisher should be an 80 and Rondo a 78-80. 83 is waaaay too high.

Fisher is a limited PG, his deficiencies are masked by the triangle. He is a better defending/worse shooting Steve Kerr. Other than shooting (and I guess flopping) there isn't anything that Fisher does better than Rondo.

[kushmir]

i dont get it, how could you give someone who averages almost a triple-double such a low rating? 83? wow.. wtf r u smoking?

SORRY. don't smoke.

and for the record an 83 is a GOOD rating.

and the reason is because a triple double (especially a lower tier one like 10 points, 11 rebounds and 10 assists) while impressive no doubt..speaks more to the well-rounded nature of a player's skills (the classic jack-of-all-trades master of NONE situation) and kidd certainly qualifies, the problem is he is no longer dominating at any aspect of the game other than passing (he used to be the best at pushing the ball and was one of the best all-around defenders the league has seen) one look at his matchcup with CP3 last year shows that while he is still a good player--he is longer Elite, and his rating should show it...

[kushmir]

Fisher is a limited PG, his deficiencies are masked by the triangle. He is a better defending/worse shooting Steve Kerr. Other than shooting (and I guess flopping) there isn't anything that Fisher does better than Rondo.

glad you're back Rashidi...

[SDMDTSU]

Bibby doesn't come close to almost averaging a triple-doube....besides if Kidd falters....his rating will fall.

[VIGALANTE]

Fisher's a better defender and a better shooter then Rondo. Rondo is a better passer, takes cares of the ball better, and has more speed.

[Rene]

Fisher is a limited PG, his deficiencies are masked by the triangle. He is a better defending/worse shooting Steve Kerr. Other than shooting (and I guess flopping) there isn't anything that Fisher does better than Rondo.
I agree to an extent, Rondo has better athleticism, is a better defender, and passer. I don't factor in his "slashing" ability as big as most people do because, most of the times he gets in the paint, he passes, he mostly slashes to pass. I think we can agree that DFish is considerably better on the offensive end (their head2head matchups favor Fish is FG%'s as well), and defensively Rondo gets the nod, but it's not like Fish is horrible on the defensive end, he's a solid PG defender. It's difficult to compare DFish to other PG's, statistically, because Jackson's complicated offense does not often result in PG-like statistics for the PG. Fisher is needed for defense (steals primarily), and range, which he is more than capable of exhibiting.

More over, some may make a case for Rondo being a better "rebounder." I don't know why, especially at the PG position, rebounding can be a factor of whose a better PG. That's what teams have their bigs for. Ya, Rondo is twice the "rebounder" that Fish is, but really, should that be taken into heavy consideration? Maybe it's just me.

[Rashidi]

It's difficult to compare DFish to other PG's, statistically, because Jackson's complicated offense does not often result in PG-like statistics for the PG.

The thing is Fisher didn't put up those stats either while playing a more traditional PG role on the Warriors and Jazz. It's probably not his fault entirely as he's played in the triangle most of his entire career. B.J. Armstrong was similar. His career was basically over the moment he got taken in the expansion draft and was plucked away from Phil Jackson and the Bulls. He spent his whole career as a shooter with Pippen and MJ doing the majority of creating. Jordan Farmar will be an interesting case since he is young and Fisher's heir.

More over, some may make a case for Rondo being a better "rebounder." I don't know why, especially at the PG position, rebounding can be a factor of whose a better PG. That's what teams have their bigs for. Ya, Rondo is twice the "rebounder" that Fish is, but really, should that be taken into heavy consideration? Maybe it's just me.


The thing is Rondo is 2nd among PGs behind Jason Kidd, which isn't anything to scoff at. His boarding is fairly reminiscient of Stevie Franchise's. It's not a major thing but it certainly helps. Anytime a PG can get the rebound they are able to start the break that much faster.

Regarding his driving, he's a pass first PG. Fisher can't get into the paint, and he struggles to find the open man even when he does. And he is by far a worse finisher than Rondo. Rondo can finish accrobatically, he can finish with an emphatic dunk, he can get offensive putbacks.

Fisher was 62-149 (.416) at the rim last year.
Rondo was 220-405 (.543). Pretty much solidifies that he does more than pass when he gets by his defender.

Fisher
2008: 62-149 (.416)
2007: 84-195 (.431)
2006: 91-207 (.440)
2005: 55-124 (.444)
Total: 292-675 (.432)

FG% has declined each year including a big drop this year.

Rondo
2008: 220-405 (.543)
2007: 144-298 (.483)
Total: 364-703 (.517)

That's a huge disparity we're talking. It pretty much neutralizes Fisher's shooting advantage which is why we end up talking about all the extra things Rondo does that Fisher doesn't.

Gary Payton averaged 20 points and 8 assists before joining the Lakers. The triangle isn't built for anything but a role playing PG.

Speaking of GP....

Rondo (age 21): 10.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.7 spg, .492 FG%
Payton (age 21): Senior in college

Payton (age 22): 7.2 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 6.4 apg, 2.0 spg, .450 FG%

It's easy to forget how young Rondo is. The only PGs to ever dominate out of the gate at age 20 were Magic, Isiah, and CP3. Rondo's got a pretty good career ahead of him, very likely to surpass Fisher in career accomplishments (he's already got 1 ring). It's worth noting Fisher only started a combined 76 games during the three peat years, Rondo started 77 this year alone.