Author Topic: Kyrie > Rondo  (Read 14528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #135 on: January 23, 2013, 02:37:36 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Tommy Points: 630
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.
DKC Los Angeles Lakers
GM: Micheal Corleone
Head Coach: Mike Krzyzewski
Roster

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #136 on: January 23, 2013, 02:50:01 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23257
  • Tommy Points: -29392
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Please send all DKC Cleveland trade ideas to riah32.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #137 on: January 23, 2013, 02:52:07 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

  While I agree Kirie's the better mid-range shooter, the fact that the margin you came up with is so miniscule is fairly impressive.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #138 on: January 23, 2013, 02:53:56 PM »

Online kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9384
  • Tommy Points: 502
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

For what it's worth, Irving is averaging 28 points in Cavs wins this season, and 21 points in losses. Rondo is exactly the same guy, statistically, both in wins and in losses. Not sure what this has to do with "impact on the game", anyhow.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #139 on: January 23, 2013, 03:06:55 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #140 on: January 23, 2013, 03:14:48 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23257
  • Tommy Points: -29392
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point. 

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Please send all DKC Cleveland trade ideas to riah32.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #141 on: January 23, 2013, 03:19:32 PM »

Online kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9384
  • Tommy Points: 502
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than scoring does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.
First, his name is Kyrie.

Second, if this is the metric you're choosing, it (the bolded) is precisely the issue. Even if we stipulate that a triple double is marginally more impactful than 25+ points (2.7 extra wins per 10 games vs. 1.9 extra wins per 10 games), this doesn't answer who the more impactful _player_ is. And given that Irving scores 25+ in ~30% of his games, and Rondo triple-doubles in about 5% of his, you do the math.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #142 on: January 23, 2013, 03:20:37 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #143 on: January 23, 2013, 03:21:08 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.
Bigger impact to the stat sheet, maybe. Bigger impact to the game, not really.

  Clearly that's not the case. Rondo's got 26 career triple doubles, Kirie's got 25 career games of 25 points or more. Comparing team records when they don't put up those numbers to when they do, the Cavs go from a winning percentage of 25% when he gets less than 25 points to 44% when he gets the points. The Celts go from 61% to 88% when Rondo gets a triple double.

  I know people here like to look down their noses at triple doubles because Rondo racks them up but I've yet to hear an explanation about why such meaningless numbers have such a drastic impact on our ability to win games.
Not sure how you're expecting anyone to take you seriously on the bolded statement, knowing that Rondo has played in 450+ career games, and Irving is yet to reach 100 career games.

  Whether Irving scores 25 more often than Rondo gets triple doubles isn't the issue, whether filling up a stat sheet has more of an impact on a game than high scoring games does is. And getting triple doubles (ie filling a stat sheet) leads to a win more often than a lot of points (or a lot of rebounds or a lot of assists). I just chose 25 points for Kirie because it's a similar sample size.

So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

  Seriously? By that logic leading a 10 win team to 20 wins would be more impactful than leading a 42 win team to an undefeated season.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #144 on: January 23, 2013, 03:21:29 PM »

Online kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9384
  • Tommy Points: 502
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.
I'm not sure this is a very good metric for "impact" altogether, but in any case a Rondo triple-double is a much, much rarer appearance than an Irving 25+ point game.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2013, 03:25:14 PM »

Online kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9384
  • Tommy Points: 502
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
You can't really treat percentage increases the way Roy is trying to spin them.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2013, 03:28:37 PM »

Offline Birdman

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2222
  • Tommy Points: 124
good debate going on here

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #147 on: January 23, 2013, 03:30:07 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23257
  • Tommy Points: -29392
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
So, Kyrie scoring 25+ points makes his team 76% more likely to win a game, as compared to a Rondo triple-double making his team 44% more likely to win?

If you're suggesting that triple-doubles are more impactful, I'm not sure that this argument proves that point.

Yes, I'm uncertain what point BBallTim is attempting to make here, other than that 1)he draws conclusions from small sample sizes, 2)doesn't really understand percentage increases, and 3)doesn't grasp that Kyrie's impactful games happen more often than Rondo's by this measure.

Whenever he actually brings facts to the argument, it becomes unclear whether he is actually arguing for Kyrie or Rondo.
You can't really treat percentage increases the way Roy is trying to spin them.

It's no less legitimate than using the winning percentages in the first place.

Kyrie has a much lesser cast of players around him.  However, Kyrie's high-scoring games are able to elevate this really poor team.  If Kyrie goes for 25+ points, it almost doubles his team's chances of winning.

Why ignore the baseline -- like Tim is -- and disregard the fact that the Celtics have a much better team?  If Rajon Rondo was on the Cavs, I'm pretty skeptical that they'd be winning 88% of their games when Rondo drops a triple-double.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Please send all DKC Cleveland trade ideas to riah32.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2013, 03:33:36 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6175
  • Tommy Points: 382
  • Jeff Green
Rondo is better, period.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2013, 03:36:43 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Tommy Points: 630
Kyrie is nowhere near Rondo in:

Mid-range FG%
Assists
Rebounds

And those three are three of the most important parts of the game.

Kyrie might be better in:

3PFG%
Points
Clutch

Yet... Rondo brings such a bigger impact to the game than Kyrie can EVER have.

When did mid-range shooting percentage become an integral part of the game?

I'm making a point, since y'all seem to be so intent on saying Kyrie is so good a shooter.

Kyrie Irving:

10-to-15 feet:  48%
16-to-23 feet:  49.2%
Combined:  48.7% on 220 attempts

Rajon Rondo: 

10-to-15 feet:  30.8%
16-to-23 feet:  50.8%
Combined:  47.2% on 148 attempts

Irving takes more mid-range shots, and he makes a higher percentage of them.  My guess is that he gets less open looks than Rondo, too.  Regardless, there's no objective way to say Rondo is better at mid-range shooting than Irving.

So basically, Rondo is slightly better from 16-23 ft, while Irving is noticeably better from 10-15 ft.

What are the shot attempt breakdowns, and is 10-15 ft really even midrange shooting?  How many guards actually take many shots from this range?  Basially , we're talking about who shoots better floaters, aren't we?

I just think it would have been better to strictly look at the 16-23 ft shots, as far as midrange shooting is concerned.

Irving has 98 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 132 from 16-to-23 feet.

Rondo has 26 attempts from 10-to-15 feet, and 122 from 16-to-23 feet.

And yes, I consider 10-to-15 feet to be midrange shooting.  At 15 feet, you're closer to the 3PT line than you are to the basket.

Looks to me like Rondo just doesn't take many 10-15 ft shots.  Not that big of a surprise his percentage is low.  All it takes is a few missed shots to tank your percentage.

Rondo shoots better from 16-23, what I consider to be a more accurate assesment of mid-range shooting.

Sure 15 ft is mid-range too, 10 ft surely is not.  I'd like to see what the numbers look like from 12-20 ft.  That would be a better definition of mid-range in my opinion.
DKC Los Angeles Lakers
GM: Micheal Corleone
Head Coach: Mike Krzyzewski
Roster

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog