CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 10:11:46 AM

Title: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 10:11:46 AM
With Rondo 20-23, without Rondo 13-4. This was told yesterday at NBA Game Time on TNT. Mention that Cs know move better the ball ad get better % on FG
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Moranis on March 06, 2013, 10:13:53 AM
and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 06, 2013, 10:14:05 AM
With Rondo 20-23, without Rondo 12-4. This was told yesterday at NBA Game Time on TNT. Mention that Cs know move better the ball ad get better % on FG

Why do you need TNT to come up with this little gem? We kinda discuss this just about every hour on CelticsBlog.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 06, 2013, 10:15:41 AM
and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be.

Rondo does fit this type of system. We have seen it plenty of times, particularly in his early career. Have no clue why they went away from it, particularly as he's been improving his off-the-ball skills, especially his shooting.

We saw it a lot in pre-season too, then regular season started and all we had been seeing from this team went to the trash can for no apparent reason.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 10:16:42 AM
and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be.

I didn't think they were winning one with him. Not the way they were playing.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Boston Garden Leprechaun on March 06, 2013, 10:18:48 AM
and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be.

yep. when rondo comes back we keep it the same way as it is now. BALL MOVEMENT by everybody. no rondo hogging the ball. let others create. that way rondo can spend more time cutting to the basket scoring among other things. make the other team defend all 5 players from everywhere. nobody cares about rondos jumper. that needs to change.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 06, 2013, 10:19:24 AM
and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be.

I didn't think they were winning one with him. Not the way they were playing.

That's the crux of it with these types of arguments, everyone likes to extrapolate about a team clearly underperforming and how they'll perform in the playoffs... it's a bad habit.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 10:19:58 AM
and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be.

yep. when rondo comes back we keep it the same way as it is now. BALL MOVEMENT by everybody. no rondo hogging the ball. let others create. that way rondo can spend more time cutting to the basket scoring among other things. make the other team defend all 5 players from everywhere. nobody cares about rondos jumper. that needs to change.

Can rondo dominate without the ball being in his hands all the time tho?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 10:26:02 AM
With Rondo 20-23, without Rondo 12-4. This was told yesterday at NBA Game Time on TNT. Mention that Cs know move better the ball ad get better % on FG

Why do you need TNT to come up with this little gem? We kinda discuss this just about every hour on CelticsBlog.

Are jealous about TNT? ::) Instead of doing that, I strongly suggest you to analyze the statistics, not making bla bla bla. Do not destroy topics please.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 10:28:08 AM
With Rondo 20-23, without Rondo 12-4. This was told yesterday at NBA Game Time on TNT. Mention that Cs know move better the ball ad get better % on FG

Why do you need TNT to come up with this little gem? We kinda discuss this just about every hour on CelticsBlog.

Are jealous about TNT? ::) Instead of doing that, I strongly suggest you to analyze the statistics, not making bla bla bla. Do not destroy topics please.

I think he's just saying this is being discussed in just about every thread, even one that's supposed to be about Avery Bradley right now.



and there are starting to be enough games where it isn't an aberration.  Boston really does seem to play better as a team without Rondo. 

That said, they aren't winning a title without Rondo and if they can get Rondo to fit into this type of system (rather than building a system around Rondo), the future will be brighter than I thought it would be.

yep. when rondo comes back we keep it the same way as it is now. BALL MOVEMENT by everybody. no rondo hogging the ball. let others create. that way rondo can spend more time cutting to the basket scoring among other things. make the other team defend all 5 players from everywhere. nobody cares about rondos jumper. that needs to change.

Can rondo dominate without the ball being in his hands all the time tho?


We've had great teams with this apparently bad formula of Rondo dominating the ball.  I like the movement now and I think Rondo can fit into it, why wouldn't he?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 10:36:25 AM

[/quote]

Can rondo dominate without the ball being in his hands all the time tho?
[/quote]


We've had great teams with this apparently bad formula of Rondo dominating the ball.  I like the movement now and I think Rondo can fit into it, why wouldn't he?
[/quote]

GREAT teams? We've had good teams not great. There's a difference between good and great by the way. Also those teams ain't this team. People can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Rondo dominating the ball might work with certain groups of players but it doesn't work well with this one.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Fafnir on March 06, 2013, 10:38:18 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

Edit:
Our rebounding on both ends declined. (That's Sullinger more than Rondo, though Rondo going out hurts that aspect too)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 10:39:42 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

And our defense? Better right?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 10:41:47 AM


Can rondo dominate without the ball being in his hands all the time tho?
[/quote]


We've had great teams with this apparently bad formula of Rondo dominating the ball.  I like the movement now and I think Rondo can fit into it, why wouldn't he?
[/quote]

GREAT teams? We've had good teams not great. There's a difference between good and great by the way. Also those teams ain't this team. People can't seem to grasp that simple concept. Rondo dominating the ball might work with certain groups of players but it doesn't work well with this one.
[/quote]

What concept are you saying I can't grasp?

The Celtics teams of the last few years have been pretty great teams.

This teams woes this year were not just on Rondo's play.  It was the whole team.  People are fabricating things to support the claim, like saying our pace is so much faster and when fast break more when we really don't and we're playing at the same pace.

I think Rondo should adapt to playing more off the ball, it would allow him to increase scoring which would be great.



Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

And our defense? Better right?

And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 10:44:03 AM
Our defense being better had alot to do with bradley AND Lee replacing rondo in the starting lineup.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 06, 2013, 10:44:34 AM
And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Maybe, but on the balance, a Bradley + Lee backcourt is miles ahead in both size and defensive intensity than a Rondo + Bradley backcourt. Make of this what you will.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: mkogav on March 06, 2013, 10:44:39 AM
With Rondo 20-23, without Rondo 12-4. This was told yesterday at NBA Game Time on TNT. Mention that Cs know move better the ball ad get better % on FG

Yawn.

We are talking about a very veteran team with two HOFers and a lot of pride. This is not really a surprise.

I expect had Rondo not torn his ACL, the Cs would have went on a similar run at some point.

The real test for life-without-Rondo is in the playoff. I expect that they will really struggle to score against any good defensive team.

Mk
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 10:47:10 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: alley oop on March 06, 2013, 10:48:56 AM


I like the movement now and I think Rondo can fit into it, why wouldn't he?


He may not get stats that make him stand out from the other points guards, and not like it. But Doc is very much partly to blame for what happened.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 10:50:21 AM
And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Maybe, but on the balance, a Bradley + Lee backcourt is miles ahead in both size and defensive intensity than a Rondo + Bradley backcourt. Make of this what you will.

I wouldn't say miles at all but it is better and more fundamentally sound on defense.  Rondo and Bradley worked well together especially because Rondo could get steals off of Bradley's ball pressure but I do agree that Lee and Bradley is a better defensive backcourt and you don't have to give up size.

If you look at the team's defensive numbers with Bradley vs without it's clear what kind of impact he has had.



Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

Hm?

I think Faf's point is the numbers aren't very different.  Those aren't big changes.

You can't just say that is why these numbers are different anyways.  Guys just could be shooting better now than they were before.  Earlier in the season Jeff Green wasn't playing as well, Lee wasn't shooting as well, etc.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 06, 2013, 10:52:06 AM
And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Maybe, but on the balance, a Bradley + Lee backcourt is miles ahead in both size and defensive intensity than a Rondo + Bradley backcourt. Make of this what you will.

I wouldn't say miles at all but it is better and more fundamentally sound on defense.  Rondo and Bradley worked well together especially because Rondo could get steals off of Bradley's ball pressure but I do agree that Lee and Bradley is a better defensive backcourt overall and you don't have to give up size.

If you look at the team's defensive numbers with Bradley vs without it's clear what kind of impact he has had.
By "miles ahead" I really mean two things:

(1) We can have a PG-sized guard covering PGs and a SG-sized guard covering SGs.

(2) No more awkward cross-matching on offense and defense, where there's always the inherent risk you'll lose your man on the break.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Rondo2287 on March 06, 2013, 10:52:45 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

Being .6% better on 2 point shots shows that things are effectively the same with rondo as without.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Fafnir on March 06, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

And our defense? Better right?
Our defense has been better. But it actually got better with Rondo in January and has stayed at the same level since his injury.

Our defense in February was actually a little worse than our defense in January.

Our offense however was much better in February, better than our hot offensive start in November.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 10:56:12 AM
And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Maybe, but on the balance, a Bradley + Lee backcourt is miles ahead in both size and defensive intensity than a Rondo + Bradley backcourt. Make of this what you will.

I wouldn't say miles at all but it is better and more fundamentally sound on defense.  Rondo and Bradley worked well together especially because Rondo could get steals off of Bradley's ball pressure but I do agree that Lee and Bradley is a better defensive backcourt overall and you don't have to give up size.

If you look at the team's defensive numbers with Bradley vs without it's clear what kind of impact he has had.
By "miles ahead" I really mean two things:

(1) We can have a PG-sized guard covering PGs and a SG-sized guard covering SGs.

(2) No more awkward cross-matching on offense and defense, where there's always the inherent risk you'll lose your man on the break.

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Fafnir on March 06, 2013, 10:56:44 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

Being .6% better on 2 point shots shows that things are effectively the same with rondo as without.
Yeah the biggest thing is we're hitting out 3s at a better rate and getting more of them.

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 10:56:48 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

Being .6% better on 2 point shots shows that things are effectively the same with rondo as without.

6% better on 2 points shots, means you can score around 10-12 ponits more in a game ...do not forget the score 20-23 Vs 12-4
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 10:58:01 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

Being .6% better on 2 point shots shows that things are effectively the same with rondo as without.

6% better on 2 points shots, means you can score around 10-12 ponits more in a game ...do not forget the score 20-23 Vs 12-4

POINT 6 percent better not 6 percent.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 06, 2013, 10:59:49 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

And our defense? Better right?
Our defense has been better. But it actually got better with Rondo in January and has stayed at the same level since his injury.

Our defense in February was actually a little worse than our defense in January.

Our offense however was much better in February, better than our hot offensive start in November.

In February we were using Bass as a center in quite a few games too O.o And Doc was using some of our smallest units since the start of the season.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Fafnir on March 06, 2013, 11:02:06 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

And our defense? Better right?
Our defense has been better. But it actually got better with Rondo in January and has stayed at the same level since his injury.

Our defense in February was actually a little worse than our defense in January.

Our offense however was much better in February, better than our hot offensive start in November.

In February we were using Bass as a center in quite a few games too O.o And Doc was using some of our smallest units since the start of the season.
Doc rarely used Bass at C even in February. Jason Collins and/or Wilcox + KG ate up the vast majority of the C minutes.

Bass would get maybe 3-5 per game with that unit, if even that.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Rondo2287 on March 06, 2013, 11:03:28 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

Being .6% better on 2 point shots shows that things are effectively the same with rondo as without.

6% better on 2 points shots, means you can score around 10-12 ponits more in a game ...do not forget the score 20-23 Vs 12-4

POINT 6 percent better not 6 percent.

Yes, please consider the analytics.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: fairweatherfan on March 06, 2013, 11:05:33 AM

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.

Gah, that Twitter phrasing hurts my brain, but I like that we're frustrating teams to the point they're asking us to stop.  Reminds me of Jameer against Bradley last year, except Jrue is a lot quicker and more athletic than Jameer.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: connor on March 06, 2013, 11:06:12 AM
I'm not of the mind that we are better withut Rondo. His level of talent will make any team better, end of. But I do think a lot of good can come from this team getting some experience playing without him. Rondo became too much of our offensive identity. Everything ran through him, he was looking for the assist on every possession, there wasn't enough ball movement. Without him we've seen a more up tempo approach since they don't just look to get the ball to Rondo, we are pushing the ball more off of defensive rebounds and moving it more in our half court offense. If Rondo can bring his flair for passing the ball and incorporate that into this style of play I think we would be a better team (with him on the court and when he is off).

We should all petition the league to start counting hocket assists as 1/2 an assist and maybe Rondo will be more willing to move the ball earlier in possessions rather than waiting until the end.

I expected us to go on a run like this when Rondo was playing. This team has too much veteran experience and talent to not put together a good few streaks. So I don't see our current streak as being indicative of us being better without Rondo but I'm hoping that we can use this experience to play better when he eventually comes back next year.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 11:07:15 AM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 11:07:36 AM

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.

Gah, that Twitter phrasing hurts my brain, but I like that we're frustrating teams to the point they're asking us to stop.  Reminds me of Jameer against Bradley last year, except Jrue is a lot quicker and more athletic than Jameer.

Yeah I thought the same thing, I've heard it from a few subpar ball handlers but I love hearing from a PG who I think is actually really good.

I love the pride that they take in it.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 11:09:25 AM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.

No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: furball on March 06, 2013, 11:14:25 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 11:16:42 AM

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.

Gah, that Twitter phrasing hurts my brain, but I like that we're frustrating teams to the point they're asking us to stop.  Reminds me of Jameer against Bradley last year, except Jrue is a lot quicker and more athletic than Jameer.

How does it hurt your brain?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 11:17:33 AM

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.

Gah, that Twitter phrasing hurts my brain, but I like that we're frustrating teams to the point they're asking us to stop.  Reminds me of Jameer against Bradley last year, except Jrue is a lot quicker and more athletic than Jameer.

How does it hurt your brain?

Probably the spelling and grammar.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: connor on March 06, 2013, 11:18:02 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.
TP

Great argument. Never even thought about it that way.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: pearljammer10 on March 06, 2013, 11:19:03 AM
With Rondo 20-23, without Rondo 12-4. This was told yesterday at NBA Game Time on TNT. Mention that Cs know move better the ball ad get better % on FG

Why do you need TNT to come up with this little gem? We kinda discuss this just about every hour on CelticsBlog.

Are jealous about TNT? ::) Instead of doing that, I strongly suggest you to analyze the statistics, not making bla bla bla. Do not destroy topics please.

This topic has already been destroyed by the fact that it is in fact brought up about every hour and is still in fact ridiculous to think we are better without Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Rondo2287 on March 06, 2013, 11:20:12 AM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.

Question, if a company releases bad earning results but the stock goes up, would you say the stock went up becuase of the bad earnings results or would you try and look deeper and see if there was another reason?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 11:20:49 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 11:25:39 AM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.


Keep focused here...These are important facts showning the team work is much better now without him. Gettin better % on 2 ponits or 3 points shots means that the ball movement and the circulation are better.

  It means that the team was slumping in Dec/Jan because players like PP and Jet and Rondo were playing through Rondo. Our best shooting month is still November.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Redz on March 06, 2013, 11:28:28 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

I prefer to blame Barbosa and credit Shavlik Randolph for our undefeated record since he arrived.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Yogi on March 06, 2013, 11:35:40 AM
Guys we are 100% without KG!!!!!!!!! That old fool is just trying to pad his stats and holding us back!!! Quick let's trade him for Aaron Gray and Krylo Fesenko then we would beat the Heat with 2 7 footers!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 11:38:11 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 11:41:48 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's tiring to read.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 11:47:16 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's getting tired to read.

Translation: "I have no legit counter point so Ill just insult your post and move on" Nothing I said was false.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's getting tired to read.

Translation: "I have no legit counter point so Ill just insult your post and move on" Nothing I said was false.

I've made points throughout this forum and in this very thread.  Go look them all up.

It's funny you say this responding to a comment made by another poster which says "Why don't we think Sullinger made our team worse?" which you just ignore.  So if you want to ignore the record with Sullinger, then we'll ignore Rondo's record.  So what are your points then?  I'd love to hear them.

We've already seen stats that our percentages aren't much different shooting, our pace is about the same, our fast break points are about the same.

Our defense has been better since Avery came back, he is the cause of that, and that is the strength of our team and the catalyst for our turn around.

Your point is just "Sullinger clearly made us better, Rondo clearly worse" LOL.  Wow great points.  It's funny guys like KG and Pierce and Doc don't agree with them.  They must all be idiots.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: nickagneta on March 06, 2013, 11:53:37 AM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 11:56:48 AM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's getting tired to read.

Translation: "I have no legit counter point so Ill just insult your post and move on" Nothing I said was false.

I've made points throughout this forum and in this very thread.  Go look them all up.

It's funny you say this responding to a comment made by another poster which says "Why don't we think Sullinger made our team worse?" which you just ignore.  So if you want to ignore the record with Sullinger, then we'll ignore Rondo's record.  So what are your points then?  I'd love to hear them.

We've already seen stats that our percentages aren't much different shooting, our pace is about the same, our fast break points are about the same.

Your point is just "Sullinger clearly made us better, Rondo clearly worse" LOL.  Wow great points.  It's funny guys like KG and Pierce and Doc don't agree with them.  They must all be idiots.

I didn't ignore it. I said sully made us a better rebounding team and is better than bass. Do you deny this? I said it was quite obvious just by watching the games that sully was not the problem.

You cannot say the same for rondo. "Its funny guys like KG and pierce and doc don't agree with this" Yeah, because if they did they would tell the media all about it.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 12:03:24 PM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's getting tired to read.

Translation: "I have no legit counter point so Ill just insult your post and move on" Nothing I said was false.

I've made points throughout this forum and in this very thread.  Go look them all up.

It's funny you say this responding to a comment made by another poster which says "Why don't we think Sullinger made our team worse?" which you just ignore.  So if you want to ignore the record with Sullinger, then we'll ignore Rondo's record.  So what are your points then?  I'd love to hear them.

We've already seen stats that our percentages aren't much different shooting, our pace is about the same, our fast break points are about the same.

Your point is just "Sullinger clearly made us better, Rondo clearly worse" LOL.  Wow great points.  It's funny guys like KG and Pierce and Doc don't agree with them.  They must all be idiots.

I didn't ignore it. I said sully made us a better rebounding team and is better than bass. Do you deny this? I said it was quite obvious just by watching the games that sully was not the problem.

You cannot say the same for rondo. "Its funny guys like KG and pierce and doc don't agree with this" Yeah, because if they did they would tell the media all about it.


Sullinger is obviously better than Bass and the best rebounder on our team, but you completely miss the point.  The point is there are many factors, of course you ignore that.  You just ignore my whole post here, no surprise.  Why won't you talk about Avery?

And how could I not say the same about Rondo?  He isn't a better PG than anyone else on our roster?  Is that really what you are saying here?

Rondo has done a good job tricking analysts, fans, players on his own team and others, top all time players like KG, Kobe, Magic Johnson into thinking he's a  good player when he actually ruins teams he is on.  He's pretty amazing that way, not as a basketball player.  You nailed it.

On a final note, some Oscar worthy acting from Pierce here, not shown is after when he was giddy  afterwards in the locker room that Rondo was out for the year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGpYWyC3qI
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on March 06, 2013, 12:06:03 PM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.

No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.

Thank you for saying that. Thank you.

Since we're using stats, lets look at Rondo's +/- when he was playing before the injury and tell me if he had a game where he had a negative score?

Here I'll put in the link for you guys to check it out yourselves.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/ (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/)

NONE! We are 20-23 when Rondo was playing because we were not hitting shots. It's that simple. While I agree that the ball is moving more fluid without him, please do not tell me that Rondo is hogging the ball. He's finding teammates and not hitting shots while he was healthy (yeah that's right I saw the games), that's not his fault...
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Moranis on March 06, 2013, 12:06:35 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: pearljammer10 on March 06, 2013, 12:09:01 PM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's getting tired to read.

Translation: "I have no legit counter point so Ill just insult your post and move on" Nothing I said was false.

I've made points throughout this forum and in this very thread.  Go look them all up.

It's funny you say this responding to a comment made by another poster which says "Why don't we think Sullinger made our team worse?" which you just ignore.  So if you want to ignore the record with Sullinger, then we'll ignore Rondo's record.  So what are your points then?  I'd love to hear them.

We've already seen stats that our percentages aren't much different shooting, our pace is about the same, our fast break points are about the same.

Your point is just "Sullinger clearly made us better, Rondo clearly worse" LOL.  Wow great points.  It's funny guys like KG and Pierce and Doc don't agree with them.  They must all be idiots.

I didn't ignore it. I said sully made us a better rebounding team and is better than bass. Do you deny this? I said it was quite obvious just by watching the games that sully was not the problem.

You cannot say the same for rondo. "Its funny guys like KG and pierce and doc don't agree with this" Yeah, because if they did they would tell the media all about it.

You beat me to laughing at this post because it is exactly that... Laughable.

So Sully made us a better rebounding team, but now without him we are a worse rebounding team... And we have a better record...So, if Sully didnt rebound the ball as much we would have definitely played better.

This is basically what you are doing with Rondo, and you can sway it anyway. People keep saying numbers dont lie, 20 - 23 with Rondo 12 - 4 without. But with Sully we were that same record so you can easily say "numbers dont lie" and Sully is the problem.

To think this team is better without Rondo, a top 3 true Point guard in the league. Is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 12:12:16 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: pearljammer10 on March 06, 2013, 12:12:35 PM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.

No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.

Thank you for saying that. Thank you.

Since we're using stats, lets look at Rondo's +/- when he was playing before the injury and tell me if he had a game where he had a negative score?

Here I'll put in the link for you guys to check it out yourselves.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/ (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/)

NONE! We are 20-23 when Rondo was playing because we were not hitting shots. It's that simple. While I agree that the ball is moving more fluid without him, please do not tell me that Rondo is hogging the ball. He's finding teammates and not hitting shots while he was healthy (yeah that's right I saw the games), that's not his fault...

Best point I've seen here all day!!

Rondo was getting the ball to teamates in the spots the needed the ball to get there. It was his fault that they werent hitting the open shots. Rondo would probably be averaging 16 assists per game if teammates hit even 30% of the easy shots they missed that he set up for them.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Greenback on March 06, 2013, 12:12:46 PM
I really hope Rondo gets traded before next season so that we all stop arguing and Rondo doesn't come back mess up the team again.

He has been on the trade block for years but no one wants him.  Rondo has been showcased and his stats built up to increase his market value.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: crafty213 on March 06, 2013, 12:20:16 PM
Celtics are 14-7 without Rondo this season.

101.5 per 100 possession without him, 99.2 with him. Playing with slightly more pace, less fast break points but shooting the ball better since his injury.

This season with Rondo they have averaged 95.2/game vs 97.8/ game without(Not including last night).If you factor in defensive ranking of opponent the Rondo effect shrinks a bit more if you believe on average you score less against better defenses. Avg ranking of opponent defenses with Rondo - 14 vs without Rondo 18. So they have played 20 games against worse defenses on average and that has lead to a whopping 2.6 pts/game improvement.

I think the reality is the defense started to turn around when Bradley returned. Green & Bradley took a while to get going offensively because of the health issues and Pierce stepped up his game when Rondo went down.  It was a team underachieving before the injury that had figured some things out before that ugly road trip Rondo got injured on. The underachievers have stepped up their games.  Similar to the dramatic turnaround last season.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 12:21:48 PM
How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.  I am not saying he was a problem I'm just pointing out how the argument against Rondo works both ways.  If you can make the argument based on record for Rondo then the Celtics really need to trade Sully as soon as he's healthy because he's been holding them back.

Great point.

I was saying the same thing about people not considering how much better we were with Bradley on defense.

There has been too much turmoil this season to draw clear cut statements like this.

Its not a great point at all really. If you watch the games you could clearly see sully was helping our team a great deal with his rebounding and lack of being like bass. Rondo on the other hand, he was hurting the team. The ball is always in his hands so unless he plays great the team suffers. Plus his defense made me ill.

This post is laughable.  You have some giant battle axe to grind and it's getting tired to read.

Translation: "I have no legit counter point so Ill just insult your post and move on" Nothing I said was false.

I've made points throughout this forum and in this very thread.  Go look them all up.

It's funny you say this responding to a comment made by another poster which says "Why don't we think Sullinger made our team worse?" which you just ignore.  So if you want to ignore the record with Sullinger, then we'll ignore Rondo's record.  So what are your points then?  I'd love to hear them.

We've already seen stats that our percentages aren't much different shooting, our pace is about the same, our fast break points are about the same.

Your point is just "Sullinger clearly made us better, Rondo clearly worse" LOL.  Wow great points.  It's funny guys like KG and Pierce and Doc don't agree with them.  They must all be idiots.

I didn't ignore it. I said sully made us a better rebounding team and is better than bass. Do you deny this? I said it was quite obvious just by watching the games that sully was not the problem.

You cannot say the same for rondo. "Its funny guys like KG and pierce and doc don't agree with this" Yeah, because if they did they would tell the media all about it.


Sullinger is obviously better than Bass and the best rebounder on our team, but you completely miss the point.  The point is there are many factors, of course you ignore that.  You just ignore my whole post here, no surprise.  Why won't you talk about Avery?

And how could I not say the same about Rondo?  He isn't a better PG than anyone else on our roster?  Is that really what you are saying here?

Rondo has done a good job tricking analysts, fans, players on his own team and others, top all time players like KG, Kobe, Magic Johnson into thinking he's a  good player when he actually ruins teams he is on.  He's pretty amazing that way, not as a basketball player.  You nailed it.

On a final note, some Oscar worthy acting from Pierce here, not shown is after when he was giddy  afterwards in the locker room that Rondo was out for the year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isGpYWyC3qI

I've talked about the impact avery has had on our team both this year and last more than anyone on these boards. I actually had people telling me bradley was overrated and they were giving excuses to why our defense dramatically improved once he was inserted into the starting lineup.

Rondo being a good player was never in question. The question is does rondos style of play fit well with this team and in my opinion it doesn't. I've already talked about that video. How else did you expect pierce to react? Like he didn't care? That video proves nothing.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 12:27:05 PM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.

No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.

Thank you for saying that. Thank you.

Since we're using stats, lets look at Rondo's +/- when he was playing before the injury and tell me if he had a game where he had a negative score?

Here I'll put in the link for you guys to check it out yourselves.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/ (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/)

NONE! We are 20-23 when Rondo was playing because we were not hitting shots. It's that simple. While I agree that the ball is moving more fluid without him, please do not tell me that Rondo is hogging the ball. He's finding teammates and not hitting shots while he was healthy (yeah that's right I saw the games), that's not his fault...

The plus minus stat has got to be the most overrated useless stat in the history of stats.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on March 06, 2013, 12:41:08 PM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.

No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.

Thank you for saying that. Thank you.

Since we're using stats, lets look at Rondo's +/- when he was playing before the injury and tell me if he had a game where he had a negative score?

Here I'll put in the link for you guys to check it out yourselves.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/ (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/gamelog/2013/)

NONE! We are 20-23 when Rondo was playing because we were not hitting shots. It's that simple. While I agree that the ball is moving more fluid without him, please do not tell me that Rondo is hogging the ball. He's finding teammates and not hitting shots while he was healthy (yeah that's right I saw the games), that's not his fault...

The plus minus stat has got to be the most overrated useless stat in the history of stats.

Call it as you will.

All I know is it says that Rondo, when playing, is not producing negative production to the team, and on some nights is the most productive player/minutes he play.

I guess PER is a useless stat to define a players rating as well, since it kind of does the same thing, instead the PER is on an individual scale.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 12:43:51 PM
Its funny I came into this thread saying I wasn't going to get sucked into the nonsense again. It just always gets me tho, every time.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 12:44:23 PM
Don't say this is another, NO RONDO thread.

Those TNT people also agree Rondo is a super good player!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 12:45:46 PM
Don't say this is another, NO RONDO thread.

Those TNT people also agree Rondo is a super good player!

Lol, I think everybody agrees rondo is a good player.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Moranis on March 06, 2013, 12:47:11 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Snakehead on March 06, 2013, 12:53:51 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.

I do like our ball movement but it hasn't resulted in much different percentages overall as a team.

And as far as improvements, if you look at Green for example who has improved a huge amount as the season has gone on, I don't see how Rondo affected him negatively.  He assisted a lot of his baskets before.  Lee and Avery for example are both shooting better from range.  They were getting open looks with Rondo, there is no difference but them making the shots.

And Bradley is the best guard defender in the NBA and Lee is right up there with him in the top few.  I think both are better than Rondo but that isn't a knock, they are both great.  All three are top notch.

Our defense was trending up when Rondo was playing with Avery too.

As I've said before, I think there is something to take from this streak, but the team was trending upward before and that was from defense.  With Rondo we could be doing much better now on offense for all we know.  Going forward, I would love to see the team play more freely and Rondo up his scoring playing off the ball.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Fafnir on March 06, 2013, 12:58:49 PM

Our offense was dying for better outside shooting for much of this year. Bottom third of the league at 33%, 37% would be top 10.

That increase alone is 2 points per game more, more when you factor we're taking 2 more per game. That's the majority of our offensive improvement right there, better 3 point shooting and more of it.


This is not the main thing. The main thing is the score. With Rondo, the team was under .500 score, fighting for the 8-spot. Without Rondo, the team is 12-4 and clearly the better team in all components. These are facts.
You get the score by scoring points and getting stops in games. Making more three point shots helps you score more.

They're not any better defensively, the team's defensive improvment occurred before Rondo's injury. Offensively they're better, and I was talking about "why" they are better. The why's matter.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: LarBrd33 on March 06, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
This roster is guard heavy.  It's been guard heavy since the beginning of the season.   Rondo, Bradley, Lee, Barbosa, Terry... all of those guys are quality talent.  Rondo gets about 43 minutes a game come playoff time... which left a total of 53 minutes total for the other 4 guards. 

If I were to get into Ainge's head...

Plan A was to trade a couple guards, a couple draft picks and Bass for an immediate big man upgrade... Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, Cousins etc. 

Plan B was probably to trade Rondo for a big and let the rest of the guards split the time. 


The injury just resolved a major roster conflict... freed up minutes for our quality guards to step up and have more defined roles (Barbosa now being swapped out for Crawford)... In addition, it made the ball flow through our best offensive weapon, Paul Pierce, who has been remarkable since Rondo went out... someone post his stats since Rondo went out... he's upped his assists and rebounds... it's a role Pierce had with the Celtics up until late 2009 and he's proving he's still able to do it.    It also allowed Jeff Green to have a more defined role and use his talents appropriately.  He's been outstanding. 

All of this stuff contributed to our team's improvement.  But there were three other effects of Rondo going down.  #1 - it allowed guys to share the ball and have our offense be less predictable.  We have multiple guys who can create and now they are getting the opportunity to do just that.  #2 - Rondo's somewhat of a liability without the ball, because teams don't respect his shot.  That means that when Rondo didn't have the ball, it put more defensive pressure on everyone else, because Rondo's man would slack off.  We now have more offensive weapons on the floor at the same time.  #3 - Bradley and Lee are clearly our best defensive guards and now they are starting together.  More importantly, it moves point-guard sized Bradley to point guard.  He's not a shooting guard.  He's best used as a stopper for other point-guard sized scorers.  A beautiful example of that was against Steph Curry and the Warriors... I think we would have had Bradley on Klay Thompson and Rondo guarding Curry ... and I'm not sure it would have worked as well.  Thompson has 5 inches and 25 pounds on Bradley... I much prefer seeing Lee guard him and allowing our best defensive point guard play the point guard position.

All of the above contributes to us clearly playing better without Rondo.  BUt that doesn't mean Rondo is a bad player. Rondo is excellent.  This team is just built to withstand losing him in a big way.   
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 06, 2013, 01:52:45 PM
Rondo is a talented star, rather see his talents traded for quality impact big to help KG.  And then split the guard duties between Lee , AB, JET, exc

If Rondo continues his lazy ways of walking the ball up court next year , I'll lose my mind , so to keep my sanity , I would just rather let some other team pull their hair out watching Rondo pound the ball wasting time and playing patsy defense .

it maybe time to say good bye to Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 06, 2013, 02:06:51 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.

It's been pointed out to you a few times already, but your second paragraph is absolutely false.  Our defense improved with the return of Avery Bradley, but it has not improved more since Rondo got injured. 

According to the numbers at Basketball reference, our Defensive Rating (estimated points per 100 possessions) is at 102.2 for the season. 

In the twelve games that Rondo and Bradley started together, the team's Defensive Rating was 100.0

In the sixteen games since Rondo has been injured, the team's Defensive Rating has been at 100.0

Based on those numbers, it would appear that our defensive improvement is absolutely a positive statement on Avery Bradley's defense and not a knock on Rondo's. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 02:42:51 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.

  That rarely if ever happens. People are remembering more of what they read on the board than what happened on the court.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Moranis on March 06, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.

It's been pointed out to you a few times already, but your second paragraph is absolutely false.  Our defense improved with the return of Avery Bradley, but it has not improved more since Rondo got injured. 

According to the numbers at Basketball reference, our Defensive Rating (estimated points per 100 possessions) is at 102.2 for the season. 

In the twelve games that Rondo and Bradley started together, the team's Defensive Rating was 100.0

In the sixteen games since Rondo has been injured, the team's Defensive Rating has been at 100.0

Based on those numbers, it would appear that our defensive improvement is absolutely a positive statement on Avery Bradley's defense and not a knock on Rondo's.
How can you lose a 1st team league defender and not get worse, though?  I mean seriously if it doesn't matter if Rondo plays on either end of the floor, then why shouldn't Boston trade him?  The stats show he has absolutely no positive impact on Boston's offense or its defense.  Clearly that shows we should just trade him and move on.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 03:36:26 PM
Since Rondo's ACL injury the C's are:

Shooting .6% better on 2 point shots
Shooting 3.5% better on 3 point shots
Taking a higher ratio of 3s to 2s.
Also turning it over slightly less as a team.
Our FTAs to FGAs is essentially the same
Our FT% is essentially the same.
Our pace has increased roughly 1 possession per game.

Edit:
Our rebounding on both ends declined. (That's Sullinger more than Rondo, though Rondo going out hurts that aspect too)

Last I checked, the team's APG was also flat if not a little improved. To me that explains in part why the Cs have garnered a better record without him thus far.



 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Boston Garden Leprechaun on March 06, 2013, 03:43:44 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.






well then that settles it. let's just foreit the rest of the season. no reason to play anymore.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Boston Garden Leprechaun on March 06, 2013, 03:45:30 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.

please, no facts sir!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Boston Garden Leprechaun on March 06, 2013, 03:48:48 PM
Rondo is a talented star, rather see his talents traded for quality impact big to help KG.  And then split the guard duties between Lee , AB, JET, exc

If Rondo continues his lazy ways of walking the ball up court next year , I'll lose my mind , so to keep my sanity , I would just rather let some other team pull their hair out watching Rondo pound the ball wasting time and playing patsy defense .

it maybe time to say good bye to Rondo.

been sayin'

if people cannot see rondo holds the ball until the shot clock is almost gone forcing us to take crap shots then i cannot help them. it is what it is.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 03:54:06 PM
Ain't it too late to trade for this season? Yes.

No guarantees on KG returning.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics4ever on March 06, 2013, 03:55:55 PM
Want to bet, I bet we more more championships with Rondo with this group than without him?   Put up or shut up!  You think we are so good without him.   How about $100?   I bet we don't win the title this year.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 03:58:34 PM
Want to bet, I bet we more more championships with Rondo with this group than without him?   Put up or shut up!  You think we are so good without him.   How about $100?   I bet we don't win the title this year.

I didn't think we'd win a title this year with rondo and I still don't think we will.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 04:08:25 PM
How can you lose a 1st team league defender and not get worse, though?  I mean seriously if it doesn't matter if Rondo plays on either end of the floor, then why shouldn't Boston trade him?  The stats show he has absolutely no positive impact on Boston's offense or its defense.  Clearly that shows we should just trade him and move on.

  One would hope that the people making the decisions have seen Rondo play quite a bit over the last few years and aren't going to dump him based on a knee-jerk reaction to a *team* that was playing poorly for a stretch in the middle of the year. There's no way to draw reasonable opinions about players on a team that's tremendously inconsistent when the numbers are only over a short period of time.

  I think when Rondo went out his +/- was -50 or so. If you look at the Kings game around new years when Rondo played most of the game even though he was hobbled by a hip injury, he was -25 in that game. That 1 game was about *half* of his overall +/- for the 40 or so games that he played in. That should give you a little indication of how noisy those numbers are. If he'd have missed that game and the score had been the same he'd be 25 points better on the court and the team would be 25 points worse with him off the court, a 50 point swing.

  As for his +/- on defense, it was around -0.7 when he stopped playing. It's getting worse over time because he played such a high percentage of his minutes early in the year when the defense was awful. But it's also important to note that the player on the team that makes the biggest impact on the defense is KG and Rondo played over 40% of his minutes with KG on the bench. Those horrible Bass/Sully minutes that were killing the team early this year? Rondo was generally on the court for those. If you consider what the numbers for Rondo's minutes would have looked like just accounting for KG's effect on the defense it would have been just over -1, so the -0.7 wasn't bad.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 04:11:13 PM
Rondo is a talented star, rather see his talents traded for quality impact big to help KG.  And then split the guard duties between Lee , AB, JET, exc

If Rondo continues his lazy ways of walking the ball up court next year , I'll lose my mind , so to keep my sanity , I would just rather let some other team pull their hair out watching Rondo pound the ball wasting time and playing patsy defense .

it maybe time to say good bye to Rondo.

been sayin'

if people cannot see rondo holds the ball until the shot clock is almost gone forcing us to take crap shots then i cannot help them. it is what it is.

  Most teams take more shots late in the shot clock than we did with Rondo playing. We haven't improved in that area at all without him, in fact last I checked our shot clock violations were up about 50% without him. It is what it is.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: connor on March 06, 2013, 04:16:08 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.

It's been pointed out to you a few times already, but your second paragraph is absolutely false.  Our defense improved with the return of Avery Bradley, but it has not improved more since Rondo got injured. 

According to the numbers at Basketball reference, our Defensive Rating (estimated points per 100 possessions) is at 102.2 for the season. 

In the twelve games that Rondo and Bradley started together, the team's Defensive Rating was 100.0

In the sixteen games since Rondo has been injured, the team's Defensive Rating has been at 100.0

Based on those numbers, it would appear that our defensive improvement is absolutely a positive statement on Avery Bradley's defense and not a knock on Rondo's.
How can you lose a 1st team league defender and not get worse, though?  I mean seriously if it doesn't matter if Rondo plays on either end of the floor, then why shouldn't Boston trade him?  The stats show he has absolutely no positive impact on Boston's offense or its defense.  Clearly that shows we should just trade him and move on.
If Rondo is such a non factor on either end of the floor, how are we supposed to get any sort of quality return for him? Especially coming off of knee injury. What GM worth his salt would give up anything of value in either picks, young assets, or quality size for a guard coming off an injury who apparently has no impact on his team's success? And if thats the case he is well overpaid for what he produces.

You can't have it both ways saying that Rondo doesn't add significant value to this team and at the same time say we should to move him for valuable assets. It's one or the other.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 06, 2013, 04:22:39 PM
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 06, 2013, 04:24:08 PM
Want to bet, I bet we more more championships with Rondo with this group than without him?   Put up or shut up!  You think we are so good without him.   How about $100?   I bet we don't win the title this year.

In the words of the great, late songwriter Billy Preston, "Nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin'"
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 04:37:21 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

  Our highest fg% came in November, not February. That was when Rondo was controlling our offense. In fact our best stretch of shooting all year probably came during his assist streak. Why do you contend they were shooting better then than they are with Rondo out?

  If you look at PP/KG/Terry they combined to shoot 48% in November, 43% in January and 45.5% in February. Those 3 players combine to take 44% of the team's shots, so that 5% drop from November to January had a significant effect on the teams overall shooting percentage. Why do you contend that their best shooting month was in November when Rondo was controlling the ball? How does that fit into your "better shots from better ball movement" theory?

  The fact of the matter is there are various reasons that the team went through a slump, just like they have almost every year since KG arrived. Trying to blame it on Rondo is silly. None of the explanations about why the offense is so great without Rondo go far in explaining why it was only bad with Rondo some of the time or why we played some of our best (probably our very best) offense of the year with Rondo controlling the team. When someone comes up with a theory that *does* explain this it's probably worth listening to, until then not so much.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 04:44:40 PM
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

  You should have seen the team in the playoffs last year. KG, Allen and PP not only declined but two of them were playing through injuries and Rondo got us to within a game of the finals. One can only hope that he gives the team more of those "valueless" years. Also Rondo's assist streak went about a month into this season. The team was a top 10 offensive team during that time, clearly an example of how Rondo doesn't fit in with the current team. There's plenty of evidence, it points to why it would be a mistake to get rid of a player that fits in so poorly with this team.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Moranis on March 06, 2013, 04:45:45 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

And again, how can you lose your best player a guy who is a multiple time all league defender and improve your defense.  That shouldn't happen and is a huge knock on Rondo.

It's been pointed out to you a few times already, but your second paragraph is absolutely false.  Our defense improved with the return of Avery Bradley, but it has not improved more since Rondo got injured. 

According to the numbers at Basketball reference, our Defensive Rating (estimated points per 100 possessions) is at 102.2 for the season. 

In the twelve games that Rondo and Bradley started together, the team's Defensive Rating was 100.0

In the sixteen games since Rondo has been injured, the team's Defensive Rating has been at 100.0

Based on those numbers, it would appear that our defensive improvement is absolutely a positive statement on Avery Bradley's defense and not a knock on Rondo's.
How can you lose a 1st team league defender and not get worse, though?  I mean seriously if it doesn't matter if Rondo plays on either end of the floor, then why shouldn't Boston trade him?  The stats show he has absolutely no positive impact on Boston's offense or its defense.  Clearly that shows we should just trade him and move on.
If Rondo is such a non factor on either end of the floor, how are we supposed to get any sort of quality return for him? Especially coming off of knee injury. What GM worth his salt would give up anything of value in either picks, young assets, or quality size for a guard coming off an injury who apparently has no impact on his team's success? And if thats the case he is well overpaid for what he produces.

You can't have it both ways saying that Rondo doesn't add significant value to this team and at the same time say we should to move him for valuable assets. It's one or the other.
See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: nickagneta on March 06, 2013, 04:49:28 PM
The funny thing is that Danny Ainge just comes out and laughs when he sees people saying the Celtics are better without Rondo than with him. Its Ainge that states the better overall team play has to do more with certain players getting acclimated and healthy and out of slumps and into their roles than it does Rondo not being there.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 04:53:05 PM
Stats are great but have to be taken in context.

1. Rondo has hardly played with the best defensive player in the league this year. When Avery Bradley was added to last year's starting team, they became the best defensive team since the 2007-08 Celtics. Bradley was not playing with Rondo for most of that pre-injury record. Bradley might be playing his best ball as a Celtic right now.

2. People mention movement when they mention the difference in the offense pre- and post Rondo's injury. Think about that for a moment. If players were getting off on fast breaks with Rondo and moving around more in the half court when Rondo was around, do you think the Celtics record would have been what it was prior to his injury?

3. The Celtics have had starts of seasons when they are unbeatable and they have had starts when they sputtered along until something clicked in they play great. With Pierce and Terry fighting through nagging injuries, with no Bradley, with Green and Wilcox overcoming heart surgery operations and with Lee, Green, Terry, Barbosa, Wilcox, Darko, and the rookies all trying to figure out their roles, this wasn't going to be a year where they started off unbeatable.

Yes, I think a definite line of demarcation can be drawn around the time Rondo got injured(though I think around Bradley's return would be better) where this team's performance changed and several players suddenly saw the quality of their effort, their performance, and their knowledge of what they were doing increase and make the team as a whole play like the contender everyone thought it was going to be before the season started.

Unfortunately regular season wins and winning 4 games out of seven games to the same team as they game plan your players much more individually are two different things. We couldn't beat Miami without Bradley last year, We certainly aren't beating them without Rondo, Sully and Barbosa.
I recall a number of early games in the season where someone would run out on a break and Rondo wouldn't get them ball but would rather bring it up himself.  A player only runs out so many times before he determines it is a wasted effort and doesn't do it.  when Rondo was on the team there wasn't nearly the ball movement.  It was about Rondo dribbling around till someone got open and Rondo could get a pass in an assist situation.  Without Rondo, the ball just moves around a lot more and when someone is open the shot comes.  I certainly think Rondo could fit fine in that type of system, but he just hasn't play that way.  If he can't adapt he needs to be traded.

And seriously what does it say that the team can lose its best player and add its 5th best player and get better on both ends of the floor.  That is much more a knock on Rondo than a positive to Bradley.

But our offense isn't much different.  You say it's better but it's basically the same.

Individual players are just shooting better or in Green's case especially, playing better.

The defense has improved but that is a credit to Avery Bradley.
I contend they are shooting better because of the ball movement.  They are getting better shots in situations that are more suited for their skill sets.

  Our highest fg% came in November, not February. That was when Rondo was controlling our offense. In fact our best stretch of shooting all year probably came during his assist streak. Why do you contend they were shooting better then than they are with Rondo out?

  If you look at PP/KG/Terry they combined to shoot 48% in November, 43% in January and 45.5% in February. Those 3 players combine to take 44% of the team's shots, so that 5% drop from November to January had a significant effect on the teams overall shooting percentage. Why do you contend that their best shooting month was in November when Rondo was controlling the ball? How does that fit into your "better shots from better ball movement" theory?

  The fact of the matter is there are various reasons that the team went through a slump, just like they have almost every year since KG arrived. Trying to blame it on Rondo is silly. None of the explanations about why the offense is so great without Rondo go far in explaining why it was only bad with Rondo some of the time or why we played some of our best (probably our very best) offense of the year with Rondo controlling the team. When someone comes up with a theory that *does* explain this it's probably worth listening to, until then not so much.

So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 04:57:28 PM
I usually don't post in silly threads such as such.

But, the Celtics play great under adversity. I'll put a Q out there: can this 12-4 pace be maintained throughout a whole season? If so, waive Rondo, and lets win us some rings. I'm not taking any sides here, just wondering

Can this be maintained?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 04:57:47 PM
The funny thing is that Danny Ainge just comes out and laughs when he sees people saying the Celtics are better without Rondo than with him. Its Ainge that states the better overall team play has to do more with certain players getting acclimated and healthy and out of slumps and into their roles than it does Rondo not being there.

Of course he does. What else could be possibly do or say?

Can't imagine anyone in the league buys it. (Most) NBA GMs are not idiots --  they've presumably noticed that the Cs have responded incredibly positively to the guy going away.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: timobusa on March 06, 2013, 05:04:33 PM
While you are right that the celtics are 20-23 with rondo and 12-4 without him.

We're also 2007-08 NBA Champions, 5 straight Atlantic Division Champions, 6 minutes away from another title in 2010, 4 minutes away from another finals appearance 2012 with Rondo.

So yes I guess we are better without Rondo.....

SMH
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: nickagneta on March 06, 2013, 05:05:53 PM
Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 with Rondo: 11

Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 without Rondo:0

I guess the real important stat, the one above, will really tell whether Rondo is important to this team.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celtics2 on March 06, 2013, 05:06:07 PM
The Celtics have renewed their vigor for wins. One can tell by Pierce and Kg. They are happy campers. The Philly game showed athleticism the likes of what the Celts haven't had in a long time. It means we can at least win the games we should win. I do diss Doc a lot but he is up for these games also. The Truth is still the Heart of the Team but he has an interesting cast of characters behind him. All Celtic fans want is effort. If that is practiced the wins will be there.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celtics2 on March 06, 2013, 05:15:29 PM


Rondo does fit this type of system. We have seen it plenty of times, particularly in his early career. Have no clue why they went away from it, particularly as he's been improving his off-the-ball skills, especially his shooting.

We saw it a lot in pre-season too, then regular season started and all we had been seeing from this team went to the trash can for no apparent reason.
[/quote]

Rondo just isn't a spark plug. There aren't that many around the League. Bradley is probably one of if not the best on the ball defender in the League. He is a bottle of that 4 hr energizer stuff. That can't be taught. Usually one can be found in the 6th roster spot and they give off extra spurts of liveliness whereas Bradley does it as a starter and is not limited to defense. It's getting contagious.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: erisred on March 06, 2013, 05:16:06 PM
Our defense being better had alot to do with bradley AND Lee replacing rondo in the starting lineup.
I agree.  However, this doesn't mean that Rondo can't play excellent defense, just that he wasn'tplaying excellent defense. Rondo was playing too many minutes, for one thing, but he also appeared to be playing less hard on defense (resting maybe) than in the past...going for more "blow-by steals" rather than playing straight up on his man, for example. Maybe he was hurting longer than we knew, maybe he was just getting tired, but maybe he was just being a little lazy.

Without Rondo's passing and ball handling everyone had to step up their game. Well, sure! When 8 very good players all start playing harder because they *had* to, and some of them coming out of slumps and recovering from injuries, I can see where it might make up for one great player being out.

Bottom line is, though, the Celtics are not better without Rondo. They are playing better now even without Rondo. Those are two different things.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celtics2 on March 06, 2013, 05:20:28 PM
While you are right that the celtics are 20-23 with rondo and 12-4 without him.

We're also 2007-08 NBA Champions, 5 straight Atlantic Division Champions, 6 minutes away from another title in 2010, 4 minutes away from another finals appearance 2012 with Rondo.

So yes I guess we are better without Rondo.....

SMH

The past speaks for itself. It's the Present that counts. What have you done for me lately. Can't live on past laurels. No one is bigger than the Team.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: erisred on March 06, 2013, 05:24:57 PM
And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Maybe, but on the balance, a Bradley + Lee backcourt is miles ahead in both size and defensive intensity than a Rondo + Bradley backcourt. Make of this what you will.

I wouldn't say miles at all but it is better and more fundamentally sound on defense.  Rondo and Bradley worked well together especially because Rondo could get steals off of Bradley's ball pressure but I do agree that Lee and Bradley is a better defensive backcourt overall and you don't have to give up size.

If you look at the team's defensive numbers with Bradley vs without it's clear what kind of impact he has had.
By "miles ahead" I really mean two things:

(1) We can have a PG-sized guard covering PGs and a SG-sized guard covering SGs.

(2) No more awkward cross-matching on offense and defense, where there's always the inherent risk you'll lose your man on the break.

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.
This, right here, is something I just don't get. Did Holiday expect Avery or Courtney to just say, "Sure! We'll take it easy on you old buddy!" If it'd been me, I'd have told him, "If can't take the heat go take a seat on the bench, cause it's gonna get hotter!"
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 05:26:48 PM
Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 with Rondo: 11

Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 without Rondo:0

I guess the real important stat, the one above, will really tell whether Rondo is important to this team.

No matter how much we explain our stance, we still continue to get comments like this which just proves nobody is listening or paying attention. Its pretty pointless at this point to keep repeating ourselves. Nobody is going to change their mind on their stance any time soon or ever. Plus, that comment you wrote is pretty silly all on its own.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 05:27:51 PM
And this coincided more with Avery Bradley coming back than Rondo being injured.
Maybe, but on the balance, a Bradley + Lee backcourt is miles ahead in both size and defensive intensity than a Rondo + Bradley backcourt. Make of this what you will.

I wouldn't say miles at all but it is better and more fundamentally sound on defense.  Rondo and Bradley worked well together especially because Rondo could get steals off of Bradley's ball pressure but I do agree that Lee and Bradley is a better defensive backcourt overall and you don't have to give up size.

If you look at the team's defensive numbers with Bradley vs without it's clear what kind of impact he has had.
By "miles ahead" I really mean two things:

(1) We can have a PG-sized guard covering PGs and a SG-sized guard covering SGs.

(2) No more awkward cross-matching on offense and defense, where there's always the inherent risk you'll lose your man on the break.

Good points.  I was just saying there was some strengths with Rondo as well but I do love Lee and Bradley overall.  They are a great defensive combo and we don't give up any size.

@CourtneyLee2211
Eye is coo! Not sure how it want a and1 but oh well!Highlight of the night, JRU came to me and @avery_bradley and ask us to cool the Defense


Jru Holiday asked them both to relax on defense last night haha.
This, right here, is something I just don't get. Did Holiday expect Avery or Courtney to just say, "Sure! We'll take it easy on you old buddy!" If it'd been me, I'd have told him, "If can't take the heat go take a seat on the bench, cause it's gonna get hotter!"

Hahahahaha, that's funny. TP for the nugget find (snake).
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BleedGreen1989 on March 06, 2013, 05:32:00 PM
Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 with Rondo: 11

Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 without Rondo:0

I guess the real important stat, the one above, will really tell whether Rondo is important to this team.

No matter how much we explain our stance, we still continue to get comments like this which just proves nobody is listening or paying attention. Its pretty pointless at this point to keep repeating ourselves. Nobody is going to change their mind on their stance any time soon or ever. Plus, that comment you wrote is pretty silly all on its own.

How in the world is his comment a silly one? Try and argue that Rondo has NOT been our playoff MVP...go ahead
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 05:32:40 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 05:34:32 PM


Rondo does fit this type of system. We have seen it plenty of times, particularly in his early career. Have no clue why they went away from it, particularly as he's been improving his off-the-ball skills, especially his shooting.

We saw it a lot in pre-season too, then regular season started and all we had been seeing from this team went to the trash can for no apparent reason.

Rondo just isn't a spark plug. There aren't that many around the League. Bradley is probably one of if not the best on the ball defender in the League. He is a bottle of that 4 hr energizer stuff. That can't be taught. Usually one can be found in the 6th roster spot and they give off extra spurts of liveliness whereas Bradley does it as a starter and is not limited to defense. It's getting contagious.
[/quote]

  Yes, Rondo's never been known as a spark plug. That's why we've been hearing "Rondo is the straw that stirs the drink" and "as Rondo goes, so goes the Celtics" for years.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 05:39:05 PM
Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 with Rondo: 11

Playoff series won by Celtics since 2007-08 without Rondo:0

I guess the real important stat, the one above, will really tell whether Rondo is important to this team.

No matter how much we explain our stance, we still continue to get comments like this which just proves nobody is listening or paying attention. Its pretty pointless at this point to keep repeating ourselves. Nobody is going to change their mind on their stance any time soon or ever. Plus, that comment you wrote is pretty silly all on its own.

How in the world is his comment a silly one? Try and argue that Rondo has NOT been our playoff MVP...go ahead

Depends what year you're talking about. Jesus, some of the arguments you guys bring up are so weak idk why I'm wasting my time. The year we actually won it all pierce was our playoff MVP and finals mvp.

His comment was silly because how many playoff series did we even play without rondo? Its not like we have alot to compare it too. Has rondo even missed a playoff game since 07-08? I can't recall. That's why its silly.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 05:46:49 PM


Rondo does fit this type of system. We have seen it plenty of times, particularly in his early career. Have no clue why they went away from it, particularly as he's been improving his off-the-ball skills, especially his shooting.

We saw it a lot in pre-season too, then regular season started and all we had been seeing from this team went to the trash can for no apparent reason.

Rondo just isn't a spark plug. There aren't that many around the League. Bradley is probably one of if not the best on the ball defender in the League. He is a bottle of that 4 hr energizer stuff. That can't be taught. Usually one can be found in the 6th roster spot and they give off extra spurts of liveliness whereas Bradley does it as a starter and is not limited to defense. It's getting contagious.

  Yes, Rondo's never been known as a spark plug. That's why we've been hearing "Rondo is the straw that stirs the drink" and "as Rondo goes, so goes the Celtics" for years.
[/quote]

Rondo has the keys to the car "The ball" and he has it all the time. So if rondo doesn't play well, its kind of hard to overcome that.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: erisred on March 06, 2013, 05:47:40 PM
The funny thing is that Danny Ainge just comes out and laughs when he sees people saying the Celtics are better without Rondo than with him. Its Ainge that states the better overall team play has to do more with certain players getting acclimated and healthy and out of slumps and into their roles than it does Rondo not being there.
And that is probably more true than not. However, Danny would never, never, say anything that would lower Rondo's market value either. :)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 05:47:55 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.

I'm not missing the point at all. Stop making excuses and answer the question directly.

What have the 2012-13 Boston Celtics lacked without Rondo?




Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 06:00:27 PM
The point of this thread is????

If you want to trade Rondo just because of this, then now I am able to understand why other teams fan often make of us. Seriously, it seems some fans use no logic when saying somethings. So what if we have a better record? So what if everyone is getting the ball? Was Rondo not playing last year? Was he not playing the year before? Don't give me that nonsense that at that time, he was more a team player, because by 2010-11 season, he began to dominate the ball.

Seriously, use some logic. Tomorrow, if LeBron gets injured and Heat somehow have a better record than they had with LeBron, would they trade LeBron too? According to many idiots over here, yes they would.

Use your brain.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 06:11:06 PM

Use your brain.

You know this is celticsblog, right?   :D
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 06:12:28 PM

Use your brain.

You know this is celticsblog, right?   :D
Oh haha, I think I forgot! :D
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 06:15:02 PM

Use your brain.

You know this is celticsblog, right?   :D
Oh haha, I think I forgot! :D

 ;D ;D ;D :D Funny.

If RONDO came back now, we'd probably get a 40-60 chance of beating the heat instead of 1-99...
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 06:30:41 PM
The point of this thread is????

If you want to trade Rondo just because of this, then now I am able to understand why other teams fan often make of us. Seriously, it seems some fans use no logic when saying somethings. So what if we have a better record? So what if everyone is getting the ball? Was Rondo not playing last year? Was he not playing the year before? Don't give me that nonsense


Of course there is a sense...During big 3 dynasty, in 5 years this team won only 1 title (I would say the minimum possible). Comparing to San Antonio big3 dynasty, they got 3 championships. So, do you see the difference? Yes, imagine if you have Westbrook instead of Rondo or CP3 instead of Rondo. So? I am sure with another playmaker like Westbrook (much better than Rondo) Cs will during big 3 dynasty at least 3 championship. In my opinion this score of this year, 12-4 when Rondo is out, tells that he is not a real big start that can bring you a championship, and he of course is overrated point guard. To traded or not is not my job, but at least be fair and except the reality.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 06:37:15 PM

Use your brain.

You know this is celticsblog, right?   :D
Oh haha, I think I forgot! :D

 ;D ;D ;D :D Funny.

If RONDO came back now, we'd probably get a 40-60 chance of beating the heat instead of 1-99...

I'd agree they stand a better chance with Rondo, but i think your 'con Rondo' odds need a a major reality check...

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 06:47:39 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.

I'm not missing the point at all. Stop making excuses and answer the question directly.

What have the 2012-13 Boston Celtics lacked without Rondo?

  Being one of the best offenses in the league when the offense is firing on all cylinders. And clearly you're missing the point.

  To put it another way, imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 06:48:01 PM
The point of this thread is????

If you want to trade Rondo just because of this, then now I am able to understand why other teams fan often make of us. Seriously, it seems some fans use no logic when saying somethings. So what if we have a better record? So what if everyone is getting the ball? Was Rondo not playing last year? Was he not playing the year before? Don't give me that nonsense


Of course there is a sense...During big 3 dynasty, in 5 years this team won only 1 title (I would say the minimum possible). Comparing to San Antonio big3 dynasty, they got 3 championships. So, do you see the difference? Yes, imagine if you have Westbrook instead of Rondo or CP3 instead of Rondo. So? I am sure with another playmaker like Westbrook (much better than Rondo) Cs will during big 3 dynasty at least 3 championship. In my opinion this score of this year, 12-4 when Rondo is out, tells that he is not a real big start that can bring you a championship, and he of course is overrated point guard. To traded or not is not my job, but at least be fair and except the reality.
Dude, you just completely ignored the fact that KG got injured and the injury took a big hit on the team.

Westbrook? You want Westbrook? Do you even watch his playing style?

He wants to be the hero all the time. Why do you think he got benched in the PLAYOFFS? He was taking way too many shots. You're saying you want that player on the Celtics who wants to be the hero at all times and will do anything to become one? He will completely ruin the team.

Also, did you completely ignore that we always had some sort of injury that held us short?

2009 - KG's injury
2010 - Perkins' injury
2011 - Rondo's injury
2012 - Pierce and Allen injured and a bench that scores a grand total of 2 points
2013 - Rondo is already down and the championship chances have taken a very big hit.

Also, did you completely ignore the fact that Rondo tore his ACL?

So if we had Westbrook, he would not have tore his ACL because he is Westbrook?

We are lucky Rondo had only partial tear, if it was Westbrook he would be in the same position as Derrick Rose. His playing style would completely rip apart the ACL if it comes down to it.


Again, let's use the brain a bit and stop making ignorant and stupid arguments.

By the way, did you honestly just say Westbrook is better playmaker than Rondo?

Rondo - Attacks the basket and scores at will and sets up people at will.

Westbrook - Looks mainly to attack and often hogs the ball. If he is unable to attack, he just passes it to the person close to him other than on rare occasions when he finds someone open for a good shot.

Lastly, just because our opinions don't match doesn't mean I am not accepting some sort of reality.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Clench123 on March 06, 2013, 06:54:28 PM
The point of this thread is????

If you want to trade Rondo just because of this, then now I am able to understand why other teams fan often make of us. Seriously, it seems some fans use no logic when saying somethings. So what if we have a better record? So what if everyone is getting the ball? Was Rondo not playing last year? Was he not playing the year before? Don't give me that nonsense


Of course there is a sense...During big 3 dynasty, in 5 years this team won only 1 title (I would say the minimum possible). Comparing to San Antonio big3 dynasty, they got 3 championships. So, do you see the difference? Yes, imagine if you have Westbrook instead of Rondo or CP3 instead of Rondo. So? I am sure with another playmaker like Westbrook (much better than Rondo) Cs will during big 3 dynasty at least 3 championship. In my opinion this score of this year, 12-4 when Rondo is out, tells that he is not a real big start that can bring you a championship, and he of course is overrated point guard. To traded or not is not my job, but at least be fair and except the reality.

I'm surprised people are still responding to you.  Unbelievable

Go[dang], I just did too.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 06:54:43 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.

I'm not missing the point at all. Stop making excuses and answer the question directly.

What have the 2012-13 Boston Celtics lacked without Rondo?
The 2012-13 Boston Celtics have lacked a player who draws the defense and multiple defenders to him to allow other players on the team to get open for an easy jumper, layup or dunk.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 06:56:19 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.

I'm not missing the point at all. Stop making excuses and answer the question directly.

What have the 2012-13 Boston Celtics lacked without Rondo?
The 2012-13 Boston Celtics have lacked a player who draws the defense and multiple defenders to him to allow other players on the team to get open for an easy jumper, layup or dunk.

Pierce and KG do, at times.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Tr1boy on March 06, 2013, 06:57:40 PM
Like i have said , we are a better team. If with rondo the defense was a 7 and offense was a 7 (man at times did we struggle to score), without rondo our defense is a 9 (backcourt defense a 10) and offense is a 8.


Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.

I'm not missing the point at all. Stop making excuses and answer the question directly.

What have the 2012-13 Boston Celtics lacked without Rondo?
The 2012-13 Boston Celtics have lacked a player who draws the defense and multiple defenders to him to allow other players on the team to get open for an easy jumper, layup or dunk.

Pierce and KG do, at times.
Rondo did that so Pierce and KG among other could be open for shots.

Plus, if they are going to do it all season, what will happen in the playoffs?
Pierce and KG have superstar traits, hence they are still able to carry this team on nightly basis, but its stupid to expect them to do that against teams like OKC and Heat all while playing way too many minutes per game and way too many games per year.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 07:09:10 PM

Also, did you completely ignore that we always had some sort of injury that held us short?

2009 - KG's injury
2010 - Perkins' injury
2011 - Rondo's injury
2012 - Pierce and Allen injured and a bench that scores a grand total of 2 points
2013 - Rondo is already down and the championship chances have taken a very big hit.


If you go this way, tell me how many surgeries had Ginobili? How about Parker? A good team does not have to be depended on one player.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 07:11:18 PM

Again, let's use the brain a bit and stop making ignorant and stupid arguments.

By the way, did you honestly just say Westbrook is better playmaker than Rondo?



I am ignorant and you are suddently "smart"...?! If you tell me that Rondo is beter than Westbrook, I do not know who is ignorant...
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 06, 2013, 07:11:51 PM
So why does the Cs offense show no ill effects, and actually some improvement, since he left the line up? How do they miss him? What has the team lacked without him?

You use the phrase "fact of the matter" in your post. The fact is they haven't missed him statistically, and his absence obviously hasn't hurt their ability to win (or not lose) games.

So can you offer some basic, factual explanation of how the Celtics have been in any way adversely effected by his injury?

Just point to a high level area or catagory. Anything.

  I think you're missing my point. Aside from Rondo our top 5 scorers are Pierce, KG, Green, Terry and Bradley. Pierce is playing better than he was in January, presumably because his pinched nerve is less of a problem. Terry is playing better than he was in January because he was struggling with a knee injury for a while. Bradley's playing better because he was out for so long and had a rib injury. Green's playing better because he's healthier and more comfortable, and his shooting percentages have been increasing significantly as the season's progressed.

  So with Rondo out we've only played about 2 out of 16 games against top 10 defenses and 4 of our top 5 offensive players are playing noticeably better than they were before. Considering that we were a top 10 offense in November we should be well above that now. We're not. With the other players playing at the level they are now *with* Rondo we would be.

I'm not missing the point at all. Stop making excuses and answer the question directly.

What have the 2012-13 Boston Celtics lacked without Rondo?
The 2012-13 Boston Celtics have lacked a player who draws the defense and multiple defenders to him to allow other players on the team to get open for an easy jumper, layup or dunk.

Pierce and KG do, at times.
Rondo did that so Pierce and KG among other could be open for shots.

Plus, if they are going to do it all season, what will happen in the playoffs?
Pierce and KG have superstar traits, hence they are still able to carry this team on nightly basis, but its stupid to expect them to do that against teams like OKC and Heat all while playing way too many minutes per game and way too many games per year.

I think it's rather obvious Pierce and KG will play better in the postseason than in the regular season, being more superstarlike
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 06, 2013, 07:12:01 PM
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

I contend that Rondo will fit best with a team that pushes the pace much more than the Celtics have ever done during his tenure here.  Like Brian Scalabrine noted in the recent SI interview it's fairly astonishing that he's been able to do what he's done over the course of the past five seasons, playing with such a slow pace team. 

I won't go as far as to say that KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen (when he was here) have been holding him back, because I think that being raised by those veteran future hall of famers has been of immense value to him as a player.  However, I do think that if Danny can build an up tempo team around him for the future, that he will be able to take his game to even higher levels than we've already seen. 

I think it would be immense folly to trade him while his return value is at an all time low due to his knee injury.  Of course, there's no guarantee that he ever fully recovers from his knee surgery, but if he does, we already have some nice pieces around him to build a team around our young star that will suit his strengths. 

Yes, we'll need a few more pieces, but, luckily we also have some assets to accomplish that if our GM plays his cards right.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 07:23:51 PM

Again, let's use the brain a bit and stop making ignorant and stupid arguments.

By the way, did you honestly just say Westbrook is better playmaker than Rondo?



I am ignorant and you are suddently "smart"...?! If you tell me that Rondo is beter than Westbrook, I do not know who is ignorant...
Being a better playmaker doesn't mean you are a better player.

Your posts repeatedly display your lack of knowledge.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 07:24:07 PM

imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.

I think you're right. I am missing your point, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What the first part of your answer boils down to? Basically the Cs miss sizzle, even if it doesn't result in anything tangible.

So maybe we can try this a different, more productive way. Do you think Rondo can learn anything from how the Cs have been playing without him? If so, how do you see him taking that knowledge and applying it to improve his play and approach?


Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 07:29:21 PM

Also, did you completely ignore that we always had some sort of injury that held us short?

2009 - KG's injury
2010 - Perkins' injury
2011 - Rondo's injury
2012 - Pierce and Allen injured and a bench that scores a grand total of 2 points
2013 - Rondo is already down and the championship chances have taken a very big hit.


If you go this way, tell me how many surgeries had Ginobili? How about Parker? A good team does not have to be depended on one player.
You just showed your lack of understanding and knowledge again.

Their main anchors has always been Tim Duncan and Parker, at least as of recent times. Earlier, it was Duncan and Ginobili.

Also, KG and Duncan had two different playing styles. There are two different coaches.

Poppovich can still get his desired results by playing the backups, Doc can't because he is too dependent on his stars.

Also, are you seriously comparing KG's injury which took away his explosiveness from to injuries that Ginobili and Parker had?

By the way, the Spurs have not won a championship since 2007, in case you didn't know.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: connor on March 06, 2013, 08:13:21 PM
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 06, 2013, 08:33:02 PM

imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.

I think you're right. I am missing your point, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What the first part of your answer boils down to? Basically the Cs miss sizzle, even if it doesn't result in anything tangible.

So maybe we can try this a different, more productive way. Do you think Rondo can learn anything from how the Cs have been playing without him? If so, how do you see him taking that knowledge and applying it to improve his play and approach?

  First of all it's not about sizzle. I don't see why you can't get this. We didn't suck on offense all year long and suddenly start playing good when Rondo left. We started out playing very good offense (even with Green, who's playing very good now, playing much less consistently). We went from playing very well to playing poorly. Since Rondo was controlling the offense when we were playing very good on offense and he was still controlling the offense when it slumped it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something other than Rondo controlling the ball led to the slump.

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.

  And it's probably a mix of Rondo, Doc and the other players all learning things based on how the team's played over the last month or so. I know that people here think that Rondo rules the team with an iron fist and oppresses his teammates but that's not the case. He's probably doing pretty much what Doc wants him to, and there's probably a lot of truth to what Danny and KG said about the team relying too much on Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 06, 2013, 09:28:32 PM
13-4

Cha-ching.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 06, 2013, 09:33:03 PM
we would have blown Indy out if we had Rondo.... ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 09:34:27 PM
we would have blown Indy out if we had Rondo.... ::)

No for sure.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 09:36:59 PM

Again, let's use the brain a bit and stop making ignorant and stupid arguments.

By the way, did you honestly just say Westbrook is better playmaker than Rondo?



I am ignorant and you are suddently "smart"...?! If you tell me that Rondo is beter than Westbrook, I do not know who is ignorant...
Being a better playmaker doesn't mean you are a better player.

Your posts repeatedly display your lack of knowledge.

I have lack of knowledge, and you are smarter ;D. Cs continuing to win and be strong without Rondo, and you are making bla bla bla
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 06, 2013, 09:39:43 PM
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.

Strange.  That's not my post that you quoted.  I agree with what you have to say.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 06, 2013, 09:42:36 PM
who cares about wins ?...... long as Rondo makes highlight film with triple doubles 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 06, 2013, 09:45:05 PM

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.


This is just getting ugly, Timmy. It just smells like blind denial all the way around: who the team was with Rondo, who they are without him, your total disregard for results, even who their best player is... the entire POV.

I hope they keep getting worse without Rondo  ;)

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Shamrocker on March 06, 2013, 09:48:01 PM

imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.

I think you're right. I am missing your point, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What the first part of your answer boils down to? Basically the Cs miss sizzle, even if it doesn't result in anything tangible.

So maybe we can try this a different, more productive way. Do you think Rondo can learn anything from how the Cs have been playing without him? If so, how do you see him taking that knowledge and applying it to improve his play and approach?

  First of all it's not about sizzle. I don't see why you can't get this. We didn't suck on offense all year long and suddenly start playing good when Rondo left. We started out playing very good offense (even with Green, who's playing very good now, playing much less consistently). We went from playing very well to playing poorly. Since Rondo was controlling the offense when we were playing very good on offense and he was still controlling the offense when it slumped it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something other than Rondo controlling the ball led to the slump.

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.

  And it's probably a mix of Rondo, Doc and the other players all learning things based on how the team's played over the last month or so. I know that people here think that Rondo rules the team with an iron fist and oppresses his teammates but that's not the case. He's probably doing pretty much what Doc wants him to, and there's probably a lot of truth to what Danny and KG said about the team relying too much on Rondo.

Ha, a 43 game slump? That's epic.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 06, 2013, 09:49:57 PM
who cares about wins ?...... long as Rondo makes highlight film with triple doubles

TP...Yes...we do not have to care about wins but to care when Rondo will sign with HARLEM team to make triple doubles ;D
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 09:56:05 PM

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.


This is just getting ugly, Timmy. It just smells like blind denial all the way around: who the team was with Rondo, who they are without him, your total disregard for results, even who their best player is... the entire POV.

I hope they keep getting worse without Rondo  ;)

Lol well said, TP.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: badshar on March 06, 2013, 10:10:01 PM

Again, let's use the brain a bit and stop making ignorant and stupid arguments.

By the way, did you honestly just say Westbrook is better playmaker than Rondo?



I am ignorant and you are suddently "smart"...?! If you tell me that Rondo is beter than Westbrook, I do not know who is ignorant...
Being a better playmaker doesn't mean you are a better player.

Your posts repeatedly display your lack of knowledge.

I have lack of knowledge, and you are smarter ;D. Cs continuing to win and be strong without Rondo, and you are making bla bla bla
So how far do you think they will go in the playoffs?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: gpap on March 06, 2013, 10:22:06 PM
The more the Celtics play, the more it continues to amaze me how some can still make the argument that this team is not better without Rondo.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 06, 2013, 10:23:10 PM
who cares about wins ?...... long as Rondo makes highlight film with triple doubles

Sad, isn't it?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ben on March 06, 2013, 10:28:10 PM
Is the team playing better lately?  Yes.  Did the team struggle when rondo was healthy this season?  Yes.  So what?!

I firmly believe the team is better with Rondo.  Rondo is a great player.  The only argument I want to make is despite not having Rondo, this team has an opportunity to win a Championship and should not settle for anything less.  Any team can improve.  But lets not make excuses and march towards Banner 18. 

go celtics.  With or with out rondo the celtics have great players.  Just because Rondo is not playing does not mean he is not supporting his team mates.  Bleed Green, lets go!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 06, 2013, 10:33:47 PM
Is the team playing better lately?  Yes.  Did the team struggle when rondo was healthy this season?  Yes.  So what?!

I firmly believe the team is better with Rondo.  Rondo is a great player.  The only argument I want to make is despite not having Rondo, this team has an opportunity to win a Championship and should not settle for anything less.  Any team can improve.  But lets not make excuses and march towards Banner 18. 

go celtics.  With or with out rondo the celtics have great players.  Just because Rondo is not playing does not mean he is not supporting his team mates.  Bleed Green, lets go!
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.

First, I appreciate a post with basketball logic - even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. I have no interest in building around Rondo - or even going forward with him next season - because his ball-controlling offensive game, not to mention his growing ambivalence toward defense, is ill-suited to the group of players.

We have two options: Dump this roster and rebuild from scratch around Rondo, or dump Rondo - unless, of course, you're satisfied with the 20-23 product or Rondo has a similar revelation and remakes his ball-stopping offensive game. The second alternative is FAR more reasonable, doable and attractive than the first, and here's why:

Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective but as the first half of the season evidenced, he lost his gauge on exactly how long is too long in his own hands. He is simply not a scorer, even though his mid-range jumpshot has improved, his foul shooting remains below average for his position.

Further, it is his defense - or his unwillingness to play same - that has fallen off the ends of the earth.

When he wants to play - when the cameras are rolling - Rondo can be an asset to anyone's team.

But it's simply irrefutable that the ball moves better on the offensive end without him. It's time to begin entertaining the notion that this group of players is just better with Bradley and Lee in the backcourt.

And defensively, the improvement is predictably documentable when you're not dealing with forced interior rotations because Rondo's turned his man loose. Again. It's just disingenuous to try to separate Rondo's injury and this team's improved performance. They are related - not because Rondo isn't talented, but because his game is a square peg in a round hole with the other players in Doc's rotation.

Rondo was the right guy at the right time with three premier scorers.

He is not the right guy to build this franchise around going forward. There will be value available for Rondo in the summer. Ainge needs to go get it and propel this rebuild on the fly forward.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: D.o.s. on March 06, 2013, 10:36:09 PM
Championships without Rondo: 16.

Championships with Rondo: 1.


Clearly, he's a relative non-factor.  ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ben on March 06, 2013, 10:44:25 PM
Is the team playing better lately?  Yes.  Did the team struggle when rondo was healthy this season?  Yes.  So what?!

I firmly believe the team is better with Rondo.  Rondo is a great player.  The only argument I want to make is despite not having Rondo, this team has an opportunity to win a Championship and should not settle for anything less.  Any team can improve.  But lets not make excuses and march towards Banner 18. 

go celtics.  With or with out rondo the celtics have great players.  Just because Rondo is not playing does not mean he is not supporting his team mates.  Bleed Green, lets go!
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.

First, I appreciate a post with basketball logic - even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. I have no interest in building around Rondo - or even going forward with him next season - because his ball-controlling offensive game, not to mention his growing ambivalence toward defense, is ill-suited to the group of players.

We have two options: Dump this roster and rebuild from scratch around Rondo, or dump Rondo. The second alternative is FAR more reasonable, doable and attractive than the first, and here's why:


Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but he's simply not a scorer, even though his mid-range jumpshot has improved, his foul shooting remains below average for his position.

Further, it is his defense - or his unwillingness to play same - that has fallen off the ends of the earth.

When he wants to play - when the cameras are rolling - Rondo can be an asset to anyone's team.

But it's simply irrefutable that the ball moves better on the offensive end without him. It's time to begin entertaining the notion that this group of players is just better with Bradley and Lee in the backcourt.

And defensively, the improvement is predictably documentable when you're not dealing with forced interior rotations because Rondo's turned his man loose. Again.

Rondo was the right guy at the right time with three premier scorers.

He is not the right guy to build this franchise around going forward. There will be value available for Rondo in the summer. Ainge needs to go get it and propel this rebuild on the fly forward.

Oh please.  Now we have trade rondo threads after 40 games with a new team and a knee ready to explode?

What happened this season was so OBVIOUS.  Rondo had six new players on his team, and Doc let the team operate like Ray Allen was still on the roster.  I blame doc for not adjusting to the new team quicker, but you could see the rondo sets plays for Kg, PP, and ....   .....  terry?!  This was not efficient and we are finding simple plays with  ball movement through all players is working better (with some great team defense, boosted with Avery Bradley's return.)

Patience.  The Trade Rondo people will be surprised when Rondo comes back and our offensive strategy is completely different.  Rondo is the smartest player in the NBA and he will adjust to the Celtics new way to play.  Patience.  Patience. 




Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 06, 2013, 10:49:45 PM
Is the team playing better lately?  Yes.  Did the team struggle when rondo was healthy this season?  Yes.  So what?!

I firmly believe the team is better with Rondo.  Rondo is a great player.  The only argument I want to make is despite not having Rondo, this team has an opportunity to win a Championship and should not settle for anything less.  Any team can improve.  But lets not make excuses and march towards Banner 18. 

go celtics.  With or with out rondo the celtics have great players.  Just because Rondo is not playing does not mean he is not supporting his team mates.  Bleed Green, lets go!
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.

First, I appreciate a post with basketball logic - even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. I have no interest in building around Rondo - or even going forward with him next season - because his ball-controlling offensive game, not to mention his growing ambivalence toward defense, is ill-suited to the group of players.

We have two options: Dump this roster and rebuild from scratch around Rondo, or dump Rondo. The second alternative is FAR more reasonable, doable and attractive than the first, and here's why:


Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but he's simply not a scorer, even though his mid-range jumpshot has improved, his foul shooting remains below average for his position.

Further, it is his defense - or his unwillingness to play same - that has fallen off the ends of the earth.

When he wants to play - when the cameras are rolling - Rondo can be an asset to anyone's team.

But it's simply irrefutable that the ball moves better on the offensive end without him. It's time to begin entertaining the notion that this group of players is just better with Bradley and Lee in the backcourt.

And defensively, the improvement is predictably documentable when you're not dealing with forced interior rotations because Rondo's turned his man loose. Again.

Rondo was the right guy at the right time with three premier scorers.

He is not the right guy to build this franchise around going forward. There will be value available for Rondo in the summer. Ainge needs to go get it and propel this rebuild on the fly forward.

Oh please.  Now we have trade rondo threads after 40 games with a new team and a knee ready to explode?

What happened this season was so OBVIOUS.  Rondo had six new players on his team, and Doc let the team operate like Ray Allen was still on the roster.  I blame doc for not adjusting to the new team quicker, but you could see the rondo sets plays for Kg, PP, and ....   .....  terry?!  This was not efficient and we are finding simple plays with  ball movement through all players is working better (with some great team defense, boosted with Avery Bradley's return.)

Patience.  The Trade Rondo people will be surprised when Rondo comes back and our offensive strategy is completely different.  Rondo is the smartest player in the NBA and he will adjust to the Celtics new way to play.  Patience.  Patience.

I actually agree with alot of this. Alot of this falls on doc for sure.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 06, 2013, 10:52:31 PM
Is the team playing better lately?  Yes.  Did the team struggle when rondo was healthy this season?  Yes.  So what?!

I firmly believe the team is better with Rondo.  Rondo is a great player.  The only argument I want to make is despite not having Rondo, this team has an opportunity to win a Championship and should not settle for anything less.  Any team can improve.  But lets not make excuses and march towards Banner 18. 

go celtics.  With or with out rondo the celtics have great players.  Just because Rondo is not playing does not mean he is not supporting his team mates.  Bleed Green, lets go!
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.

First, I appreciate a post with basketball logic - even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. I have no interest in building around Rondo - or even going forward with him next season - because his ball-controlling offensive game, not to mention his growing ambivalence toward defense, is ill-suited to the group of players.

We have two options: Dump this roster and rebuild from scratch around Rondo, or dump Rondo. The second alternative is FAR more reasonable, doable and attractive than the first, and here's why:


Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but he's simply not a scorer, even though his mid-range jumpshot has improved, his foul shooting remains below average for his position.

Further, it is his defense - or his unwillingness to play same - that has fallen off the ends of the earth.

When he wants to play - when the cameras are rolling - Rondo can be an asset to anyone's team.

But it's simply irrefutable that the ball moves better on the offensive end without him. It's time to begin entertaining the notion that this group of players is just better with Bradley and Lee in the backcourt.

And defensively, the improvement is predictably documentable when you're not dealing with forced interior rotations because Rondo's turned his man loose. Again.

Rondo was the right guy at the right time with three premier scorers.

He is not the right guy to build this franchise around going forward. There will be value available for Rondo in the summer. Ainge needs to go get it and propel this rebuild on the fly forward.

Oh please.  Now we have trade rondo threads after 40 games with a new team and a knee ready to explode?

What happened this season was so OBVIOUS.  Rondo had six new players on his team, and Doc let the team operate like Ray Allen was still on the roster.  I blame doc for not adjusting to the new team quicker, but you could see the rondo sets plays for Kg, PP, and ....   .....  terry?!  This was not efficient and we are finding simple plays with  ball movement through all players is working better (with some great team defense, boosted with Avery Bradley's return.)

Patience.  The Trade Rondo people will be surprised when Rondo comes back and our offensive strategy is completely different.  Rondo is the smartest player in the NBA and he will adjust to the Celtics new way to play.  Patience.  Patience.

While that is a popular view with those who cannot imagine - or apparently enjoy - this Celtics team without their favorite player, I don't buy it.

At all.

Especially the nonsense that Rivers somehow ordered Rondo to pound the ball at the top of the key for 16 seconds every possession in search of an assist.

That is not remotely close to a legitimate explanation; it is an excuse from those desperate to defend their favorite player, as I see it.

It is difficult to envision a player of Rondo's documented petulance suddenly remaking his game when confronted with the evidence that it no longer fits with his teammates.

Perhaps I could buy a little the notion that he might try to display a tad of effort on the defensive end.

But turn the basketball loose and move it?

I am going to have to see it to believe it.

And I fervently hope that Rondo is in another uniform before he throws his next regular season pass. That is what's best for the evolution of the Boston Celtics.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 06, 2013, 11:02:29 PM
Is the team playing better lately?  Yes.  Did the team struggle when rondo was healthy this season?  Yes.  So what?!

I firmly believe the team is better with Rondo.  Rondo is a great player.  The only argument I want to make is despite not having Rondo, this team has an opportunity to win a Championship and should not settle for anything less.  Any team can improve.  But lets not make excuses and march towards Banner 18. 

go celtics.  With or with out rondo the celtics have great players.  Just because Rondo is not playing does not mean he is not supporting his team mates.  Bleed Green, lets go!
There's a huge difference between adding significant value to this collection of Celtics, and adding huge value to someone else's team.

Again, the issue isn't whether Rondo is a quality point guard. He is.

The issue is that the evidence is mounting that he is a poor fit with this current collection of Celtics. For those of you who focus on individuals rather than the Celtic franchise, be mad at Ainge. He's the one who assembled this group.

Rondo needs to be surrounded by big-time scorers to be at his most effective. Imagine him running the Heat.

He isn't surrounded by anything like that in Boston, like he once was. As Pierce, Garnett and Allen declined, so did Rondo's value to this franchise.

The evidence is growing: Rondo is no longer a good fit in Boston. Doesn't mean he has no value elsewhere; in fact, it means there's conceivably a match with another team in search of his kind of game.

Ainge can and should aggressively market him in the off-season. It's the best thing for Rondo, and the best thing for the Celtics.

See coachbo's post below yours for my explanation as to why trading Rondo would make sense and why a trade where Boston gets good return would be feasible.

I think there were a number of trades at the deadline involving the Hawks that would have made sense for Rondo.  Lou Williams and Jeff Teague straight up would have made a lot of sense if Atlanta wanted to keep Smith that would have been a good way to help entice him to stay.  A 3-way trade with Phoenix, Atlanta, and Boston where Boston essentially traded rondo, lee, terry, and bass for lou williams, teague, dudley, and beasley would have made a lot of sense for the 3 teams involved (dragic, gortat, and smith were also in the trade). 

I think this summer there will be options out there where Boston trades Rondo to a team for a lottery pick in the draft and some other pieces if there is someone Ainge really likes.  Orlando and New Orleans seem like places that might want a guy like Rondo to run their teams and they all have the salaries to make a draft day trade work, plus at least one lottery pick and/or recent lottery picks to trade.  Charlotte has Kemba Walker and 2 lottery picks, not to mention Gordon's salary.  I think a reasonable trade would be Gordon, Walker, and the Blazers pick for Rondo and Sullinger (or something like that). 

It is just too bad the Thunder don't have a need for Rondo as they have a lot of draft picks coming their way as a result of the Harden trade.

There will be plenty of trades out there that make sense for the acquiring team and where Boston still gets solid value back.  It won't be Rondo the player value, but it won't be chump change either.

@Coachbo Firstly, I completely understand your point, I just happen to disagree entirely. But I realize that some of the people here weren't arguing thee quality of Rondo, but rather his fit/role on this team. My point was more for those arguing that his he was overhyped and not a great point guard (although in hindsight I'd be better off leaving those people to argue amongst themselves).

No Rondo isn't surrounded by big time scorers, but he is surrounded by several quality scorers whose ability he can maximize by facilitating their individual strengths. As the team is currently constructed, they have very good pieces but few players who are going to be consistently outstanding. Rondo's particular skill set fits well with that team dynamic because he can help guys maximize their potential by getting the ball to them in the right spots and making it easier for them to succeed with the tools they have, but he can also still take over a game on his own when no one else is stepping up.

Yes he would benefit from playing with a team that has "big-time scorers", but those guys are dubbed big-time scorers because they have the ability to score without needing a guy like Rondo to get them the ball in the right spots. They can do it anywhere, any time, they just have that talent. Where Rondo can truly add value is by putting guys that don't have that kind of ability in the best position to succeed. Thats what we have seen from him in the past.

But hey, thats just my opnion I can't say that he wouldn't be better off on a team with elite scorers because we haven't seen him play with guys like that (caveat: early on in the first year/2 of the big 3 era he did have that talent around him but he wasn't running the show like he does now). What I can say is that we've seen him have tremendous success in the past with a similar cast of characters as the ones presently on the roster and I think so many things were going poorly early on this season that its unfair to characterize his fit with this team based on their early play. I think most everyone (except Bass) has improved as time has gone on.

@Celtics18 Personally i don't think I'd make any of those trades you've suggested, certainly not the Hawks trade or the one that involves the Suns as well, although I'll admit I would discuss Eric Gordon and a lottery pick and see what might work there. And I don't doubt that there would be several trades that could bring back decent value. But thats obviously because I have a very different view of Rondo's fit with the Celtics than you and Coachbo, so I probably value his ability here more than the two of you would given that you both see his style being more suited for another team.

As I said above I see Rondo as a guy who can make a team like the Celtics, that lacks the star power and fire power to take on the likes of the Heat and the Thunder, have the ability to win on any given night because of what he can do to help other guys play to their best. So while yes we could potentially move him for some quality pieces that would help us play in a different style that may suit our current group better, I just can't imagine giving him up for any offer that didn't blow my socks off. He has the potential to be the cornerstone for an organization for many years to come and with KG and PP certainly in the last years of their careers Rondo is going to be a guy I want to build around.

First, I appreciate a post with basketball logic - even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. I have no interest in building around Rondo - or even going forward with him next season - because his ball-controlling offensive game, not to mention his growing ambivalence toward defense, is ill-suited to the group of players.

We have two options: Dump this roster and rebuild from scratch around Rondo, or dump Rondo. The second alternative is FAR more reasonable, doable and attractive than the first, and here's why:


Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but he's simply not a scorer, even though his mid-range jumpshot has improved, his foul shooting remains below average for his position.

Further, it is his defense - or his unwillingness to play same - that has fallen off the ends of the earth.

When he wants to play - when the cameras are rolling - Rondo can be an asset to anyone's team.

But it's simply irrefutable that the ball moves better on the offensive end without him. It's time to begin entertaining the notion that this group of players is just better with Bradley and Lee in the backcourt.

And defensively, the improvement is predictably documentable when you're not dealing with forced interior rotations because Rondo's turned his man loose. Again.

Rondo was the right guy at the right time with three premier scorers.

He is not the right guy to build this franchise around going forward. There will be value available for Rondo in the summer. Ainge needs to go get it and propel this rebuild on the fly forward.

Oh please.  Now we have trade rondo threads after 40 games with a new team and a knee ready to explode?

What happened this season was so OBVIOUS.  Rondo had six new players on his team, and Doc let the team operate like Ray Allen was still on the roster.  I blame doc for not adjusting to the new team quicker, but you could see the rondo sets plays for Kg, PP, and ....   .....  terry?!  This was not efficient and we are finding simple plays with  ball movement through all players is working better (with some great team defense, boosted with Avery Bradley's return.)

Patience.  The Trade Rondo people will be surprised when Rondo comes back and our offensive strategy is completely different.  Rondo is the smartest player in the NBA and he will adjust to the Celtics new way to play.  Patience.  Patience.


I doubt it , Rondo is lazy and a poor shot.    Standing around pounding the seconds away is the dumbest thing I ever seen .  Docs fault for not benching him.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: go11celtics on March 06, 2013, 11:17:19 PM
Bottom line is that nobody will convince anybody on either side of this argument, so what's the point of a million threads about it? Short of this team winning a title there's really no way to know for sure whether they are better or not without him, so why does it have to be brought up nightly? These threads just spit out the same points on both sides, so why bother discussing it over and over again?

For what it's worth I don't think they are better without him. Same reason why the bulls aren't better without rose. I mean in 2010 this team played terrible for a long stretch of the regular season, but made it game 7 of the nba finals. Obviously this team cares little about the regular season so saying they played poorly early on cant be totally on rondo. Once he went out they needed to figure out a new way to play to be a contender, and you can see the effort night in and night out. That doesn't mean they are better without rondo, it just means they didn't play as hard early on because they felt like they didn't need to.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 06, 2013, 11:19:37 PM
Can we just enjoy these wins and look forward to the post-season regardless of what Rondo is doing?

Let the man heal in peace.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 07, 2013, 12:35:57 AM

imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.

I think you're right. I am missing your point, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What the first part of your answer boils down to? Basically the Cs miss sizzle, even if it doesn't result in anything tangible.

So maybe we can try this a different, more productive way. Do you think Rondo can learn anything from how the Cs have been playing without him? If so, how do you see him taking that knowledge and applying it to improve his play and approach?

  First of all it's not about sizzle. I don't see why you can't get this. We didn't suck on offense all year long and suddenly start playing good when Rondo left. We started out playing very good offense (even with Green, who's playing very good now, playing much less consistently). We went from playing very well to playing poorly. Since Rondo was controlling the offense when we were playing very good on offense and he was still controlling the offense when it slumped it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something other than Rondo controlling the ball led to the slump.

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.

  And it's probably a mix of Rondo, Doc and the other players all learning things based on how the team's played over the last month or so. I know that people here think that Rondo rules the team with an iron fist and oppresses his teammates but that's not the case. He's probably doing pretty much what Doc wants him to, and there's probably a lot of truth to what Danny and KG said about the team relying too much on Rondo.

Ha, a 43 game slump? That's epic.

He's not wrong though. This has happened in almost every regular season since 2009, where the Celtics either start out hot and end cold, or vice versa.

08-09: went on a huge win streak (19 in a row) to start the season out 27-2, followed that up with 7 losses in 9 games, and went 9-9 from Feb to mid-March.

09-10: again, went on a win streak (11 in a row) to start the season out 20-4, then promptly lost 17 of their next 33 games.

10-11: once again, started the season on fire (23-4, 14 game win streak), but cooled down significantly and went .500 in their last 20 or so games.

11-12: much like this year, they started out with a mediocre 15-17 record, but caught fire around the all star break and ended the season on a 24-10 run.

Inconsistency in the regular season for these Celtics (08 team aside) is nothing new, and shouldn't be blamed solely on Rondo - injuries/coasting had to do with most of those lulls and average play. For that reason, I think it's foolish to discount the various obstacles this team has had to go through. With Bradley and Wilcox still sidelined, Green recovering from surgery, and 10 new additions to the roster, Doc essentially had to incorporate a completely new team before the start of the season. Also, the rotations for the first two+ months were very inconsistent, to put it mildly. From Nov 1st to Jan 5th, the Celtics went through 9 different starting lineups, featuring a 6 game stint with Collins at center where they went 2-4. The constant change in roles (specifically for Lee/Terry) made it very difficult for both the starters and the bench to get into a groove. Once Bradley came back and the rotation was more or less set, we saw a huge improvement from the bench play and the team as a whole.

I don't ignore or dismiss the fact that Rondo had some part of the C's struggles this year, but it's not very fair to point to our W-L record without him while discounting the other circumstances surrounding the team at the time. I just don't understand why it has to be so black and white when it comes to discussing Rondo on here.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: LakersForDays on March 07, 2013, 12:58:50 AM
I can't explain why you guys are playing so much better since Rondo's injury, but I am still a firm believer you guys are an even better team with Rondo. Obviously the record says I'm full of Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline....

Rondo has some exploitable weaknesses, but he is without a doubt in my mind a special talent. Not a single team in this league wouldn't be drooling over potentially signing him.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Ogaju on March 07, 2013, 01:13:49 AM
In the field of debate and forensics there is fact and opinion.

Here are the facts:

The Celtics in 2012-2013 season have a better record without Rondo than they have with Rondo. Regardless of how you feel about Rondo, the Celtics, or basketball, this is an indisputable fact.

The 2012-2013 Boston Celtics have a better winning percentage post Rondo injury than pre-Rondo injury.

The team as more assists per game post Rondo injury than pre Rondo injury. Now those are the facts, everything else is spin.

Things like play you have not seen playoff Rondo or the team is going to lose steam are speculation without any basis in reality.

Arguments such as the team is only doing better because they other players did not perform when Rondo was on the team are just opinions that could be spun both ways. For example, what exactly was it about Rondo being on the team that made the other players not perform? The fact that other players did not perform when he was on team can be blamed on the other players by Rondo supporters, but Rondo could also be blamed for this observation. The fact however remains that the other players did not perform as well with Rondo regardless of who was responsible.

I hope this puts an end to the debate.


Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: AB_Celtic on March 07, 2013, 01:16:21 AM
You've oversimplified everything. There are a million other factors at work here, and you fail to mention a single one of them.

You seem to think everyone should be siding with you to end the debate, when in reality, the debate would sooner end if everyone just realized that Rondo is a star who was being misused. By Doc.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Ogaju on March 07, 2013, 01:21:01 AM
no need to assign blame, you are right there are probably as many reasons as there are people willing to way in but the indisputable fact is the team is posting a better record without there supposed #1 STAR.

If we take your position for example that it is on Doc for not been able to use Rondo properly, all you have proved is Doc is a better coach without Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ScottHow on March 07, 2013, 01:21:28 AM
Fact. We win 100% of the games KG misses this year. Fact.

I hope that settles all debates.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 07, 2013, 01:22:12 AM
I hope this puts an end to the debate.

I'm not sure if this is a joke, but you do realize making a post about Rondo will all but ensure that there will be a debate about it?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Ogaju on March 07, 2013, 01:31:37 AM
as long as they know that there rationalizations and spinning will not change the FACT that the team has a better record without Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 01:35:13 AM
He's not wrong though. This has happened in almost every regular season since 2009, where the Celtics either start out hot and end cold, or vice versa.

08-09: went on a huge win streak (19 in a row) to start the season out 27-2, followed that up with 7 losses in 9 games, and went 9-9 from Feb to mid-March.

09-10: again, went on a win streak (11 in a row) to start the season out 20-4, then promptly lost 17 of their next 33 games.

10-11: once again, started the season on fire (23-4, 14 game win streak), but cooled down significantly and went .500 in their last 20 or so games.

11-12: much like this year, they started out with a mediocre 15-17 record, but caught fire around the all star break and ended the season on a 24-10 run.

Inconsistency in the regular season for these Celtics (08 team aside) is nothing new, and shouldn't be blamed solely on Rondo - injuries/coasting had to do with most of those lulls and average play. For that reason, I think it's foolish to discount the various obstacles this team has had to go through. With Bradley and Wilcox still sidelined, Green recovering from surgery, and 10 new additions to the roster, Doc essentially had to incorporate a completely new team before the start of the season. Also, the rotations for the first two+ months were very inconsistent, to put it mildly. From Nov 1st to Jan 5th, the Celtics went through 9 different starting lineups, featuring a 6 game stint with Collins at center where they went 2-4. The constant change in roles (specifically for Lee/Terry) made it very difficult for both the starters and the bench to get into a groove. Once Bradley came back and the rotation was more or less set, we saw a huge improvement from the bench play and the team as a whole.

I don't ignore or dismiss the fact that Rondo had some part of the C's struggles this year, but it's not very fair to point to our W-L record without him while discounting the other circumstances surrounding the team at the time. I just don't understand why it has to be so black and white when it comes to discussing Rondo on here.
TP

Some people like to talk black and white because that is how some people think. Some people have opinions that they value highly and seek out data that they can use to support it. Unfortunately, NBA game data is messy.

Personally, I will withhold judgment until the playoffs. If we have great success in the playoffs, it will surprise me greatly and make me reconsider Rondo's value. I tend to agree with the idea that guys are playing harder to make up for Rondo's absence. My concern is that they other teams might be able to add another gear in the playoffs, while we might already be at our max. The past few years, we could count on the team improving once the playoffs came and players finally went all out.

No matter what happens, we don't know how things would have turned out with Rondo. That means arguments like this will never end.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: blink on March 07, 2013, 01:37:45 AM
Fact. We win 100% of the games KG misses this year. Fact.

I hope that settles all debates.

haha...that made me laugh.  another 'we are better without rondo' post which fails to make any real point or provide any proof / stats / logical thought to backup their point.  Yawn.

I mean you realize that there is more than one person involved in a team game right??  This settles nothing.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Ogaju on March 07, 2013, 01:40:40 AM
I stated the only relevant FACT. By the way, I love Rondo as a player, but what does that have to do with the fact that the team for this season has a better record post his injury.

'we are better without Rondo' are your words, and that is spin. There is only one FACT. We have a better record post Rondo injury than we had pre-rondo injury. Whether we are better or not is spin.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 01:50:51 AM
as long as they know that there rationalizations and spinning will not change the FACT that the team has a better record without Rondo.
Yes, that is a fact. So what? We won the game that KG didn't play. Again, so what? We have a much better record since Sully was injured.

Does this mean that we should trade them all since the team is better without them -- despite the fact that our most effective lineups include the three of them?

It is possible that losing Rondo and his ball pounding helped integrate the new guys. If this is true, then wouldn't the ideal case be a shorter injury for Rondo so that he returns now that the new guys have gotten comfortable?

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 01:51:45 AM
I stated the only relevant FACT. By the way, I love Rondo as a player, but what does that have to do with the fact that the team for this season has a better record post his injury.

'we are better without Rondo' are your words, and that is spin. There is only one FACT. We have a better record post Rondo injury than we had pre-rondo injury. Whether we are better or not is spin.
What debate do you think has been settled?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: sinbad on March 07, 2013, 01:58:40 AM
I'm sure Kobe would take him.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: blink on March 07, 2013, 01:59:23 AM
I stated the only relevant FACT. By the way, I love Rondo as a player, but what does that have to do with the fact that the team for this season has a better record post his injury.

'we are better without Rondo' are your words, and that is spin. There is only one FACT. We have a better record post Rondo injury than we had pre-rondo injury. Whether we are better or not is spin.

Ok if you are only trying to post a 'fact', why did you ever start this thread?  Ok the earth is round.  That is a fact.  How dare anyone respond with anything but agreement to my thread because what I say is a fact!

Give me a break.  We can all count the wins and losses.  Failing to accept that there are a LOT of other things that effect our record is short sighted and is over simplifying everything.  There have been about a million of these threads lately, and yours doesn't even try to make a convincing point about why this should be 'settled'.


 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 02:02:39 AM
I stated the only relevant FACT. By the way, I love Rondo as a player, but what does that have to do with the fact that the team for this season has a better record post his injury.

'we are better without Rondo' are your words, and that is spin. There is only one FACT. We have a better record post Rondo injury than we had pre-rondo injury. Whether we are better or not is spin.

Ok if you are only trying to post a 'fact', why did you ever start this thread?  Ok the earth is round.  That is a fact.  How dare anyone respond with anything but agreement to my thread because what I say is a fact!

Give me a break.  We can all count the wins and losses.  Failing to accept that there are a LOT of other things that effect our record is short sighted and is over simplifying everything.  There have been about a million of these threads lately, and yours doesn't even try to make a convincing point about why this should be 'settled'.
I'm still waiting for the OP to explain what the debate is that he is referring that supposedly is now 'settled'.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: chambers on March 07, 2013, 02:03:29 AM
So we are better off without Sully too I suppose?
There is no debate...This team is not considered a true contender without Rondo. Regular season wins are great.
Rondo and Avery Bradley last year were part of the best defensive starting unit in the NBA.

*Rondo didn't get to play with this Avery Bradley this season. Bradley is finding his feet and shooting touch.
*Lee is finding his feet.
*Terry is consistent.
*Green has put together a very nice resume over the last 10 games.
*Wilcox is back and running the floor.

If anything, Paul Pierce having to play PG and passing more has helped us. He's making an extra pass instead of just receiving a pass from Rondo and chucking it up.

The resergence of Avery Bradley and Jeff Green is what is helping us win. If you add Rondo to that, we are a true contender. Unfortunately without him, we are a team of 2 old superstars and a few good role players and winning it all is just not that probable without Rondo in multiple 7 game series against teams like Miami, OKC, Chicago and the lite..
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: blink on March 07, 2013, 02:05:47 AM
I stated the only relevant FACT. By the way, I love Rondo as a player, but what does that have to do with the fact that the team for this season has a better record post his injury.

'we are better without Rondo' are your words, and that is spin. There is only one FACT. We have a better record post Rondo injury than we had pre-rondo injury. Whether we are better or not is spin.
What debate do you think has been settled?

I think he means the intense debate about what our w-l record is.  Ok debate over.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: sinbad on March 07, 2013, 02:07:50 AM
We were also better without KG when he went down with his injury in 2009/2010...until we met up with Howard and Orlando in the playoffs.

Playoffs are a whole different ball game and where stars are made. Name me another current player in the NBA who is a better playoff player than Rondo. You could make a convincing argument that Rondo was the best player on the court in every playoff series where the Cs met LeBron.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Ogaju on March 07, 2013, 02:09:01 AM
okay the team has a worse records without Rondo. I agree with you.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: blink on March 07, 2013, 02:11:57 AM
Well I am glad that is settled once and for all.
Whew! 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: GreenEnvy on March 07, 2013, 02:16:03 AM
We were also better without KG when he went down with his injury in 2009/2010...until we met up with Howard and Orlando in the playoffs.

Playoffs are a whole different ball game and where stars are made. Name me another current player in the NBA who is a better playoff player than Rondo. You could make a convincing argument that Rondo was the best player on the court in every playoff series where the Cs met LeBron.

I'd like someone to convince me.

In 2008, Rondo outplayed LeBron?

In 2011, Rondo outplayed LeBron?

In 2012, Rondo outplayed LeBron?

No. No. And no.

2010 he may have.


Rondo has to be the most polarizing player in sports. Every single fan of his team either overrates him tremendously or thinks he is trash.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: guava_wrench on March 07, 2013, 02:19:10 AM
okay the team has a worse records without Rondo. I agree with you.
What Rondo debate was "settled"? No one was debating our record. So what were you referring to???
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Ogaju on March 07, 2013, 02:24:24 AM
okay the team has a worse records without Rondo. I agree with you.
What Rondo debate was "settled"? No one was debating our record. So what were you referring to???

I was referring to those who argue that we are only playing better because the other players decided to step it up after Rondo got hurt. That argument begs the question why didnt these players step up game with Rondo. I am just stating facts not assigning blame. Rationalizing does not change the fact
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: raynman on March 07, 2013, 03:52:56 AM
I'm sure Kobe would take him.
Rondo's a passer and Kobe's a chucker.. Perfect match!  ;D
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celtics2 on March 07, 2013, 03:54:32 AM
C'mon this ain't right. No Rondo and the beat goes on. Win Back to backers. Just who are these guys in Green ignited by AB?????? Time for the Blog geniuses to start figuring out who we can get for Rondo when the time comes.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celticsleyte on March 07, 2013, 04:47:43 AM
To the OP.  What exactly is your position? Maybe you could be more specific as to what is being debated.

Rondo was selected as an all-star starter this season. FACT
 ;)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on March 07, 2013, 05:14:32 AM
So we are better off without Sully too I suppose?
There is no debate...This team is not considered a true contender without Rondo. Regular season wins are great.
Rondo and Avery Bradley last year were part of the best defensive starting unit in the NBA.

*Rondo didn't get to play with this Avery Bradley this season. Bradley is finding his feet and shooting touch.
*Lee is finding his feet.
*Terry is consistent.
*Green has put together a very nice resume over the last 10 games.
*Wilcox is back and running the floor.

If anything, Paul Pierce having to play PG and passing more has helped us. He's making an extra pass instead of just receiving a pass from Rondo and chucking it up.

The resergence of Avery Bradley and Jeff Green is what is helping us win. If you add Rondo to that, we are a true contender. Unfortunately without him, we are a team of 2 old superstars and a few good role players and winning it all is just not that probable without Rondo in multiple 7 game series against teams like Miami, OKC, Chicago and the lite..

(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif)

You sir, had the best point.

It is a fact that the record is better without Rondo. What the OP forgot to mention that it's also a fact that when he was playing, he was still able to find teammates and get them good quality shots. Shots that they missed, A LOT because they we're struggling. It don't matter if Rondo held the ball too much, he found people that are open, and not connecting, and that contributed to the loses.

As far as I'm concerned this debate is and will not end.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: connor on March 07, 2013, 05:39:23 AM

First, I appreciate a post with basketball logic - even though I completely disagree with your conclusion. I have no interest in building around Rondo - or even going forward with him next season - because his ball-controlling offensive game, not to mention his growing ambivalence toward defense, is ill-suited to the group of players.

We have two options: Dump this roster and rebuild from scratch around Rondo, or dump Rondo - unless, of course, you're satisfied with the 20-23 product or Rondo has a similar revelation and remakes his ball-stopping offensive game. The second alternative is FAR more reasonable, doable and attractive than the first, and here's why:

Rondo needs the ball in his hands to be effective but as the first half of the season evidenced, he lost his gauge on exactly how long is too long in his own hands. He is simply not a scorer, even though his mid-range jumpshot has improved, his foul shooting remains below average for his position.

Further, it is his defense - or his unwillingness to play same - that has fallen off the ends of the earth.

When he wants to play - when the cameras are rolling - Rondo can be an asset to anyone's team.

But it's simply irrefutable that the ball moves better on the offensive end without him. It's time to begin entertaining the notion that this group of players is just better with Bradley and Lee in the backcourt.

And defensively, the improvement is predictably documentable when you're not dealing with forced interior rotations because Rondo's turned his man loose. Again. It's just disingenuous to try to separate Rondo's injury and this team's improved performance. They are related - not because Rondo isn't talented, but because his game is a square peg in a round hole with the other players in Doc's rotation.

Rondo was the right guy at the right time with three premier scorers.

He is not the right guy to build this franchise around going forward. There will be value available for Rondo in the summer. Ainge needs to go get it and propel this rebuild on the fly forward.
The way I look at it, this streak of wins and quality play based on ball movement and a slightly more up tempo game without Rondo may just be the best thing that has happened for him/the Celtics. Because now Rondo can see that this team can operate without him controlling the ball for 17-20 seconds every possession and focus on playing better defense and trying to improve our productivity not stifle it by being overbearing.

Rondo definitely holds the ball too much. He isn't willing enough to make the hockey assist, getting the ball out of his hands early so that it can be worked to the open man. He would rather wait and wait and wait and hope that someone slips open, or that he can lead someone into space (and he has an incredible ability to do that).

But seeing that this team is perfectly capable putting up the same assist numbers without him gives Rondo the opportunity to see what parts of his game can be incorporated to take this team to another level. He doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, that just happens to be the way he has been playing. His mid range game is getting better each year (still not great but certainly capable) and he has shown he can make great off the ball cuts to the basket (a la Avery Bradley). He certainly can help this team by using his vision and the ball in his hands to make guys better AND without the ball in his hands using that same court vision to get himself in good position.

Yes his defense has gotten even more lackadaisical but I think a large part of that has to do with effort and him hanging his hat so much on his assists rather than his overall game. He has the talent to be a solid on ball defender, but sometimes its like he is just waiting for the ball to get back in his hands. I think he can rededicate himself to being an honorary pitbull if he wants to.

Yes a lot of these problems have to do with Doc and his utilization of his guys, but this roster is easily the most complicated out of any of the legit playoff teams. Give the guy a bit of a break. So many new guys, balancing all these different styles and needs, a total lack of size and injuries to boot. Its a constant work in progress, but when it clicks it looks GOOD.

It all comes down to whether Rondo is going to try to work his game into whats best for the team or if he is just going to fall back into his old ways of dominating the ball. If he isn't fine, move him, but lets at least wait until he is healthy so we can get full value back and give him a chance to try to integrate, move the ball more and use his athleticism to put our defense back to where it was. Maybe I am just too stubborn to give up on such talent that just needs to be used differently.   



Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SCeltic34 on March 07, 2013, 06:32:36 AM
This thread.  Again.  I'm surprised people even bother offering rational counterarguments to these threads anymore.

In other news, the Lakers are clearly a better team and have a better chance in the playoffs without a healthy Pau Gasol.  They have a better record without him.  Non-debatable  ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics4ever on March 07, 2013, 06:39:54 AM
How many rings do you think these guys will win without Rondo?   This current team, my bet is zero.

Rondo was not the guy killing us.   PP was horrible in the first half of the season and has since stepped it up.  A lot of these other pieces are now fitting.   For whatever, reason guys were coasting when Rondo was there and deferring to him.  But that is not on Rondo, perhaps the coach and some stars resting themselves.

I could just as easily say our record is better without Darko and all the same points apply or Sully.  I think we are better because we survived the Mayan Apocalypse.   Our record has improved since then , perhaps our guys were worried to death about it.   This makes about as much since and guess what our record is better is better since then as you claim.   This is a FACT!  Albeit an absurd one and one not based in reality but neither are the Rondo claims.

Every basketball guy you read or hear talk says RR is one of our best players.  Tommy thinks it and he has forgot more about basketball than you will ever know.

I always think these Rondo haters have to be Telfairy fans. Sebastian is that you?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: jdz101 on March 07, 2013, 06:45:30 AM
Yeah this one thread will definitely end the Rondo debate on celticsblog.

(http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd454/Brightside47/Gif%20Folder/JimCarreyLaugh.gif)

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: scaryjerry on March 07, 2013, 06:46:27 AM
Except they did the same thing last year with him? :-*
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: vjcsmoke on March 07, 2013, 06:52:40 AM
I can't explain why you guys are playing so much better since Rondo's injury, but I am still a firm believer you guys are an even better team with Rondo. Obviously the record says I'm full of ****...

Rondo has some exploitable weaknesses, but he is without a doubt in my mind a special talent. Not a single team in this league wouldn't be drooling over potentially signing him.

Would you mind trading Howard for Rondo then?  He will be all yours as long as we can sign DH to a long term extension. :-)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celtics2 on March 07, 2013, 07:10:02 AM

Some people like to talk black and white because that is how some people think. Some people have opinions that they value highly and seek out data that they can use to support it. Unfortunately, NBA game data is messy.

Personally, I will withhold judgment until the playoffs. If we have great success in the playoffs, it will surprise me greatly and make me reconsider Rondo's value. I tend to agree with the idea that guys are playing harder to make up for Rondo's absence. My concern is that they other teams might be able to add another gear in the playoffs, while we might already be at our max. The past few years, we could count on the team improving once the playoffs came and players finally went all out.

No matter what happens, we don't know how things would have turned out with Rondo. That means arguments like this will never end.
[/quote]

Rondo ain't gonna be in this Season's Playoffs. So how you going to compare?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: crimson_stallion on March 07, 2013, 07:16:59 AM
No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.

We got a good improvement to our defense when Bradley came back.  We got a GREAT improvement to our defense when Lee and AB started spending big minutes on the court together in the starting lineup.

Other players started playing better the instantly Rondo went down - it was like a switch was flipped.  The intensity, the ball movement, the sharing, the confidence of everybody on the team improved, and it was clearly evident to anybody who watched those games.  The change was instant the second Rondo was out.  I would argue those guys are all playing better BECAUSE Rondo went down.  Partly due to increased opportunity and role in the offense, partly because of increaed feeling of responsiblity.  The others seem less driven when Rondo is there and they seem to fall asleep on offense because they just aren't involved enough.  It probably makes them feel like support pieces, wheras now they actually feel like part of the action.

How come no one on here ever points out the Celtics record with and with out Jared Sullinger?  It's only one game different then their record with and without Rondo but no one blames Sully for the Celtics problems.

Sully was statistically one of our best players towards the end of the season.  He was not only our best rebouder, but he was also statistically one of our top defenders (his pts allowed was top 20 in the NBA) and also one of our better offensive players, hence why he had the highest on/off stat of anybody on the team. Rondo's net rating wasn't even positive...it was actually negative last I checked just before he went down.

Also Sullinger didn't change the way the team played.  He was a role play who did the little things and never restricted other guys.  Rondo is a key player who is treated as a key player, so he always has the ball in his hands and this (IMHO) hinders other guys.  He always has the ball in his hands because he's a top 2 PG in the NBA, and any team with a PG of that calibre would be insant NOT to put the ball in their hands 90% of the time...but in our case that just happens to not benefit the team.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 07, 2013, 07:33:03 AM
Bottom line is that nobody will convince anybody on either side of this argument, so what's the point of a million threads about it? Short of this team winning a title there's really no way to know for sure whether they are better or not without him, so why does it have to be brought up nightly?


You're right, it's pretty pointless considering no championship was or is coming either way -- and the number of threads is getting old. 

What bothers me is the 'it's dumb luck' mentality Rondo martyrs insist upon during this stretch of success without him. It's not objective.

He wasn't as efficient as he should have been, and outside of his elders, his teammates grew tired of his shtick. He misunderstood what it means to be anointed the leader of the team and did a crappy job of it. A bunch of guys are playing far freer an far better without him.

Why is this such a major admission? Just accept it and hope the guy has learned -- their success without him is the best thing that coulda happened to him under the circumstances.
 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: slamtheking on March 07, 2013, 08:09:21 AM
So we are better off without Sully too I suppose?
There is no debate...This team is not considered a true contender without Rondo. Regular season wins are great.
Rondo and Avery Bradley last year were part of the best defensive starting unit in the NBA.

*Rondo didn't get to play with this Avery Bradley this season. Bradley is finding his feet and shooting touch.
*Lee is finding his feet.
*Terry is consistent.
*Green has put together a very nice resume over the last 10 games.
*Wilcox is back and running the floor.

If anything, Paul Pierce having to play PG and passing more has helped us. He's making an extra pass instead of just receiving a pass from Rondo and chucking it up.

The resergence of Avery Bradley and Jeff Green is what is helping us win. If you add Rondo to that, we are a true contender. Unfortunately without him, we are a team of 2 old superstars and a few good role players and winning it all is just not that probable without Rondo in multiple 7 game series against teams like Miami, OKC, Chicago and the lite..

(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif)

You sir, had the best point.

It is a fact that the record is better without Rondo. What the OP forgot to mention that it's also a fact that when he was playing, he was still able to find teammates and get them good quality shots. Shots that they missed, A LOT because they we're struggling. It don't matter if Rondo held the ball too much, he found people that are open, and not connecting, and that contributed to the loses.

As far as I'm concerned this debate is and will not end.
and to you sir for adding even more common sense to this 'non-debatable' topic


(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 07, 2013, 08:25:39 AM
Here's the way I look at the situation:

Have we played better without Rondo?  Yes

The question now becomes why?

Well, I don't think it's fair to say Rondo was holding us back.

I think the reason our players have been playing much better is because they've had more minutes, more shots, and really, more impact on the game.  Someone's got to take Rondo's touches, and our players have taken advantage of the opportunity.

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.

Will we compete and be a tough out?  Absolutely

Will we win a championship?  Unfortunately, no
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: wdleehi on March 07, 2013, 08:43:51 AM
Didn't the Celtics do something very similar last year with Rondo?   


You know, start the season awful only to play like one of the better teams down the stretch and into the playoffs?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 08:46:46 AM

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.


To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Jeff on March 07, 2013, 08:48:46 AM
Fact: Rondo has a ring, COUNT THE RINGZZZZZ!!!1

blah blah blah
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: truthhurts34 on March 07, 2013, 08:50:20 AM
So we are better off without Sully too I suppose?
There is no debate...This team is not considered a true contender without Rondo. Regular season wins are great.
Rondo and Avery Bradley last year were part of the best defensive starting unit in the NBA.

*Rondo didn't get to play with this Avery Bradley this season. Bradley is finding his feet and shooting touch.
*Lee is finding his feet.
*Terry is consistent.
*Green has put together a very nice resume over the last 10 games.
*Wilcox is back and running the floor.

If anything, Paul Pierce having to play PG and passing more has helped us. He's making an extra pass instead of just receiving a pass from Rondo and chucking it up.

The resergence of Avery Bradley and Jeff Green is what is helping us win. If you add Rondo to that, we are a true contender. Unfortunately without him, we are a team of 2 old superstars and a few good role players and winning it all is just not that probable without Rondo in multiple 7 game series against teams like Miami, OKC, Chicago and the lite..

(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/citizen_cane.gif)

You sir, had the best point.

It is a fact that the record is better without Rondo. What the OP forgot to mention that it's also a fact that when he was playing, he was still able to find teammates and get them good quality shots. Shots that they missed, A LOT because they we're struggling. It don't matter if Rondo held the ball too much, he found people that are open, and not connecting, and that contributed to the loses.

As far as I'm concerned this debate is and will not end.

Except Jeff Green, Lee, Terry etc are not spot up shooters like Ray allen. Those were the kind of shots Jeff Green, Terry & Lee were taking pre-rondo injury.

It does matter if Rondo holds the ball too much, these players cannot stand around while Rajon pounds the ball and be expected to be automatic when he decides to pass to them. Again, they are not Ray allen or Eddie House, that is not their game, they are free flowing players that need to be a part of the ball movement to be effective. Do you have any comprehension of different types of players?

Jackie MacMullen reported that Rondo has realized this while being injured and that he wants to return with a different approach that more suits his players' styles. So you are on your own on this one, not even Rondo agrees with you.

My assessment is, we are better without Rondo ONLY if he continued to pound the ball the way he did this season. 5 fingers make a fist, that just wasn't the right type of offense for the types of players we have this year on the wings.

Now if he has conforms to the others style of play, then we will absolutely be better with Rondo than we currently are once he returns.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Eja117 on March 07, 2013, 08:52:34 AM
Didn't the Celtics do something very similar last year with Rondo?   


You know, start the season awful only to play like one of the better teams down the stretch and into the playoffs?
Well yeah, but now it's happening without him....so I guess that would actually mean they aren't better or worse with him or without him
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Jeff on March 07, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
you know what, this debate is pointless not because it can be proved one way or the other, but because it doesn't answer a relevant question

Who cares if this particular team is better or worse than Rondo?  This is probably the last time we'll see this current mix of players play together.

even if KG and Pierce come back, they only have maybe a year left

so the more relevant question is "Can we build around Rondo?"

if you think this latest bit of success is proof that we shouldn't build around Rondo, then you make up your mind to trade him - which will bring back assets in addition to what we have already (so basically subtract Rondo, KG, and Pierce, and add what you can get for Rondo)

if you think that the team is simply winning in spite of Rondo's absence, then you might want to simply trust that Rondo will be able to learn from this and use this new information to guide and lead the team into the future (post KG and Pierce era)

"I hope this settles this debate once and for all" - yeah, me too, so we can get on with something that actually merits discussion

drops mic
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: JOMVP on March 07, 2013, 09:08:26 AM
Didn't the Celtics do something very similar last year with Rondo?   


You know, start the season awful only to play like one of the better teams down the stretch and into the playoffs?
Well yeah, but now it's happening without him....so I guess that would actually mean they aren't better or worse with him or without him

This is a great point. Rondo is clearly a talented player, and I think in a different system he can be a difference maker. But in Doc Rivers and the Celtics system, they do not need a pure ball dominant PG like Rondo. Bradley plus Pierce can run this team just fine with the way they play. Defensively, Rondo is such a downgrade over the backcourt we have right now that what he does to set up the offense isnt worth losing the defensive intensity over.

If they can trade Rondo in the offseason and turn him into a reliable big, I'd be all for it and the Celtics need to seriously consider it. If they plan on contending with this group, they need a big who is capable offensively but also a dominant defense and rebounding presence.

Like I said, Rondo is a great player. I think, though, if we hold onto Rondo as a building block after the Garnett and Pierce go, we are going to be no where near contenders because Rondo isnt that type of player. I'd rather trade Rondo to get pieces to contend for the next two years with the core we have and then just go into full rebuild mode.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: thirstyboots18 on March 07, 2013, 09:15:42 AM
Bradley and Pierce, together, may be able to run this team, but it seems to me the question would be can Bradley run the team without Pierce?  Can Rondo?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 07, 2013, 09:18:53 AM
In the field of debate and forensics there is fact and opinion.

Here are the facts:

The Celtics in 2012-2013 season have a better record without Rondo than they have with Rondo. Regardless of how you feel about Rondo, the Celtics, or basketball, this is an indisputable fact.

The 2012-2013 Boston Celtics have a better winning percentage post Rondo injury than pre-Rondo injury.

The team as more assists per game post Rondo injury than pre Rondo injury. Now those are the facts, everything else is spin.

Things like play you have not seen playoff Rondo or the team is going to lose steam are speculation without any basis in reality.

Arguments such as the team is only doing better because they other players did not perform when Rondo was on the team are just opinions that could be spun both ways. For example, what exactly was it about Rondo being on the team that made the other players not perform? The fact that other players did not perform when he was on team can be blamed on the other players by Rondo supporters, but Rondo could also be blamed for this observation. The fact however remains that the other players did not perform as well with Rondo regardless of who was responsible.

I hope this puts an end to the debate.


I don't care about wins anymore.......thats old school

Just give me the  TRIPLE DOUBLES !!!!!!!

and more tweets  .....and kardashians too!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ChainSmokingLikeDino on March 07, 2013, 09:18:56 AM
you know what, this debate is pointless not because it can be proved one way or the other, but because it doesn't answer a relevant question

Who cares if this particular team is better or worse than Rondo?  This is probably the last time we'll see this current mix of players play together.

even if KG and Pierce come back, they only have maybe a year left

so the more relevant question is "Can we build around Rondo?"

if you think this latest bit of success is proof that we shouldn't build around Rondo, then you make up your mind to trade him - which will bring back assets in addition to what we have already (so basically subtract Rondo, KG, and Pierce, and add what you can get for Rondo)

if you think that the team is simply winning in spite of Rondo's absence, then you might want to simply trust that Rondo will be able to learn from this and use this new information to guide and lead the team into the future (post KG and Pierce era)

"I hope this settles this debate once and for all" - yeah, me too, so we can get on with something that actually merits discussion

drops mic

Amen. TP. Fact.

The idea that there is only one "Fact" worth looking at, that it is incontrovertible, that there is only way of looking, to deny ways of looking, well, it goes on endlessly around here and it is ___________ (censored). It is a 6th grade debate team idea.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 07, 2013, 09:29:30 AM
Not again....

Mods, please do something >:(
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Donoghus on March 07, 2013, 09:31:22 AM
This debate certainly isn't over now with the playoffs still looming and probably still won't be put to bed once this season finaly does come to an end whenever that may be.  You can certainly make some interesting discussion, though.

Trying to be definitive about it doesn't make it fact.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Donoghus on March 07, 2013, 09:32:16 AM
Not again....

Mods, please do something >:(

You can always just avoid it.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 07, 2013, 09:34:52 AM

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.


To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen


agree......NEED A player who can shoot, hit free-throws and put the offense in motion .

Other words , a player like Tony Parker, CP3 , Irving , ect  ....not a non shooting ball hog.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 09:37:47 AM
In the field of debate and forensics there is fact and opinion.

Here are the facts:

The Celtics in 2012-2013 season have a better record without Rondo than they have with Rondo. Regardless of how you feel about Rondo, the Celtics, or basketball, this is an indisputable fact.

The 2012-2013 Boston Celtics have a better winning percentage post Rondo injury than pre-Rondo injury.

The team as more assists per game post Rondo injury than pre Rondo injury. Now those are the facts, everything else is spin.

Things like play you have not seen playoff Rondo or the team is going to lose steam are speculation without any basis in reality.

Arguments such as the team is only doing better because they other players did not perform when Rondo was on the team are just opinions that could be spun both ways. For example, what exactly was it about Rondo being on the team that made the other players not perform? The fact that other players did not perform when he was on team can be blamed on the other players by Rondo supporters, but Rondo could also be blamed for this observation. The fact however remains that the other players did not perform as well with Rondo regardless of who was responsible.

I hope this puts an end to the debate.

  First of all Doc changed the offense after Rondo went out, attributing any of our success to Rondo leaving and not Doc changing the offense would be pure speculation on your part.

  But here are a few more facts.

  In Nov PP and Jet combined for 31 ppg on 46% fg%, 41% on 3s.
  In Jan they combined for 23 ppg on 41% fg%, 30% on 3s.
  In Feb they combined for 30 ppg on 44% fg%, 40% on 3s.

  It's a fact that the shooting and scoring drought of those two had an adverse effect on the offense.

  It's a fact that they played both good and bad with Rondo and not just poorly with Rondo so he can't be the cause of their poor play.

  It's a fact that it's pretty widespread knowledge that PP and Terry were struggling with injuries yet you're trying to pin their struggles on "Rondo being on the team". Classy.

  It's also a fact that Jeff Green's play has improved significantly as the season's gone on.

  In Dec he shot 41% from the field, 32% on 3s.
  In Jan he shot 49% from the field, 35% on 3s.
  In Feb he shot 51% from the field, 41% on 3s.

  It's a fact that Green's improvement started well before Rondo left so you can't realistically attribute his improvement to Rondo leaving.

  It's a fact that you clearly hadn't noticed anything I mentioned above, and it's a fact that there are plenty of other things that can effect the team that you hadn't considered.

  It's a fact that our best shooting month was November *with* Rondo. It's also a fact that I haven't seen anyone who claims that Rondo's a "bad fit" for the team explain why our best offensive play came with Rondo controlling the offense, or acknowledge that much of our poor play on offense was based on other players performing poorly for reasons that had nothing to do with Rondo.

  As a basketball analysis your "facts" are about as in-depth as the claim that Tyson Chandler and DeAndre Jordan are the best shooters in the nba because they have the highest fg%.


 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 09:39:26 AM

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.


To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

  If Rondo was a little healthier in 2010 he'd have given us a title. Clearly he's capable of it despite your claims to the contrary.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 09:42:25 AM

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.


To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

  If Rondo was a little healthier in 2010 he'd have given us a title. Clearly he's capable of it despite your claims to the contrary.
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 09:43:13 AM

imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.

I think you're right. I am missing your point, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What the first part of your answer boils down to? Basically the Cs miss sizzle, even if it doesn't result in anything tangible.

So maybe we can try this a different, more productive way. Do you think Rondo can learn anything from how the Cs have been playing without him? If so, how do you see him taking that knowledge and applying it to improve his play and approach?

  First of all it's not about sizzle. I don't see why you can't get this. We didn't suck on offense all year long and suddenly start playing good when Rondo left. We started out playing very good offense (even with Green, who's playing very good now, playing much less consistently). We went from playing very well to playing poorly. Since Rondo was controlling the offense when we were playing very good on offense and he was still controlling the offense when it slumped it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something other than Rondo controlling the ball led to the slump.

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.

  And it's probably a mix of Rondo, Doc and the other players all learning things based on how the team's played over the last month or so. I know that people here think that Rondo rules the team with an iron fist and oppresses his teammates but that's not the case. He's probably doing pretty much what Doc wants him to, and there's probably a lot of truth to what Danny and KG said about the team relying too much on Rondo.

Ha, a 43 game slump? That's epic.

  So was our 54 game slump in 2010 and our 32 game slump last year. You must not have been following the team for long.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Evantime34 on March 07, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Correlation does not prove causation.

Correlation: The Celtics have played better without Rondo.

Causation: The Celtics have played better because they are without Rondo.

There are too many independent variables to prove that Rondo is/was the cause, here are a few, Jeff Green's return from heart surgery, the change in the structure of the offense, the return of Avery Bradley, the new emphasis on going small due to the Sullinger injury.

I think Rondo can come back next year and lead the offense we are currently running (more ball movement and pushing the tempo) even more effectively than it is being run now.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 09:44:52 AM

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.


To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

  If Rondo was a little healthier in 2010 he'd have given us a title. Clearly he's capable of it despite your claims to the contrary.
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 09:47:09 AM
who cares about wins ?...... long as Rondo makes highlight film with triple doubles

Sad, isn't it?

  Yes, because as far as you two know we rarely if ever win games where Rondo has triple doubles.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 09:49:25 AM

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.


This is just getting ugly, Timmy. It just smells like blind denial all the way around: who the team was with Rondo, who they are without him, your total disregard for results, even who their best player is... the entire POV.

I hope they keep getting worse without Rondo  ;)

  It is blind denial, but that's ok. You might not be able to refute the points that I make but at least you know how to put a smiley face in your post.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 09:54:13 AM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 10:07:35 AM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: pearljammer10 on March 07, 2013, 10:09:35 AM
Fact. We win 100% of the games KG misses this year. Fact.

I hope that settles all debates.

Love it. Do we need yet ANOTHER ridiculous Rondo thread that makes no sense?

Fact the Celtics won 16 rings without KG or Pierce.

Fact KG and Pierce only have one together.

To my ultimate conclusion, this means thats KG and Pierce are not worthy of being hall of famers and we should find other players to replace them that will get out championship winning percentage up.

I mean, this has to be a joke right?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: wdleehi on March 07, 2013, 10:22:57 AM
If we were all honest with ourselves, this team hasn't been the same since Scali left.




And look at the Bulls now that Scali left them. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 07, 2013, 10:30:47 AM
Timmay! You've made 6 of the last 8 posts in this thread. Take it easy on the coffee!!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 10:32:17 AM
Correlation does not prove causation.

Correlation: The Celtics have played better without Rondo.

Causation: The Celtics have played better because they are without Rondo.

There are too many independent variables to prove that Rondo is/was the cause, here are a few, Jeff Green's return from heart surgery, the change in the structure of the offense, the return of Avery Bradley, the new emphasis on going small due to the Sullinger injury.

I think Rondo can come back next year and lead the offense we are currently running (more ball movement and pushing the tempo) even more effectively than it is being run now.

TP for a smart post.  It's about time someone pointed out the fact that there is a difference between correlation and causation. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 10:35:18 AM
Timmay! You've made 6 of the last 8 posts in this thread. Take it easy on the coffee!!

  Haha. There were a lot of posts between the time I shut my computer off last night and turned it on this morning.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 07, 2013, 10:38:36 AM
Timmay! You've made 6 of the last 8 posts in this thread. Take it easy on the coffee!!

  Haha. There were a lot of posts between the time I shut my computer off last night and turned it on this morning.

Nice. You are definitely flying the Rondo flag... I give you credit for that. TP.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 10:55:09 AM

Rondo is such a downgrade over the backcourt we have right now that what he does to set up the offense isnt worth losing the defensive intensity over.



This is absolutely, 100%, untrue.  The defense was not worse with a backcourt of Rondo and Bradley than it has been with a backcourt of Bradley and Lee.  The defense has been very, very good with both those backcourt combinations.  According to the numbers at Basketball Reference, the team has been giving up 100 points per 100 possessions with Bradley starting alongside either of Rondo or Lee this season.

Last year when Bradley was inserted into the starting lineup, the defense was even better to close out the season, like historically good, giving up around 95 points per 100 possessions.  Of course that historically good defensive stretch featured a backcourt of Rondo and Bradley.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 11:18:48 AM
No they are not.

Avery Bradley's return has come with a huge improvement in our defense.  Other players have just started playing better.  Look at Jeff Green especially. There are many factors.

We are winning because of our defense right now.

Are there things to take form this streak going forward and how Rondo should integrate into the team?  Yes.  But how some people act like Rondo was literally a net negative for this team is unbelievable.

We got a good improvement to our defense when Bradley came back.  We got a GREAT improvement to our defense when Lee and AB started spending big minutes on the court together in the starting lineup.

Other players started playing better the instantly Rondo went down - it was like a switch was flipped.  The intensity, the ball movement, the sharing, the confidence of everybody on the team improved, and it was clearly evident to anybody who watched those games.  The change was instant the second Rondo was out.  I would argue those guys are all playing better BECAUSE Rondo went down. 

  I think the guys that were playing better in February after Rondo went down were PP and Jet (who were injured earlier and played their best ball of the year with Rondo in Nov), Green (who's numbers improved quite a bit from Dec to Jan while Rondo was playing), Bradley (who was coming back from a long layoff and had a rib injury in Jan) and Lee, who's play improved in Feb, (11 ppg on 48% shooting) the first 9 games of the month but has tailed off (7.6 ppg on 40% shooting) since.

  So out of the group of players who played well with Rondo when healthy or started to play well before Rondo got injured or were rusty from a long layoff or were hot for a few games and then cooled back off, how many of them were definitely playing better BECAUSE Rondo went out, and how many of them might have been playing better for OTHER reasons? Or did I miss any players who improved after Rondo went out?

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 11:23:02 AM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 11:25:15 AM

Rondo is such a downgrade over the backcourt we have right now that what he does to set up the offense isnt worth losing the defensive intensity over.



This is absolutely, 100%, untrue.  The defense was not worse with a backcourt of Rondo and Bradley than it has been with a backcourt of Bradley and Lee.  The defense has been very, very good with both those backcourt combinations.  According to the numbers at Basketball Reference, the team has been giving up 100 points per 100 possessions with Bradley starting alongside either of Rondo or Lee this season.

Last year when Bradley was inserted into the starting lineup, the defense was even better to close out the season, like historically good, giving up around 95 points per 100 possessions.  Of course that historically good defensive stretch featured a backcourt of Rondo and Bradley.

  People were talking about Rondo having bad defensive +/- numbers earlier in the year but the main culprit was his spending the most time on the court while KG was on the bench of the four regular guards.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 11:26:42 AM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

  Yeah, ignoring the bulk of his games (including the most recent ones) is probably the best way to gauge how well someone is playing.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 07, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
Maybe we should just vote on it ?  See which way the crowd is leaning ???



 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: wdleehi on March 07, 2013, 12:18:03 PM
Maybe we should just vote on it ?  See which way the crowd is leaning ???



 


Poll:  Should we waste a lot of time debating this?

a:  Yes
b:  No
c:  Bring back Walker.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Greenback on March 07, 2013, 12:41:27 PM
I wonder what kind of a thread we would have if the Celtics record were 4-13 since Rondo left.    There would probably be all kinds of correlation/causation arguments about Rondo’s greatness.  The people that know Rondo is not top drawer material would be shouted down – “but look at our record, look at our record.”

Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

So, should Rondo adapt to the new style of play or the Celtics go back to Rondo style of play?  Perhaps the best direction for the Celtics is to get badly needed rebounding and interior defense in exchange for Rondo’s services.

Some Rondo supporters must believe there IS causation or they wouldn’t be suggesting that Rondo adapt his style of play to fit in with the new and more effective group.   

Also, many people on here need to read the book:  “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 12:46:12 PM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

  Yeah, ignoring the bulk of his games (including the most recent ones) is probably the best way to gauge how well someone is playing.
Is this conversation still about the 2010 playoffs?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: AB_Celtic on March 07, 2013, 12:49:22 PM
Maybe we should just vote on it ?  See which way the crowd is leaning ???



 


Poll:  Should we waste a lot of time debating this?

a:  Yes
b:  No
c:  Bring back Walker.

d: Bring back Perk
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 12:52:06 PM
Maybe we should just vote on it ?  See which way the crowd is leaning ???



 


Poll:  Should we waste a lot of time debating this?

a:  Yes
b:  No
c:  Bring back Walker.

d: Bring back Perk
I want Waltah! I'm sure Tommy does, too!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 12:53:02 PM
I wonder what kind of a thread we would have if the Celtics record were 4-13 since Rondo left.    There would probably be all kinds of correlation/causation arguments about Rondo’s greatness.  The people that know Rondo is not top drawer material would be shouted down – “but look at our record, look at our record.”

Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

So, should Rondo adapt to the new style of play or the Celtics go back to Rondo style of play?  Perhaps the best direction for the Celtics is to get badly needed rebounding and interior defense in exchange for Rondo’s services.

Some Rondo supporters must believe there IS causation or they wouldn’t be suggesting that Rondo adapt his style of play to fit in with the new and more effective group.   

Also, many people on here need to read the book:  “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff.

Personally, I'd like to see a style of play that looks to push the pace at every opportunity when Rondo returns.  In the half court, I'd like to see a ball movement system like the one we've seen since Rondo's injury combined with a style that utilizes Rondo's strengths as a penetrator and shot creator.  I don't think those styles are mutually exclusive.  As a matter of fact, it's my belief that when we've been at our best offensively during Rondo's tenure is indeed when we've been able to mesh Rondo's strengths with a crisp, ball moving system of offense.



Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 07, 2013, 12:53:55 PM
a vote.....it's the only way to be sure.... ;D
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 12:58:42 PM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

  Yeah, ignoring the bulk of his games (including the most recent ones) is probably the best way to gauge how well someone is playing.
Is this conversation still about the 2010 playoffs?

  As far as I know.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 01:16:27 PM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

  Yeah, ignoring the bulk of his games (including the most recent ones) is probably the best way to gauge how well someone is playing.
Is this conversation still about the 2010 playoffs?

  As far as I know.
Then I'm not sure how I'm ignoring the "most recent games". Rondo had a great series against Cleveland in the Eastern semis, was largely the same guy in other series.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 01:19:33 PM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

  Yeah, ignoring the bulk of his games (including the most recent ones) is probably the best way to gauge how well someone is playing.
Is this conversation still about the 2010 playoffs?

  As far as I know.
Then I'm not sure how I'm ignoring the "most recent games". Rondo had a great series against Cleveland in the Eastern semis, was largely the same guy in other series.

  I don't know why you wouldn't consider ignoring the Cleveland series and pointing to his play to be anything other than ignoring "the most recent games". Maybe you're confused about the order of our opponents that year.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 01:23:06 PM
We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

  Claiming we lost a 7 game series (or a 4 point game) for one reason and one reason only is fairly nonsensical.
Yup, the 23 ORB we gave up in game 7 (and the average of 14.5 ORB in losses this series) are just nonsensical. If Rondo was just a little bit healthier, that would have just solved all our problems.

 ::)

  Rondo had some kind of leg or back injury in the Orlando series. Before that he was averaging 17/6/11 and shot 50% or better in half his games. We won 11 of 14 playoff games up to that point. After that he went for 14/5/7 and shot 50% or better twice in 10 games. We went 4-6 in the playoffs after his injury. It had a fairly drastic effect on our play.
What you're showing is largely an artifact of a Cleveland series where he averaged 20 and 11.

Take the series out, and he's the same guy in the finals that he was in the first round against Miami (14 pts, 6 rebounds, 8-10 assists per game).

  Yeah, ignoring the bulk of his games (including the most recent ones) is probably the best way to gauge how well someone is playing.
Is this conversation still about the 2010 playoffs?

  As far as I know.
Then I'm not sure how I'm ignoring the "most recent games". Rondo had a great series against Cleveland in the Eastern semis, was largely the same guy in other series.

The playoff series against Cleveland in 2010 was in my opinion this team's biggest, most memorable, and most impressive playoff series win for this team since beating the Lakers in 2008.  For what that's worth. 

Thanks, Rondo.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 07, 2013, 01:27:00 PM
Then I'm not sure how I'm ignoring the "most recent games". Rondo had a great series against Cleveland in the Eastern semis, was largely the same guy in other series.

  I don't know why you wouldn't consider ignoring the Cleveland series and pointing to his play to be anything other than ignoring "the most recent games". Maybe you're confused about the order of our opponents that year.
I'm not "ignoring the Cleveland series". I'm pointing out that the norm for Rondo was something different from what happened in the Cleveland series.

Also, I suggest you check the order of opponents that year yourself (Miami, Cleveland, Orlando, LA).
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Spicoli on March 07, 2013, 02:01:42 PM
Rondo is a lazy player and only plays hard when he wants to. I don't know about the rest of you, but i absolutely do not want to see the C's built around a player who only shows up half the time.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 02:10:21 PM
Not again....

Mods, please do something >:(

 ::) ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 02:13:12 PM
I wonder what kind of a thread we would have if the Celtics record were 4-13 since Rondo left.    There would probably be all kinds of correlation/causation arguments about Rondo’s greatness.  The people that know Rondo is not top drawer material would be shouted down – “but look at our record, look at our record.”

Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

So, should Rondo adapt to the new style of play or the Celtics go back to Rondo style of play?  Perhaps the best direction for the Celtics is to get badly needed rebounding and interior defense in exchange for Rondo’s services.

Some Rondo supporters must believe there IS causation or they wouldn’t be suggesting that Rondo adapt his style of play to fit in with the new and more effective group.   

Also, many people on here need to read the book:  “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff.

TP. If the score was with opposite value, 4-13, I bet some Rondo supporters will ask moderators to ban me and you ;D

I am saying again...

To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 02:18:02 PM
Then I'm not sure how I'm ignoring the "most recent games". Rondo had a great series against Cleveland in the Eastern semis, was largely the same guy in other series.

  I don't know why you wouldn't consider ignoring the Cleveland series and pointing to his play to be anything other than ignoring "the most recent games". Maybe you're confused about the order of our opponents that year.
I'm not "ignoring the Cleveland series". I'm pointing out that the norm for Rondo was something different from what happened in the Cleveland series.

Also, I suggest you check the order of opponents that year yourself (Miami, Cleveland, Orlando, LA).

  I don't think there was anything wrong with my ordering of teams. And if you want to talk about Rondo's "norm" it's the 17/6/11 including the Cleveland series, not the 14/6/8 without it. In 09 he went for 17/10/10, in 10 before the injury he was 17/6/11, in 11 before the elbow he was 17/7/11, in 12 he was 17/7/12. See a pattern there?

  If you remember the playoffs from that year his play against Miami was much better than his play against LA, you could see just by looking at him that something was off.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: fitzhickey on March 07, 2013, 02:18:36 PM
I wonder what kind of a thread we would have if the Celtics record were 4-13 since Rondo left.    There would probably be all kinds of correlation/causation arguments about Rondo’s greatness.  The people that know Rondo is not top drawer material would be shouted down – “but look at our record, look at our record.”

Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

So, should Rondo adapt to the new style of play or the Celtics go back to Rondo style of play?  Perhaps the best direction for the Celtics is to get badly needed rebounding and interior defense in exchange for Rondo’s services.

Some Rondo supporters must believe there IS causation or they wouldn’t be suggesting that Rondo adapt his style of play to fit in with the new and more effective group.   

Also, many people on here need to read the book:  “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff.

TP. If the score was with opposite value, 4-13, I bet some Rondo supporters will ask moderators to ban me and you ;D

I am saying again...

To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen
That's not true, magic Johnson and isisah Thomas, just to name two
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 02:21:54 PM
I wonder what kind of a thread we would have if the Celtics record were 4-13 since Rondo left.    There would probably be all kinds of correlation/causation arguments about Rondo’s greatness.  The people that know Rondo is not top drawer material would be shouted down – “but look at our record, look at our record.”

Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

So, should Rondo adapt to the new style of play or the Celtics go back to Rondo style of play?  Perhaps the best direction for the Celtics is to get badly needed rebounding and interior defense in exchange for Rondo’s services.

Some Rondo supporters must believe there IS causation or they wouldn’t be suggesting that Rondo adapt his style of play to fit in with the new and more effective group.   

Also, many people on here need to read the book:  “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff.

TP. If the score was with opposite value, 4-13, I bet some Rondo supporters will ask moderators to ban me and you ;D

I am saying again...

To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 02:28:47 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 02:33:11 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 02:35:39 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

  So when you said "There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard" you meant "no team has ever won a title without a big guy"? Because it's beyond ridiculous to say that Magic and Isiah didn't lead those teams to titles.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 02:45:31 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

  I can remember he'd have what seemed like 1-2 plays a game where he wouldn't bother to run back on defense, just wait under the basket while the team played 4v5 and hope for a long outlet pass if they got a rebound.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 02:53:47 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 02:58:39 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 03:12:19 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

I am sure you are a teenager. Telling me that Jaabar was 75 years old in 80s is the biggest stupidity I ever read in this forum. Learn the history and stop contaminating every topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Donoghus on March 07, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

I am sure you are a teenager. Telling me that Jaabar was 75 years old in 80s is the biggest stupidity I ever read in this forum. Learn the history and stop contaminating every topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar

You might want to settle down there rather than just blindly go after people you don't know anything about. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 07, 2013, 03:21:16 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

I am sure you are a teenager. Telling me that Jaabar was 75 years old in 80s is the biggest stupidity I ever read in this forum. Learn the history and stop contaminating every topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar

You might want to settle down there rather than just blindly go after people you don't know anything about.

He's not even 75 now. Hahaha.  :P ;D
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 03:28:41 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 07, 2013, 03:29:11 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

Those teams -- the Lake show and the Pistons -- were built around PGs who where top scorers, and arguably two of the best at their position of all time. To say Rondo in anyway mirrors the games of either Magic or Thomas isn't reasonable.

If you remove those two examples, there really aren't any others in the shot clock era.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 03:32:32 PM
Those teams -- the Lake show and the Pistons -- were built around PGs who where top scorers,

How can be Lakers with top scorer PG when Jaabar is...

He is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, with 38,387 points.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 03:44:30 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

I am sure you are a teenager. Telling me that Jaabar was 75 years old in 80s is the biggest stupidity I ever read in this forum. Learn the history and stop contaminating every topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar

  I didn't say that, but it was a fairly amusing *sarcastic* comment.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 03:50:08 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 03:54:34 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

Those teams -- the Lake show and the Pistons -- were built around PGs who where top scorers, and arguably two of the best at their position of all time. To say Rondo in anyway mirrors the games of either Magic or Thomas isn't reasonable.

If you remove those two examples, there really aren't any others in the shot clock era.

  Too funny. It has to be an exact type of point guard because things that haven't happened (or so people claim) in the past can't possibly happen in the future. I'd say that a player that can get us to within a game of a title when he's 25 will be capable of more when he's 28-30, just  like many other great players.

  The solution to the dilemma isn't to get rid of Rondo, it's to have him lead us to a title and have all of his critics give the credit to someone who better fits their idea of a top player on a title team. Everyone wins.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 04:00:35 PM
Those teams -- the Lake show and the Pistons -- were built around PGs who where top scorers,

How can be Lakers with top scorer PG when Jaabar is...

He is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, with 38,387 points.

  Did Magic lead his team in scoring in any of their title years? I'd be a little surprised if he did.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 04:06:25 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ssspence on March 07, 2013, 04:08:45 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

Those teams -- the Lake show and the Pistons -- were built around PGs who where top scorers, and arguably two of the best at their position of all time. To say Rondo in anyway mirrors the games of either Magic or Thomas isn't reasonable.

If you remove those two examples, there really aren't any others in the shot clock era.

  Too funny. It has to be an exact type of point guard because things that haven't happened (or so people claim) in the past can't possibly happen in the future. I'd say that a player that can get us to within a game of a title when he's 25 will be capable of more when he's 28-30, just  like many other great players.

  The solution to the dilemma isn't to get rid of Rondo, it's to have him lead us to a title and have all of his critics give the credit to someone who better fits their idea of a top player on a title team. Everyone wins.

An exact type? I referred to 2 of the 3 greatest PGs of all time, both of whom were lethal scorers. Two of the greatest players to ever lace 'em up, period. Can you name another championship team that was built around a PG? Because it sure is easy to name teams that have been built around great PGs who couldn't hoist a trophy.

Meanwhile, it's embarrassing to try to compare Rondo to Johnson or Thomas. Rondo is below 25% from 3 and below 65% from the line for his career.

As I've said to you before, if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend Rondo is that type of player, be my guest but don't ask the rest of us to do it....


 


Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 04:54:38 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

  Did you see the 80s? I can't believe anyone that did would claim teams built around point guards have never won titles.

Those teams -- the Lake show and the Pistons -- were built around PGs who where top scorers, and arguably two of the best at their position of all time. To say Rondo in anyway mirrors the games of either Magic or Thomas isn't reasonable.

If you remove those two examples, there really aren't any others in the shot clock era.

  Too funny. It has to be an exact type of point guard because things that haven't happened (or so people claim) in the past can't possibly happen in the future. I'd say that a player that can get us to within a game of a title when he's 25 will be capable of more when he's 28-30, just  like many other great players.

  The solution to the dilemma isn't to get rid of Rondo, it's to have him lead us to a title and have all of his critics give the credit to someone who better fits their idea of a top player on a title team. Everyone wins.

An exact type? I referred to 2 of the 3 greatest PGs of all time, both of whom were lethal scorers. These are two of the greatest players to ever lace 'em up, period. Can you name another championship team that was built around a PG? Because it sure is easy to name teams that have been built around great PGs who couldn't hoist a trophy.

Meanwhile, it's embarrassing to try to compare Rondo to Johnson or Thomas. Rondo is below 25% from 3 and below 65% from the line for his career.

As I've said to you before, if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend Rondo is that type of player, be my guest but don't ask the rest of us to do it....

  Here's part of one of my earlier posts about Rondo:

And if you want to talk about Rondo's "norm" it's the 17/6/11 including the Cleveland series, not the 14/6/8 without it. In 09 he went for 17/10/10, in 10 before the injury he was 17/6/11, in 11 before the elbow he was 17/7/11, in 12 he was 17/7/12.

  In Isiah's 2 title years in the playoffs he averaged 19/5/8. In Magic's 5 title years he averaged 19/8/12. Considering that Magic's teams averaged about 20 points a game more than the Celts and even Isiah's averaged more than us the 17/7/12 he's capable of is, at least statistically, reasonably comparable to what they did in their title years.

  Not saying Rondo's the same player that they were but people really sleep on what he does. Consider Stockton in his prime averaged about 16/4/12, Payton's prime was 22/5/7, Kidd's was 16/7/9, Nash was 18/4/10. Over the last 4 years Rondo's averaged 16/7/10. People like to look down their noses at what Rondo does but his stats in the playoffs hold up pretty well against stiff competition.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: LooseCannon on March 07, 2013, 05:22:14 PM
  Did Magic lead his team in scoring in any of their title years? I'd be a little surprised if he did.

86-87 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1987.html).

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 07, 2013, 05:33:18 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 07, 2013, 06:13:48 PM
I'd like to refer you to the Pistons of '89 and '90, the 2007 Spurs, the 2004 Pistons, and of course the Lakers of the 1980s.

You wrong. All of them had at least a big guy, or 2-3 superstars. For example Spurs had Tim Duncan+Ginobili+Parker

Lakers of 80s? Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?

In 1988, Kareem was--I believe--about 75 years old.

I bet you are a teenager and never seen NBA on 80 or 90s...

How much?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

I don't care how you try to slice it. I know alot of people will try to bring up the KG argument saying "Oh, we played well without KG when he went down" There's one big difference there. We were winning with KG and continued to win without him for awhile. In this case we were LOSING and playing like GARBAGE with rondo. The second he goes down we look better and go on our best streak of the season. That just doesn't happen or shouldn't happen unless that player was hurting the team in some way.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: mctyson on March 07, 2013, 06:56:01 PM
I have sort of stayed away from this topic because Rondo is my favorite player in the league, but I will say a few things:

1) It is entirely possible that THIS team (i.e. the one with Lee, Green, Terry, etc...) is better without Rondo than with him.

2) It is also possible that people are simply stepping up their games because he went down.

3) It is definitely true that Rondo was dogging it on defense this year...for whatever reason I don't know.  He could be as good, if not better, than Bradley.

4) It was always a ridiculous statement that Rondo was the MVP of this team.  That is, and will continue to be, Kevin Garnett.

5) It also was a ridiculous statement that Rondo was our most important offensive player.  That is, and will continue to be, Paul Pierce.

6) Maybe Ray Allen knew something we haven't realized yet.

7) Rondo still is the most talented player on the roster right now and could take this franchise to a Finals.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 06:56:46 PM
  Did Magic lead his team in scoring in any of their title years? I'd be a little surprised if he did.

86-87 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1987.html).

  Good find. He never did in the playoffs, that must have been what I was thinking of.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: LooseCannon on March 07, 2013, 07:13:17 PM
Here's what Ainge had to say (http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703031/quick-hits-from-ainge-4):

Quote
On how the team has played differently without Rajon Rondo: "...Sometimes it's the fact that the players defer to the other great players. Sometimes they don't practice it because it's just so easy to get the ball to Rondo to bring up all the time instead of Avery grabbing the defensive rebound and pushing the ball up the court himself, and Rondo running on the other wing and the ball being swung to Rondo and now he's coming off the pick-and-roll. And so, I think that we're all learning from this. We're all learning that the respect of the other players is growing and they get the respect that they now deserve, as opposed to being the guys that aren't living up to their potential.

"It's just amazing that two months ago it was Jeff Green and Courtney Lee and Jason Terry that weren't playing well enough. And now all of a sudden we're 13-4 and those guys are playing great. And I think that Rondo was, like, voted a starter on the All-Star team and now it's like we're better without him. I mean, this stuff is crazy, how the trends go. I think there's a tiny bit of truth in all of it, like Rondo can adjust his game to allow other players to play a little better, move better without the ball, play more, cut harder, and shoot more, shoot his mid-range jump shot more. I think all those things, and turn the ball over less. But I think that we have a much better chance of beating Miami in a playoff series with Rajon Rondo."

I think he's right that part of the problem is that players deferred too much to the Rondo-god.  I'm much more optimistic about Rondo being able to adjust his game as he learns to trust his newer teammates than I am about bringing in a player with star potential and a headcase reputation (say, Demarcus Cousins) and having that player improve mentally under the influence of KG and Doc.  I'd still like to add another big and a wing who is good at catch and shoot situations, though.

Ainge also said that part of the problem was the poor defense earlier in the season.  I thought that was a problem due to the new personnel and the absence of Bradley and that it would take at least half a season before the defense was what we want to see.  That is something that was obviously getting better as the season progressed.  Rondo's injury just happened to coincide with when the defense was really just starting to gel.  I have a lot of confidence in the team's ability to play like a top five defense next season, since they will probably have the personnel that knows the scheme, and as long as they have that, they will always be at least a fringe legitimate contender. 





Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 07:19:04 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

  So, for the record, if PP and Jet had their best play of the year when Rondo was playing and both were playing poorly when they were struggling with injuries are you still claiming that Rondo leaving the lineup was the reason that they were playing better? If you're claiming that Rondo was causing them to play poorly, how do you explain the fact that they were playing better in November playing with Rondo than they have been since he was out?

  Similarly, if Green's shooting improved greatly in January when Rondo was playing and continued to improve when Rondo left the lineup are you saying he was also playing better because Rondo stopped playing? If so, how do you explain the improvement in his play while Rondo was still in the lineup?

  If Lee's play improved when Rondo left the lineup and his play fell off after a few games would you still say that the temporary improvement was because of Rondo?

  How would you respond to the claim that Rondo and Sully's injuries freed up playing time logjams and getting more consistent minutes made people play better? Are you going to say that it's not possible that's true?

  Did I miss you addressing these issues somewhere? Because right now all I'm seeing is you insisting that Rondo leaving was the cause of our upswing and ignoring any of the other reasonable explanations about what's happened to the team.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 07:22:23 PM
Here's what Ainge had to say (http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4703031/quick-hits-from-ainge-4):

Quote
On how the team has played differently without Rajon Rondo: "...Sometimes it's the fact that the players defer to the other great players. Sometimes they don't practice it because it's just so easy to get the ball to Rondo to bring up all the time instead of Avery grabbing the defensive rebound and pushing the ball up the court himself, and Rondo running on the other wing and the ball being swung to Rondo and now he's coming off the pick-and-roll. And so, I think that we're all learning from this. We're all learning that the respect of the other players is growing and they get the respect that they now deserve, as opposed to being the guys that aren't living up to their potential.

"It's just amazing that two months ago it was Jeff Green and Courtney Lee and Jason Terry that weren't playing well enough. And now all of a sudden we're 13-4 and those guys are playing great. And I think that Rondo was, like, voted a starter on the All-Star team and now it's like we're better without him. I mean, this stuff is crazy, how the trends go. I think there's a tiny bit of truth in all of it, like Rondo can adjust his game to allow other players to play a little better, move better without the ball, play more, cut harder, and shoot more, shoot his mid-range jump shot more. I think all those things, and turn the ball over less. But I think that we have a much better chance of beating Miami in a playoff series with Rajon Rondo."

I think he's right that part of the problem is that players deferred too much to the Rondo-god.  I'm much more optimistic about Rondo being able to adjust his game as he learns to trust his newer teammates than I am about bringing in a player with star potential and a headcase reputation (say, Demarcus Cousins) and having that player improve mentally under the influence of KG and Doc.  I'd still like to add another big and a wing who is good at catch and shoot situations, though.

Ainge also said that part of the problem was the poor defense earlier in the season.  I thought that was a problem due to the new personnel and the absence of Bradley and that it would take at least half a season before the defense was what we want to see.  That is something that was obviously getting better as the season progressed.  Rondo's injury just happened to coincide with when the defense was really just starting to gel.  I have a lot of confidence in the team's ability to play like a top five defense next season, since they will probably have the personnel that knows the scheme, and as long as they have that, they will always be at least a fringe legitimate contender.

I was waiting for somebody to post this so I didn't have too. I thought you guys were going to let me down for a second there.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 07, 2013, 07:22:29 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

I don't care how you try to slice it. I know alot of people will try to bring up the KG argument saying "Oh, we played well without KG when he went down" There's one big difference there. We were winning with KG and continued to win without him for awhile. In this case we were LOSING and playing like GARBAGE with rondo. The second he goes down we look better and go on our best streak of the season. That just doesn't happen or shouldn't happen unless that player was hurting the team in some way.

I fail to see how Pierce rebounding the ball more has anything to do with Rondo.

And no, we don't have more team assists. We averaged 24.2 assists per 100 possessions and had a 62.8 AST% with Rondo. Without, we average 24.1 assists per 100 possessions and have a 62 AST%. So pretty much no difference with/without Rondo, which is surprising considering the amount of people claiming how improved the offense is. In reality, the offense is still mediocre at best while the defense has returned to an elite level - the real reason why we are winning. 

But, there is no use arguing this further if you are unable to see the other factors that contributed to our poor play besides Rondo. I assume since we had a losing record with Sully and a winning record without him, you believe he was hurting the team as well?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 07:32:28 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

I don't care how you try to slice it. I know alot of people will try to bring up the KG argument saying "Oh, we played well without KG when he went down" There's one big difference there. We were winning with KG and continued to win without him for awhile. In this case we were LOSING and playing like GARBAGE with rondo. The second he goes down we look better and go on our best streak of the season. That just doesn't happen or shouldn't happen unless that player was hurting the team in some way.

I fail to see how Pierce rebounding the ball more has anything to do with Rondo.

  It (and the fact that he's not bouncing flat jumpers off the front of the rim) are signs that he's healthier and moving around better. Clearly his improved play isn't due to the fact that he's no longer playing with the pg that he had the most efficient scoring years of his career with.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kgainez on March 07, 2013, 07:34:44 PM
The more the Celtics play, the more it continues to amaze me how some can still make the argument that this team is not better without Rondo.
[/quote

it is kind of getting crazy
at what point will some of you people actually believe?
we are 13-4 and stole a game from the #2 Pacers.
it's really sad
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 07:35:29 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

  So, for the record, if PP and Jet had their best play of the year when Rondo was playing and both were playing poorly when they were struggling with injuries are you still claiming that Rondo leaving the lineup was the reason that they were playing better? If you're claiming that Rondo was causing them to play poorly, how do you explain the fact that they were playing better in November playing with Rondo than they have been since he was out?

  Similarly, if Green's shooting improved greatly in January when Rondo was playing and continued to improve when Rondo left the lineup are you saying he was also playing better because Rondo stopped playing? If so, how do you explain the improvement in his play while Rondo was still in the lineup?

  If Lee's play improved when Rondo left the lineup and his play fell off after a few games would you still say that the temporary improvement was because of Rondo?

  How would you respond to the claim that Rondo and Sully's injuries freed up playing time logjams and getting more consistent minutes made people play better? Are you going to say that it's not possible that's true?

  Did I miss you addressing these issues somewhere? Because right now all I'm seeing is you insisting that Rondo leaving was the cause of our upswing and ignoring any of the other reasonable explanations about what's happened to the team.

Before I address this give me the link to where you got these stats.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: 2short on March 07, 2013, 07:41:12 PM
like what ainge had to say
also same thing happened last year, we were subpar til all star game and then things were tuned in and the defense looked amazing and the offense improved
and yes that was DESPITE the fact that the evil rondo was playing  ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 07, 2013, 07:46:32 PM
I have a few questions for those who think we're better without Rondo:

Do you think this team can win in the playoffs (In other words, how far can they go?)?

Do you think we should keep this core next year and trade Rondo?

Do you think we play better without Rondo, OR do you think we're a better team without Rondo (two entirely different questions)?

Do you think our record would be worse if Rondo was still playing?

Feel free to give one word answers, but elaboration would be appreciated.  TPs for responses.


Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kgainez on March 07, 2013, 07:50:55 PM
I have sort of stayed away from this topic because Rondo is my favorite player in the league, but I will say a few things:

1) It is entirely possible that THIS team (i.e. the one with Lee, Green, Terry, etc...) is better without Rondo than with him.

2) It is also possible that people are simply stepping up their games because he went down.

3) It is definitely true that Rondo was dogging it on defense this year...for whatever reason I don't know.  He could be as good, if not better, than Bradley.

4) It was always a ridiculous statement that Rondo was the MVP of this team.  That is, and will continue to be, Kevin Garnett.

5) It also was a ridiculous statement that Rondo was our most important offensive player.  That is, and will continue to be, Paul Pierce.

6) Maybe Ray Allen knew something we haven't realized yet.

7) Rondo still is the most talented player on the roster right now and could take this franchise to a Finals.

this
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 07:54:17 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

  So, for the record, if PP and Jet had their best play of the year when Rondo was playing and both were playing poorly when they were struggling with injuries are you still claiming that Rondo leaving the lineup was the reason that they were playing better? If you're claiming that Rondo was causing them to play poorly, how do you explain the fact that they were playing better in November playing with Rondo than they have been since he was out?

  Similarly, if Green's shooting improved greatly in January when Rondo was playing and continued to improve when Rondo left the lineup are you saying he was also playing better because Rondo stopped playing? If so, how do you explain the improvement in his play while Rondo was still in the lineup?

  If Lee's play improved when Rondo left the lineup and his play fell off after a few games would you still say that the temporary improvement was because of Rondo?

  How would you respond to the claim that Rondo and Sully's injuries freed up playing time logjams and getting more consistent minutes made people play better? Are you going to say that it's not possible that's true?

  Did I miss you addressing these issues somewhere? Because right now all I'm seeing is you insisting that Rondo leaving was the cause of our upswing and ignoring any of the other reasonable explanations about what's happened to the team.

Before I address this give me the link to where you got these stats.

  Just monthly splits from espn or basketballreference, and game logs from the same place for Lee.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kgainez on March 07, 2013, 08:00:29 PM
I have a few questions for those who think we're better without Rondo:

Do you think this team can win in the playoffs (In other words, how far can they go?)?

Depends on our seeding. Right now, matched with Pacers, we could be a first round exit. If our first round is the Knicks or Hawks, we can get to the 2nd round. I'm worried most about the Heat (duh) and the Pacers. After the game yesterday though, it feels like this team has found ways to win and I wouldn't be mad to see us in the ECF at least.


Do you think we should keep this core next year and trade Rondo?

Nope. Rondo has to buy into the idea of ball movement and getting the ball up the floor. Also, the other role players have to gain confidence and stop deferring to RR, KG, PP

Do you think we play better without Rondo, OR do you think we're a better team without Rondo (two entirely different questions)?

Does not compute. It's tough to say because I think I'd have to make speculations about Rondo as a teammate.

Do you think our record would be worse if Rondo was still playing?

I most certainly do. It'd prolly be close to .500. Many of our games were won on ball movement and other folks not named PP or KG taking over.

Feel free to give one word answers, but elaboration would be appreciated.  TPs for responses.

My biggest issue with Rondo is I think he's the 'leader' of this team as he's been dubbed -- and that's fine because he's crazy talented. The problem is he seems to show up when he wants and how he wants.

When you know you're smart, you don't apply yourself all the time. You cram for your tests and ace those because you know when to show up. You skate past on regular assignments. Trust me. I'd know lol.

I think once he decides he wants to be more consistent, then the team would too.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 08:29:21 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

You failed to mention assists and rebounds. I know pierce has been doing more of that since rondo went down also correct me if I'm wrong don't the celtics have more TEAM assists without rondo? You can throw all the stats at me you want but the bottom line is the celtics were losing and looking really bad.

They started looking alot better and WINNING the very second rondo went down. Not a few games later not a couple weeks later but the very second rondo goes down we go on our longest win streak of the year. That is NOT supposed to happen when you lose your best player.

  So, for the record, if PP and Jet had their best play of the year when Rondo was playing and both were playing poorly when they were struggling with injuries are you still claiming that Rondo leaving the lineup was the reason that they were playing better? If you're claiming that Rondo was causing them to play poorly, how do you explain the fact that they were playing better in November playing with Rondo than they have been since he was out?

  Similarly, if Green's shooting improved greatly in January when Rondo was playing and continued to improve when Rondo left the lineup are you saying he was also playing better because Rondo stopped playing? If so, how do you explain the improvement in his play while Rondo was still in the lineup?

  If Lee's play improved when Rondo left the lineup and his play fell off after a few games would you still say that the temporary improvement was because of Rondo?

  How would you respond to the claim that Rondo and Sully's injuries freed up playing time logjams and getting more consistent minutes made people play better? Are you going to say that it's not possible that's true?

  Did I miss you addressing these issues somewhere? Because right now all I'm seeing is you insisting that Rondo leaving was the cause of our upswing and ignoring any of the other reasonable explanations about what's happened to the team.

Before I address this give me the link to where you got these stats.

  Just monthly splits from espn or basketballreference, and game logs from the same place for Lee.

Can't find out how to do it on a monthly basis I give up. I just noticed you skipped months for players tho. Something else that is weird to me is that LEE shot really well to start the season going by those numbers but if you watch the game his shots were off for awhile.

My guess is that he had some games where he only shot the ball like 3 times and maybe got two buckets which of course add up to a good percentage. So going by all these stats the celtics are either about the same without rondo or better and their record is alot better.

So, the celtics aren't worse without rondo *Going by numbers* and they are winning more games without him. So where exactly is he missed? I'm legit confused here.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
I have a few questions for those who think we're better without Rondo:

Do you think this team can win in the playoffs (In other words, how far can they go?)?

Do you think we should keep this core next year and trade Rondo?

Do you think we play better without Rondo, OR do you think we're a better team without Rondo (two entirely different questions)?

Do you think our record would be worse if Rondo was still playing?

Feel free to give one word answers, but elaboration would be appreciated.  TPs for responses.

1.) I think they can go until they run into miami.

2.) I'm still tossing that around. Depends what we can get for him.

3.) I think we play better without rondo.

4.) Yup
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 08:45:53 PM
I have a few questions for those who think we're better without Rondo:

Why you do not agree with the reality? We do not think. We are sure because the stats tell us that: With Rondo the score is 20-23, without Rondo is 13-4



Do you think this team can win in the playoffs (In other words, how far can they go?)?


The team can reach the finals of the EAST if they play like now.



Do you think we should keep this core next year and trade Rondo?


This is the best solution. Trade him and sign a good center, and try to get a normal PG


Do you think we play better without Rondo, OR do you think we're a better team without Rondo (two entirely different questions)?


Of course the team plays better without him.


Do you think our record would be worse if Rondo was still playing?


Of course. With Rondo the team was under .500 score, in critical situation maiking or not making playoffs. Remember what is said after lost game in OT @ Atlanta?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticsFan9 on March 07, 2013, 09:00:37 PM
I have a few questions for those who think we're better without Rondo:

Why you do not agree with the reality? We do not think. We are sure because the stats tell us that: With Rondo the score is 20-23, without Rondo is 13-4



Do you think this team can win in the playoffs (In other words, how far can they go?)?


The team can reach the finals of the EAST if they play like now.



Do you think we should keep this core next year and trade Rondo?


This is the best solution. Trade him and sign a good center, and try to get a normal PG


Do you think we play better without Rondo, OR do you think we're a better team without Rondo (two entirely different questions)?


Of course the team plays better without him.


Do you think our record would be worse if Rondo was still playing?


Of course. With Rondo the team was under .500 score, in critical situation maiking or not making playoffs. Remember what is said after lost game in OT @ Atlanta?

Where did I say I disagreed with you?  Quit attacking me and appreciate the freaking TP.  Look, we're 1-0 without KG, and 32-27 with him.  I'd rather win 100% of my games, so I guess we should get rid of KG, too?  Great logic.

Agree about reaching the East finals.  The only two teams that really scare me are Chicago and Miami, and it looks like they play each other in the second round.  Score!

What's a "normal PG?"

While I agree that we've played better without Rondo, people need to realize this team isn't a contender without Rondo.  He's one of the few guys in the entire league that Miami is scared of.  Danny built this team to beat Miami, and Rondo was the key cog in his plan.  Now that Rondo's out, we're a worse team.

I have no idea what our record would be.  Just a month ago the Lakers lost to us badly and now they're above .500, so you never know.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: eugen on March 07, 2013, 09:06:32 PM

What's a "normal PG?"


Normal means a good point guard who does not get too much money if you compare to Rondo and who has experience in NBA ;)


While I agree that we've played better without Rondo, people need to realize this team isn't a contender without Rondo.  He's one of the few guys in the entire league that Miami is scared of.  Danny built this team to beat Miami, and Rondo was the key cog in his plan.


To beat MIAMI you need a good defensive team, to stop Lebron and Wade. Rondo is not the right guy to stop them. If Danny created the team based on Rondo to beat HEAT, thats why Cs could not beat MIAMI in last 2 seasons
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: bfrombleacher on March 07, 2013, 09:09:01 PM
Quote
I think to say the Celtics are better without Rondo is a huge mistake, and I hope the team keeps both him and Bradley as I think they are better when both play together: i.e. Bradley cutting ability goes perfect with Rondo passing ability on offense, and on defense with Bradley on the ball handler Rondo can anticipate shooter and get more steals on the pass lane. What I think its happening right now is that when Rondo was present the team was insisting in playing a type of basketball that wouldn't be very successful on the regular season given it high risk for mistakes since Rondo was always trying to figure out what the best play was, put together the fact that the team was still getting to know itself, more probable mistakes were to happen, and we kept seeing it over and over again, except against more familiar faces (which end up being most of these national TV games). But when it comes to post season this is the type of basketball you want your team playing since you have plenty time to study the opponent, and in that moment you want somebody like Rondo who can pick up the other team configuration and exploit the best match up.
So my hope as a Celtics fan is that the Team learn how to play both ways, and develop the ability to switch back and forth as needed.

Cool post from the comments on Celtics Life (http://www.celticslife.com/2013/03/rajon-rondo-and-avery-bradley-winning.html). Can't believe I only just found out about the site.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 07, 2013, 10:08:37 PM

What's a "normal PG?"


Normal means a good point guard who does not get too much money if you compare to Rondo and who has experience in NBA ;)


While I agree that we've played better without Rondo, people need to realize this team isn't a contender without Rondo.  He's one of the few guys in the entire league that Miami is scared of.  Danny built this team to beat Miami, and Rondo was the key cog in his plan.


To beat MIAMI you need a good defensive team, to stop Lebron and Wade. Rondo is not the right guy to stop them. If Danny created the team based on Rondo to beat HEAT, thats why Cs could not beat MIAMI in last 2 seasons

  Last year we had the best defense in the league. That only takes you so far. You also have to have an offense that can hold up against tough defenses, that's something we need Rondo for. Did you like our offense against the Bulls or the Pacers? Because those are the types of defenses we'll be facing in the playoffs.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 11:02:59 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

First off you left out one of lees worst months which was with rondo. November he shot 42 percent. Secondly you took lees months individually but then you averaged how he did in febuary and march *Even tho we're only one week into march* to make his averages look bad since hes off to a bad start shooting wise in march. This is why I never trust stats over what I know I'm seeing on the court.

This is also why I never trust stats when you guys post them because in most cases you can pick and choose what stats you want and leave out the bad ones to make your case look stronger than it really is.

Lee shot 47 percent in february and 41 percent from 3 *His best month from deep* without rondo. You didn't say that tho because It wouldn't have made the strongest case for your point which is "Lee played better with rondo".

You also left out one of terrys worst months *With rondo how surprising* when he shot 41 percent in january. Rondo got hurt in that month but it was at the very end of the month so you have to count that. Terry shot 48 percent in february but instead of saying that you took that month and march *Even tho its only a week into the month* to make his average look a little worse overall.

Go figure you also left out of greens bad months with rondo *November* I could keep going but you see my point. From what I'm seeing here lee green and terry played AT THE VERY LEAST no worse without rondo and you could make a strong case by the numbers and by watching the games that they play better without him. None of these numbers prove the celtics miss rondo in any way shape or form.


Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 07, 2013, 11:27:57 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

First off you left out one of lees worst months which was with rondo. November he shot 42 percent. Secondly you took lees months individually but then you averaged how he did in febuary and march *Even tho we're only one week into march* to make his averages look bad since hes off to a bad start shooting wise in march. This is why I never trust stats over what I know I'm seeing on the court.

This is also why I never trust stats when you guys post them because in most cases you can pick and choose what stats you want and leave out the bad ones to make your case look stronger than it really is.

Lee shot 47 percent in february and 41 percent from 3 *His best month from deep* without rondo. You didn't say that tho because It wouldn't have made the strongest case for your point which is "Lee played better with rondo".

You also left out one of terrys worst months *With rondo how surprising* when he shot 41 percent in january. Rondo got hurt in that month but it was at the very end of the month so you have to count that. Terry shot 48 percent in february but instead of saying that you took that month and march *Even tho its only a week into the month* to make his average look a little worse overall.

Go figure you also left out of greens bad months with rondo *November* I could keep going but you see my point. From what I'm seeing here lee green and terry played AT THE VERY LEAST no worse without rondo and you could make a strong case by the numbers and by watching the games that they play better without him. None of these numbers prove the celtics miss rondo in any way shape or form.

First of all, my point was never "Lee, Green, and Terry play better with Rondo", and no where in my post did I imply that. In fact I specifically said he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season.

Second of all, Terry's worst month shooting the ball was in December (37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%), which I clearly noted in my post. And I purposely put examples of their good shooting months as well as their bad ones to show that there have been times where Terry, Lee, Green, ect. play well with Rondo *and* without him. You implied that everyone is suddenly playing better because Rondo is out, when that's just not true. Green, for example, started to improve well before Rondo's injury.

And no, I didn't intentionally average February and March together to make their averages look worse. Those "without Rondo" stats are from January 25th to March 6th - I think you can guess why.
 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 07, 2013, 11:41:59 PM
Some Rondo supporters, try to argue why Rondo would fit with the team now.  That seems to be an admission that the team is playing a more desirable and effective style of basketball.  However, there is no evidence to believe that Rondo would change his bad habits.  His strengths do not appear to fit in with the new style of play; and his weaknesses do not allow the new and effective style of play.

  One of the biggest fallacies of this discussion is that Rondo's "bad habits" are the reason we were playing the way we were, like somehow not only PP and KG but the coaches had no say in the style of play that we saw. He's implementing Doc's game plan, and we've seen plenty of evidence over the years that it's a successful plan.

That's your problem, you keep talking about past years as If this is the same team as those other years and its not. What worked with one group of guys might not work with another.

  You're right, I don't know that I've ever seen Rondo start with KG, PP, Bass and Bradley before. I know that people generally refer to teams that return all 5 starters as being drastically different but I don't always agree with that. I'd say your problem is saying that something that worked earlier in the year and faltered when players (who were playing through injuries) were playing poorly can't work. Part of my problem is I talk about things that happened earlier *this year* and people don't have any recollection of that part of the season.

A bench is a HUGE part of a team. You can't just look at the starting lineup and say we have the same team and just completely ignore the fact our bench is 100 percent different. You're not the same team if your bench isn't what it was last year. I mean, duh...

Your problem is you're using the injury excuse. Pierce is STILL playing hurt according to reports. What do you mean by your last sentence? Your reasons to why the celtics were playing poorly and losing is filled with nothing but excuses.

You're telling me the celtics were playing bad because of new guys fitting in to the system and injuries but THE VERY SECOND rondo goes down all of a sudden everybody is playing well and nobody is hurt anymore? Just pure coincidence huh? Give it a rest tim. It really is getting ridiculous now.

Lee in December w/ Rondo: 46.9 FG%, 38.5 3PT%
Lee in January w/ Rondo: 50 FG%, 38.7 3PT%
Lee without Rondo: 43.3 FG%, 37.8 3PT%

Terry in November w/ Rondo : 52.1 FG%, 42.9 3PT%
Terry in December w/ Rondo: 37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%
Terry without Rondo: 45.5 FG%, 39 3PT%

Pierce in December w/ Rondo: 44.1 FG%, 35.5 3PT%
Pierce in January w/ Rondo: 39.4 FG%, 29.6 3PT%
Pierce without Rondo: 42.6%, 42 3PT%

Green in December w/ Rondo 41.1 FG%, 33.6 3PT%
Green in January w/ Rondo: 47.6 FG%, 37.5 3PT%
Green without Rondo: 50.8 FG%, 35.7 3PT%


Given that Lee, Terry, and Green have all performed very well with Rondo on the floor at some point this season, I think it's silly to say that he doesn't fit in with this team. I also fail to see how inconsistent shooting from the C's (noticeably Pierce and Terry, which could be due to injuries) is somehow Rondo's fault.

Yes, he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season, but I think there is a lot of revisionist of history going on about this team before Rondo got hurt.

First off you left out one of lees worst months which was with rondo. November he shot 42 percent. Secondly you took lees months individually but then you averaged how he did in febuary and march *Even tho we're only one week into march* to make his averages look bad since hes off to a bad start shooting wise in march. This is why I never trust stats over what I know I'm seeing on the court.

This is also why I never trust stats when you guys post them because in most cases you can pick and choose what stats you want and leave out the bad ones to make your case look stronger than it really is.

Lee shot 47 percent in february and 41 percent from 3 *His best month from deep* without rondo. You didn't say that tho because It wouldn't have made the strongest case for your point which is "Lee played better with rondo".

You also left out one of terrys worst months *With rondo how surprising* when he shot 41 percent in january. Rondo got hurt in that month but it was at the very end of the month so you have to count that. Terry shot 48 percent in february but instead of saying that you took that month and march *Even tho its only a week into the month* to make his average look a little worse overall.

Go figure you also left out of greens bad months with rondo *November* I could keep going but you see my point. From what I'm seeing here lee green and terry played AT THE VERY LEAST no worse without rondo and you could make a strong case by the numbers and by watching the games that they play better without him. None of these numbers prove the celtics miss rondo in any way shape or form.

First of all, my point was never "Lee, Green, and Terry play better with Rondo", and no where in my post did I imply that. In fact I specifically said he was one of the problems with the Celtics poor play this season.

Second of all, Terry's worst month shooting the ball was in December (37.4 FG%, 35.4 3PT%), which I clearly noted in my post. And I purposely put examples of their good shooting months as well as their bad ones to show that there have been times where Terry, Lee, Green, ect. play well with Rondo *and* without him. You implied that everyone is suddenly playing better because Rondo is out, when that's just not true. Green, for example, started to improve well before Rondo's injury.

And no, I didn't intentionally average February and March together to make their averages look worse. Those "without Rondo" stats are from January 25th to March 6th - I think you can guess why.

I know which month was terrys worst but you still left out one of his worst months *I think second worst* with rondo. The fact remains you still left out months and left out valuable information. Either way tho, the numbers don't prove a dang thing. Maybe if it was clearly favoring one side it would but its not.

The game isn't played on a stat sheet and it isn't won on a stat sheet. If you watch the games you can see the ball movement is far better without rondo and you can see the players look more comfortable. You can't find COMFORTABLE on a stat sheet. Sure terry and lee and green hit some open shots when rondo dished it to them. As any player who can shoot would. Still, they all look alot more comfortable out there without rondo and more importantly over anything else, they're winning without him.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 08, 2013, 12:07:58 AM
I know which month was terrys worst but you still left out one of his worst months *I think second worst* with rondo. The fact remains you still left out months and left out valuable information. Either way tho, the numbers don't prove a dang thing. Maybe if it was clearly favoring one side it would but its not.

The game isn't played on a stat sheet and it isn't won on a stat sheet. If you watch the games you can see the ball movement is far better without rondo and you can see the players look more comfortable. You can't find COMFORTABLE on a stat sheet. Sure terry and lee and green hit some open shots when rondo dished it to them. As any player who can shoot would. Still, they all look alot more comfortable out there without rondo and more importantly over anything else, they're winning without him.

...I think we are arguing about two different things here.

All I'm saying is, Terry, Lee, and Green are all capable of playing well with Rondo on the floor, which is what some people don't seem to believe. We saw it at various points during the season, although judging by our record and offense through Dec-Jan, it didn't happen nearly as often as it should have. While some of the blame clearly goes to Rondo, my point was that there are other factors that are overlooked or being dismissed completely. And I've explained why I think that somewhere else in this thread, so at this point I'd just be repeating myself.

I mean, do you not think Rondo can tweak his game when he comes back next season to make our team even better? Do you not think Rondo is capable of playing with a guy like Green?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Lightskinsmurf on March 08, 2013, 12:16:26 AM
I know which month was terrys worst but you still left out one of his worst months *I think second worst* with rondo. The fact remains you still left out months and left out valuable information. Either way tho, the numbers don't prove a dang thing. Maybe if it was clearly favoring one side it would but its not.

The game isn't played on a stat sheet and it isn't won on a stat sheet. If you watch the games you can see the ball movement is far better without rondo and you can see the players look more comfortable. You can't find COMFORTABLE on a stat sheet. Sure terry and lee and green hit some open shots when rondo dished it to them. As any player who can shoot would. Still, they all look alot more comfortable out there without rondo and more importantly over anything else, they're winning without him.

...I think we are arguing about two different things here.

All I'm saying is, Terry, Lee, and Green are all capable of playing well with Rondo on the floor, which is what some people don't seem to believe. We saw it at various points during the season, although judging by our record and offense through Dec-Jan, it didn't happen nearly as often as it should have. While some of the blame clearly goes to Rondo, my point was that there are other factors, IN ADDITION to Rajon, that are overlooked or dismissed completely. And I've explained why I think that somewhere else in this thread, so at this point I'd just be repeating myself.

I mean, do you not think Rondo can tweak his game when he comes back next season to make our team even better? Do you not think Rondo is capable of playing with a guy like Green?

Ahhh i see, maybe we are talking about different things if your only point is terry lee and green are capable of playing well with rondo. Yes I think rondo can tweak his game.

The question is will he. The question is will doc even look into doing that or will he go right back to the way things were the very second rondo comes back.

I'm not exactly confident that rondo or doc will do the right thing. Doc is already known to be really stubborn at times.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: triple-doublerr on March 08, 2013, 07:56:28 AM

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.


This is just getting ugly, Timmy. It just smells like blind denial all the way around: who the team was with Rondo, who they are without him, your total disregard for results, even who their best player is... the entire POV.

I hope they keep getting worse without Rondo  ;)

I guess since BBallTim doesn't prescribe to this overwhelming silly dialogue about how all 23 of our losses pre Rondo's ACL injury were a direct result of Rondo himself  ::), he's in blind denial...if so sign me up right along with him.

When the whole topic of better without Rondo started after the Miami game I found it silly then and it's even sillier now. We have a better record since then which is great! But, to try and make Rondo the catalyst and fall guy for our entire record before he went out as a knee-jerk reaction (no pun intended) is ridiculous.
JET made comments to the effect of "the offense was too predictable with KG and Pierce being the main go-to guys", which I noticed a majority of the "blame Rondo" camp were willing to take and run with as another aha, it must've been all Rondo's fault logic. Without dragging this point out or turning it into further debate, my point is.....We could have utilized the strategy that we are currently playing with without losing anyone to injury and more than likely would've yielded the same positive results in our record, provided that Pierce & JET were out of their slumps as they are now.

Yes, Rondo has his faults and some annoying tendencies during games but that NEVER was the main reason for our record before he went down. For those that want to continue to live in that fantasy land, have at it I guess!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: triple-doublerr on March 08, 2013, 08:15:16 AM
okay the team has a worse records without Rondo. I agree with you.
What Rondo debate was "settled"? No one was debating our record. So what were you referring to???

I was referring to those who argue that we are only playing better because the other players decided to step it up after Rondo got hurt. That argument begs the question why didnt these players step up game with Rondo. I am just stating facts not assigning blame. Rationalizing does not change the fact

Possibly because Doc had those players on short leashes until Rondo went down & he couldn't. Did you ever notice before Rondo's injury how any player not named KG, Pierce, JET and Bass would miss a couple of shots and then be relegated to the bench for the rest of the game? How Green, however inconsistent it was, would have a hot stretch and then wouldn't be seen on the court the whole second half while Pierce was 2 for 15 and turning the ball over yet still in the game chucking up shots. How Bass was stinking up the joint for a good long while yet it was only maybe a week before Rondo's injury that Doc decided that Sully would be better starting.Or maybe Doc was forced to utilize those players more since Rondo went out thus not having to rely so heavily on Pierce and KG for scoring especially since Rondo was the only guard on the team that knew how to run Doc's playbook.
You need to stop being fecitious, we all know what our record is pre and post Rondo's ACL. Not everyone is going to agree with your stance that the record pre injury was all on Rondo!
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 08, 2013, 09:25:34 AM
I know which month was terrys worst but you still left out one of his worst months *I think second worst* with rondo. The fact remains you still left out months and left out valuable information. Either way tho, the numbers don't prove a dang thing. Maybe if it was clearly favoring one side it would but its not.

The game isn't played on a stat sheet and it isn't won on a stat sheet. If you watch the games you can see the ball movement is far better without rondo and you can see the players look more comfortable. You can't find COMFORTABLE on a stat sheet. Sure terry and lee and green hit some open shots when rondo dished it to them. As any player who can shoot would. Still, they all look alot more comfortable out there without rondo and more importantly over anything else, they're winning without him.

...I think we are arguing about two different things here.

All I'm saying is, Terry, Lee, and Green are all capable of playing well with Rondo on the floor, which is what some people don't seem to believe. We saw it at various points during the season, although judging by our record and offense through Dec-Jan, it didn't happen nearly as often as it should have. While some of the blame clearly goes to Rondo, my point was that there are other factors, IN ADDITION to Rajon, that are overlooked or dismissed completely. And I've explained why I think that somewhere else in this thread, so at this point I'd just be repeating myself.

I mean, do you not think Rondo can tweak his game when he comes back next season to make our team even better? Do you not think Rondo is capable of playing with a guy like Green?

Ahhh i see, maybe we are talking about different things if your only point is terry lee and green are capable of playing well with rondo. Yes I think rondo can tweak his game.

The question is will he. The question is will doc even look into doing that or will he go right back to the way things were the very second rondo comes back.

I'm not exactly confident that rondo or doc will do the right thing. Doc is already known to be really stubborn at times.

  Green, Lee and Terry can play well with Rondo. So can PP, KG and Bradley. So can Sully for that matter. Doc will probably tweak the offense next year and we'll probably play a little more uptempo next year but we'll still probably have Rondo control the ball more on offense than the other guards do. He's a significantly better ball handler and passer than any of them.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Yogi on March 13, 2013, 11:28:45 PM
The simple fact is without Rondo the Celtics would've been like 12-31.  He CARRIED us.  He was by FAR the best Celtic to start this season.  Just because the rest of the team had to actually start doing some work and putting in some effort after the guy who was doing everything went out, some how it becomes Rondo's fault?  If the players played with the same intensity when Rondo was still healthy, we would be one of the best teams in the league.  The only people to blame are Green and Wilcox's recovery, Bass and Terry's slump and Pierce's and Bradley's injuries.  That's it. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: More Banners on March 13, 2013, 11:46:24 PM
Perhaps we trade Bradley for a scoring-2, like Demarr Derozan, Gerald Henderson, MarShon Brooks, or something like that. 

Look for that multi-threat scorer to pair with Rondo, Green, and Sully.  Must be able to draw fouls, get drive-kick assists, and shoot 3-ball.  JET can't fly every night any more, and isn't a future piece, and a streaky win-now piece.  Bradley and Bass are on the table, JET, too.

We all know Rondo is the best player. Get him back on track to play the right way, and fix the problem with lack of offensive punch by trading out role players for scorers, and I think that with Rondo in line on the defensive end, losing Bradley won't be a killer.

Having a backup to Rondo and using him is key to getting Rondo to play on both ends.  Lots of guys auditioning right now.

Wilcox needs to produce at the rate and minutes he did in Seattle, but while winning here in Boston.

Good Rondo is a potential Finals MVP.  We can compete and win without him, so I take a good deal, but he does have a lot to offer.  The question seems to be how to use ROndo off the ball.  Is that why he handles the rock so much?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: gar on March 13, 2013, 11:56:49 PM
Like everyone is saying there are lots of variables. Bradley comes back. Lee and Terry get more minutes with Rondo out. Wilcox and Green playing more minutes with Sullinger down. Crawford is also a better scorer than Barbosa. Ball movement and uptempo game replace Rondo centric approach. Doc does not like change; but when it is forced on him often proves that he can actually be a good coach when he has to be.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celticmania on March 14, 2013, 12:02:01 AM
i hope rondo comes back next season and commits to playing defense like he used to. he was at one point the best pg defensively he just doesnt play d anymore. next season if he starts playing defense and is more agresive in looking to score, we will be a better team. i think rondo could average 17 ppg if he wanted to.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: LEHGOCELTICS on March 14, 2013, 12:09:18 AM
Sigh. Knicks aren't better with Amar'e out, Heat weren't better with Wade out last season, and Celtics are not better with Rondo out. It just doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: fairweatherfan on March 14, 2013, 12:29:41 AM
Is this the thread where we're settling it?  Let us know how it turns out  :P
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CelticConcourse on March 14, 2013, 12:30:23 AM
Sigh. Knicks aren't better with Amar'e out, Heat weren't better with Wade out last season, and Celtics are not better with Rondo out. It just doesn't work that way.

Knicks case is also debatable.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: connor on March 14, 2013, 07:19:42 AM
Sigh. Knicks aren't better with Amar'e out, Heat weren't better with Wade out last season, and Celtics are not better with Rondo out. It just doesn't work that way.

Knicks case is also debatable.
The knicks are a prime example of a team not optimizing their talent, which seems to be part of the issue with Rondo.

Of course the Knicks are a better team on paper with Amar'e, but they still haven't found the optimal way to pair him with Melo and Tyson to get the most out of them. Thats why things seem to run smoother with him out. Of course they can win with him in there, based on pure talent alone, but the team game is better with him out because it flows better.

With Rondo out we are starting to see this team be able to string together wins at a fairly impressive clip, which makes people think our situation is similar to the Knicks. Of course our team is better with Rondo's talent on the court, but what we need is for Doc to find ways of maximizing his ability together with everyone else's. Rondo playing the game to the best of his talents, just like Amar'e doing the same, might not work best for the team.

We will be WAY better when he comes back, we just need to find areas he creates the most value for this team.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: CoachBo on March 14, 2013, 07:54:03 AM
I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: dark_lord on March 14, 2013, 09:12:37 AM
whether or not we are a better team is debatable, however, what is not debatable is that we are playing better without him and playing more team basketball without him.  the ball is moving nicely via the pass rather than via the dribble.  the team is also playing with more grit and effort (by observation).  the defense on the perimeter is also improved since rondo went down.  lastly, our record is much better
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: nickagneta on March 14, 2013, 09:47:07 AM
I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.
Gotta agree with coach here. Now that Doc has seen how this offense works with the ball movement going on, my guess is he isn't going to allow the ball to "stick" in Rondo's hands.

Doc tends to notice when the ball "sticks" to others hands and not so much Rondo. I doubt Doc ever conceived of a "Rondo centric" offense, its just the way the offense bogged down once the off the ball movement wasn't happening, fast break basketball wasn't happening, and Rondo allowed the ball to sit in his possession to long.

Its going to be on Rondo to learn to trust the others with helping to make the offense work, its going to be up to the rest of the team to continue to do what they have been over the last month, and its going to be up to Doc not to allow the team but into the rut they were in earlier this year.

Personally, I honestly don't see that the overall offense is more efficient. Want to make the C's more efficient? Here's some ideas:

1. Start sending one or two people to the offensive boards every possession. Enough with ignoring offensive boards to get back on defense. You are giving up to much offense because of it.
2. Star insisting that the players taking all the long 2 pointers, step back one large step in their positioning and start taking threes. The amount of 2 pointers this team makes while within less than a foot of being a three pointer is amazingly pathetic.
3. Create a post scoring game. Sully will probably be that guy. But get another in the off season. The lack of inside game is killing this team at the end of games sometimes when an easy toss in and two points is just what they need.

Do these things and I bet the offensive efficiency goes way up.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: RyNye on March 14, 2013, 10:25:24 AM
2. Star insisting that the players taking all the long 2 pointers, step back one large step in their positioning and start taking threes. The amount of 2 pointers this team makes while within less than a foot of being a three pointer is amazingly pathetic.

I generally agree with your point.

The one thing I will say about the long 2 pointers is that, as a team, the Celtics are the best in the league at making that shot, and many team's defenses are geared towards allowing that shot. While it is irritating that we rely on it so completely and have problems if those shots aren't falling, I don't think it is necessary to remove it entirely from our repertoire.

The fact is that making that shot at a good clip is a huge hole in many of the best defensive schemes out there. Both the Grizzlies and the Bulls WANT people to take that shot, and if we can hit it we want it too.

That said, we still need someone who can score inside on a higher percentage look when our shooters are cold, as happens from time to time.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics18 on March 14, 2013, 10:39:57 AM
I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

http://www.csnne.com/sportsnetNewEngland/search/v/52668953/doc-rondo-s-offensive-execution-off-the-charts.htm

This is a good Doc Rivers post game press conference from about a year ago where he talks about Rondo running the offense. 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: vjcsmoke on March 14, 2013, 11:40:48 AM
2. Star insisting that the players taking all the long 2 pointers, step back one large step in their positioning and start taking threes. The amount of 2 pointers this team makes while within less than a foot of being a three pointer is amazingly pathetic.

I generally agree with your point.

The one thing I will say about the long 2 pointers is that, as a team, the Celtics are the best in the league at making that shot, and many team's defenses are geared towards allowing that shot. While it is irritating that we rely on it so completely and have problems if those shots aren't falling, I don't think it is necessary to remove it entirely from our repertoire.

The fact is that making that shot at a good clip is a huge hole in many of the best defensive schemes out there. Both the Grizzlies and the Bulls WANT people to take that shot, and if we can hit it we want it too.

That said, we still need someone who can score inside on a higher percentage look when our shooters are cold, as happens from time to time.

You mean like a post scorer?  When's the last time we had that in Boston?  Feels like ages.  I'm hoping the C's take a chance on Olynyk in the draft.  True 7 footer with post scoring ability.  Not all that athletic, but with the skill and offense he'd give, I think if you can coach him up to serviceable at defense he would be worth it.

Rondo is super controversial.  You either think he's a bum who should be moved or a superstar that defines the franchise.  I think he's somewhere in between.  An all-star caliber PG for sure, but maybe he's not the best choice for the Celtics moving forward if they play their best ball without him.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Celtics4ever on March 14, 2013, 12:17:45 PM
Quote
Rondo is super controversial.  You either think he's a bum who should be moved or a superstar that defines the franchise.  I think he's somewhere in between.  An all-star caliber PG for sure, but maybe he's not the best choice for the Celtics moving forward if they play their best ball without him.

Meaningless games won in the second half of the season but can we win a series without him?   If we don't get fourth seed I think it will be difficult.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/06/why-celtics-aren-better-without-rajon-rondo/1iLgDxzkX1Rvcs9u0nFZVO/story.html

The lunatic fringe is here in many respects but Chin was right it has not lasted.   We lost some games and won some since the streak.   But who really thinks we can win a tough series without him.   Regular season and post season are two different things.

Even if you get Olynyk you will need someone to pass him the ball.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: mmmmm on March 14, 2013, 12:22:58 PM
I know which month was terrys worst but you still left out one of his worst months *I think second worst* with rondo. The fact remains you still left out months and left out valuable information. Either way tho, the numbers don't prove a dang thing. Maybe if it was clearly favoring one side it would but its not.

The game isn't played on a stat sheet and it isn't won on a stat sheet. If you watch the games you can see the ball movement is far better without rondo and you can see the players look more comfortable. You can't find COMFORTABLE on a stat sheet. Sure terry and lee and green hit some open shots when rondo dished it to them. As any player who can shoot would. Still, they all look alot more comfortable out there without rondo and more importantly over anything else, they're winning without him.

...I think we are arguing about two different things here.

All I'm saying is, Terry, Lee, and Green are all capable of playing well with Rondo on the floor, which is what some people don't seem to believe. We saw it at various points during the season, although judging by our record and offense through Dec-Jan, it didn't happen nearly as often as it should have. While some of the blame clearly goes to Rondo, my point was that there are other factors, IN ADDITION to Rajon, that are overlooked or dismissed completely. And I've explained why I think that somewhere else in this thread, so at this point I'd just be repeating myself.

I mean, do you not think Rondo can tweak his game when he comes back next season to make our team even better? Do you not think Rondo is capable of playing with a guy like Green?

Ahhh i see, maybe we are talking about different things if your only point is terry lee and green are capable of playing well with rondo. Yes I think rondo can tweak his game.

The question is will he. The question is will doc even look into doing that or will he go right back to the way things were the very second rondo comes back.

I'm not exactly confident that rondo or doc will do the right thing. Doc is already known to be really stubborn at times.

  Green, Lee and Terry can play well with Rondo. So can PP, KG and Bradley. So can Sully for that matter. Doc will probably tweak the offense next year and we'll probably play a little more uptempo next year but we'll still probably have Rondo control the ball more on offense than the other guards do. He's a significantly better ball handler and passer than any of them.

People who look at the overall assist rates and TO rates of the team tend to disagree with this because overall those numbers are around the same, but there are some subtleties that illustrate the difference.

If you look at the percentage of assists that lead to shots in the post (within a few feet of the basket) Rondo's number was just under 43% this season.   None of those other guys, when I checked a few days ago, were over 40%.  In fact all were were well below that.

Considering how precious it is for this offense to get points inside when it can, this is where Rondo's skills really show up.   When the team's jump shots are not falling, he has better ability to get the ball to someone at the rim than the rest of the team.

You can look at the assisted shot location distributions at the new stat pages at nba.com.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Greenback on March 14, 2013, 12:39:46 PM
For one thing, rondo had Sullinger to pass to down low. 

If we still had Sully we might be 20-0 w/o RR
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 14, 2013, 05:39:21 PM
I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

  Just out of curiosity, what are you claiming is the case if you don't think Doc is the architect of the offense? That he didn't install an offense and Rondo decided what kind of offense to run, or that Doc tells the team to run a certain type of offense and the players just ignore him?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Eddie20 on March 14, 2013, 05:51:55 PM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: celtics2 on March 14, 2013, 06:15:56 PM
Like everyone is saying there are lots of variables. Bradley comes back. Lee and Terry get more minutes with Rondo out. Wilcox and Green playing more minutes with Sullinger down. Crawford is also a better scorer than Barbosa. Ball movement and uptempo game replace Rondo centric approach. Doc does not like change; but when it is forced on him often proves that he can actually be a good coach when he has to be.

more like forces of nature forcing Doc's hand. He'd run Rondo till we were out of the Playoffs. Doc doesn't make gutty decisions. He likes CYA situations.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: ejk3489 on March 14, 2013, 06:41:34 PM
I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

Quote
Rivers told Yahoo! Sports that his decisions to relegate Allen to a sixth-man role and give point guard Rajon Rondo complete freedom with the ball and leadership were ultimately what helped lead Allen to leave Boston.

"People can use all the Rondo stuff – and it was there, no doubt about that – but it was me more than Rondo," said Rivers, who is working as an NBC analyst during the Olympics. "I'm the guy who gave Rondo the ball. I'm the guy who decided that Rondo needed to be more of the leader of the team. That doesn't mean guys liked that – and Ray did not love that – because Rondo now had the ball all the time.

"Think about everything [Allen] said when he left, 'I want to be more of a part of the offense.' Everything was back at Rondo. And I look at that, and say, 'That's not Rondo's fault.' That's what I wanted Rondo to do, and that's what Rondo should've done. Because that's Rondo's ability. He's the best passer in the league. He has the best feel in the league. He's not a great shooter, so he needs the ball in his hands to be effective. And that bothered Ray.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--doc-rivers-takes-blame-for-ray-allen-leaving-celtics-for-heat-.html
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 15, 2013, 09:56:23 AM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: nickagneta on March 15, 2013, 10:08:33 AM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.
And if you break down the numbers to the ridiculous like stating

Quote
It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't

I mean anyone can do that for anything to minimize its effects. Heck, my son in his part time job just got a $2000 a year raise and only makes $10,000 a year there. Now a 20% raise seems really good but if I told him that a 3 cent raise per minute doesn't sound so hot, he might get discouraged. But a 20% raise is really good.

Personally I think this passes the stat test and the eye test. Rondo appears to play better or give a better effort during nationally televised games and now there is a study that shows he is slightly better statistically during those games.

I actually think that is awesome that he can raise the level of his game during those games, which tend to be against better opponents and more important games(playoffs). His regular game and stats are All-Star worthy. His games on national tv even better. I think that is a positive for Rondo not a negative. I want my players to be able to raise the level of their play during big games. Don't you?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 15, 2013, 10:09:59 AM
Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 ::)
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: slamtheking on March 15, 2013, 10:42:20 AM
I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

  Just out of curiosity, what are you claiming is the case if you don't think Doc is the architect of the offense? That he didn't install an offense and Rondo decided what kind of offense to run, or that Doc tells the team to run a certain type of offense and the players just ignore him?
because, (to use one of his own lines that has stuck with me) "as a coach", he must have no control over his team's offense and must be projecting that lack of control to Doc since he's the coach.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: fairweatherfan on March 15, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 ::)

Yeah, holy cow what a bad "study".  No description of criteria - not even an N for each group - no statistical significance and he even manages to misrepresent the directional differences, saying all of Rondo's averages are higher on TV when his assists are clearly lower. 

The best thing I can say about that article is that it could make a decent jumping-off point for a much better analysis, but anyone who knows enough to make a proper attempt isn't going to make those kinds of mistakes anyway.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Greenback on March 15, 2013, 12:33:55 PM
If Rondo is clutch, why is the Celtics over time record much better without him?

Just like the regular season record, its below .500 with Rondo, 3-4.  And the Celtics are something like 4-0 without Rondo. 

How do you explain that?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kgainez on March 15, 2013, 02:17:36 PM
u guys sure do like stats until it's anti-'whatever-your-claim-is'
smh
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 15, 2013, 05:22:23 PM
Personally I think this passes the stat test and the eye test. Rondo appears to play better or give a better effort during nationally televised games and now there is a study that shows he is slightly better statistically during those games.

I actually think that is awesome that he can raise the level of his game during those games, which tend to be against better opponents and more important games(playoffs). His regular game and stats are All-Star worthy. His games on national tv even better. I think that is a positive for Rondo not a negative. I want my players to be able to raise the level of their play during big games. Don't you?

  Personally I think this is the opposite of passing the eye test. Nobody ever claimed that Rondo played better on national tv until some announcer made a comment about it (based mainly on Rondo's play in the playoffs). Now everyone comments on it and talks about how obvious it is when they watch the games. It's not so obvious that people were actually able to notice it on their own, but once it was pointed out to them they started looking for signs of it in games and therefore they "see" it.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Eddie20 on March 15, 2013, 05:32:09 PM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: SHAQATTACK on March 15, 2013, 05:36:50 PM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?


And yet somehow fans think we are gonna get a star quaility big on trade  ???
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Galeto on March 15, 2013, 05:37:49 PM
The simple fact is without Rondo the Celtics would've been like 12-31.  He CARRIED us.  He was by FAR the best Celtic to start this season.  Just because the rest of the team had to actually start doing some work and putting in some effort after the guy who was doing everything went out, some how it becomes Rondo's fault?  If the players played with the same intensity when Rondo was still healthy, we would be one of the best teams in the league.  The only people to blame are Green and Wilcox's recovery, Bass and Terry's slump and Pierce's and Bradley's injuries.  That's it.

[dang], 12-31.  That's only a 28 percent winning percentage!  That would have been awful :-[.  I'm sure glad Rondo kept the Celtics from falling that low  ;D.  We can say we've been unlucky with injuries but we could've been 12-31 so I thank our lucky stars!! 
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 15, 2013, 05:46:20 PM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

  Showing why my arguments are incorrect would probably be more impressive than whining and personal attacks because I disagree with your opinions.

  By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player? Most people would have a different definition of that term than you do.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Eddie20 on March 15, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

  Showing why my arguments are incorrect would probably be more impressive than whining and personal attacks because I disagree with your opinions.

  By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player? Most people would have a different definition of that term than you do.


I do think Rondo is a hell of a player, but I'm objective and can easily point out the strengths and weaknesses of our players. Being completely objective, which one of the things I said would you disagree with? Moreover, because I point out his weaknesses doesn't mean that they outweigh his strengths.

How long have you been watching the C's? Are you a C's fan or a Rondo fan? There is a difference.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Greenback on March 15, 2013, 06:24:59 PM
I am a Celtics fan - since 1965.

Walt Frazier called Rondo:  "The Celtics erratic, dramatic point guard."
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: kozlodoev on March 15, 2013, 07:21:25 PM
By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player?
Probably because of the massive positive impact he has on the game despite suffering from all of the listed flaws?
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: Greenback on March 15, 2013, 08:29:23 PM
The Celtics record without Rondo is 15-6.  With Rondo its 20-23.

The Celtics OT record without Rondo is 4-0.  With Rondo its 3-4.

These are brute facts.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 15, 2013, 10:35:16 PM
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

  Showing why my arguments are incorrect would probably be more impressive than whining and personal attacks because I disagree with your opinions.

  By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player? Most people would have a different definition of that term than you do.


I do think Rondo is a hell of a player, but I'm objective and can easily point out the strengths and weaknesses of our players. Being completely objective, which one of the things I said would you disagree with? Moreover, because I point out his weaknesses doesn't mean that they outweigh his strengths.

How long have you been watching the C's? Are you a C's fan or a Rondo fan? There is a difference.

  I don't think he really takes nights off, he generally doesn't dribble the ball too much, he attacks the basket like he should, he had pretty good range on his jumper this year, he's probably supposed to do some gambling on defense, and when he's healthy he does a better job of keeping people in front of him than people claim. He probably displays most if not all of the faults you listed on occasion, but not as often as most players and nowhere near as often as people here claim.

Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: jdz101 on March 15, 2013, 11:52:31 PM
Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 ::)

Why would he need to show results for playoff games or take into account opponent record when the study is purely about Rondo in games that are nationally televised or not nationally televised?

In what way is he skimping on the data when he never mentions how rondo plays in playoff games vs not? This was never mentioned in his introduction.

Its all very well to sit back in the armchair and say "this is a bare bones study because it lacks data for this, this, and this" when the writer has never even mentioned those things as variables in the brief before the data is actually presented.

It is a simple analysis of rondo in nationally televised games vs not nationally televised games. Use it for that purpose. I don't think the writer implies that you should use it for anything outside that purpose either.
Title: Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
Post by: BballTim on March 16, 2013, 09:03:18 AM
Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 ::)

Why would he need to show results for playoff games or take into account opponent record when the study is purely about Rondo in games that are nationally televised or not nationally televised?

In what way is he skimping on the data when he never mentions how rondo plays in playoff games vs not? This was never mentioned in his introduction.

Its all very well to sit back in the armchair and say "this is a bare bones study because it lacks data for this, this, and this" when the writer has never even mentioned those things as variables in the brief before the data is actually presented.

It is a simple analysis of rondo in nationally televised games vs not nationally televised games. Use it for that purpose. I don't think the writer implies that you should use it for anything outside that purpose either.

  Because Rondo puts up better numbers in the playoffs than the regular season. If you add in those numbers all you're doing is measuring the "playoff Rondo" effect and not the "national tv Rondo" effect. The best thing to do would be to compare Rondo's play in the regular season national tv games to his play against the same teams in non-national tv games but the sample size might be small. The next best thing would be to compare regular season national tv to non-national tv games.