Author Topic: Kyrie > Rondo  (Read 14550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #195 on: January 24, 2013, 12:21:04 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
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.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

  Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?

It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.

Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots.  I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.

  Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.

 

Worth note, to help you understand basketball a bit more, when you are playing with poor teammates, your shot selection is hindered.  Kyrie takes more contested shots than Rondo because he has to.  So Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is.

  Okay, since you know that when you are playing with poor teammates your shot selection is hindered, I many have slightly underestimated your understanding of basketball. Maybe not so much that it might occur to you that Irving might not need to take quite so many contested shots if he'd find the open guy instead of taking all those contested shots, but it's a start.

  Seriously, though, when you say "Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is", exactly how impressive did I say it was?
 

There isn't always an "open guy".  Having Alonzo Gee in your starting lineup can do its part towards not having efficient shots available.  Kyrie's teammates are memorably awful.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #196 on: January 24, 2013, 12:28:39 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26712
  • Tommy Points: 1972
Quote
I think Boston's dropping offensive inefficiency has less to do with Rondo and more to do with the way Doc wants the offense run and the players surrounding Rondo.

Look at Brooklyn. Is Williams really a better passer, a better facilitator or a more efficient scorer as Rondo? No. But the Nets have a much higher offensive efficiency than Boston.

Uh, yes is the answer to all of your questions. Deron is certainly a more efficient scorer. His career turnover percentage is less than Rondo's. Heck, even his career assist percentage is higher than Rondo's if you are into that. Deron has been a much better point guard than Rondo in pretty much every year since Rondo has been in the league, save for last year when he was surrounded by garbage teammates.
I am talking now, this year. And the answer to all those questions this year is no. Statistically and by sight. This year, Williams is not a better shooter except from three, a more efficient a scorer, a better passer or a better facilitator than Rondo. Williams game has fallen off rather a bunch since arriving in NJ and he really has only been marginally better with a much better surrounding team this year.

I am not saying Rondo is clearly better than Williams in those areas, in scoring efficiency and ability to facilitate I think they are even. But two years ago there were only two PGs I would have traded Rondo for one on one, Paul and Williams, and that's because Williams was clearly better than Rondo in most ways. Now, Williams is no longer in that discussion because Rondo's game has gotten better and Williams has slipped.

And besides you are obscuring the point. Brooklyn has a very good offensive efficiency. Boston doesn't. is it because Williams is so much better than Rondo at running an offense? No. He no longer runs an offense better than Rondo. But he has all those other things I mentioned that Rondo doesn't and hence, the better offensive efficiency rating for his team.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #197 on: January 24, 2013, 12:32:00 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons. 

Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs.   Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo.  To me, this is a distinct positive.  I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is.  When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better.  He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game.  The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo. 

To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs.  He hasn't been there.  Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level.   That's worth a lot to me.  I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.

A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.

And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all.  He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.

Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.

His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.

His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.

So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse.  He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.  This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.

There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse.  Overall, it's pretty much a draw.  Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth.  He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.

To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.

  Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?

  Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?

  As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.

 Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).

  As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.

  Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.


Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #198 on: January 24, 2013, 12:40:49 AM »

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.

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.

All this is ignoring the fact that a strategy often taken with Rondo is to leave him completely open from this range, the 2010 Finals being the biggest example.

  Another strategy often taken by other teams is to leave KG completely open from this range. Watch any Celtics game and you'll see him take plenty of uncontested shots from this range. Does that make him a lesser shooter/scorer?

It makes him a lesser shooter than someone who makes contested shots at the same rate as KG makes uncontested shots. Definitely.

Contested shots are tougher than uncontested shots.  I'd say this is obvious but your comprehension of basketball and math has come into question.

  Yes, you're still stuck on reading comprehension. You're answering a comparison that I didn't ask about and gloating that I couldn't answer a question that nobody had asked. Oh, and if you could ratchet up your comprehension of basketball, you might learn that something called "shot selection" is often considered when comparing players. The fact that a player jacks up contested, low percentage shots isn't seen as a favorable trait for shooters as much as you'd think.

 

Worth note, to help you understand basketball a bit more, when you are playing with poor teammates, your shot selection is hindered.  Kyrie takes more contested shots than Rondo because he has to.  So Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is.

  Okay, since you know that when you are playing with poor teammates your shot selection is hindered, I many have slightly underestimated your understanding of basketball. Maybe not so much that it might occur to you that Irving might not need to take quite so many contested shots if he'd find the open guy instead of taking all those contested shots, but it's a start.

  Seriously, though, when you say "Rondo shooting a similar midrange percentage is nowhere near as impressive as you seem to think it is", exactly how impressive did I say it was?
 

There isn't always an "open guy".

  Keep telling yourself that. Rondo demands much less attention from a defense than Irving yet he's able to find the "open guy" on the majority of our offensive possessions. With so much of the defense focused on Irving, there's probably an open guy.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #199 on: January 24, 2013, 12:58:47 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
Quote
I think Boston's dropping offensive inefficiency has less to do with Rondo and more to do with the way Doc wants the offense run and the players surrounding Rondo.

Look at Brooklyn. Is Williams really a better passer, a better facilitator or a more efficient scorer as Rondo? No. But the Nets have a much higher offensive efficiency than Boston.

Uh, yes is the answer to all of your questions. Deron is certainly a more efficient scorer. His career turnover percentage is less than Rondo's. Heck, even his career assist percentage is higher than Rondo's if you are into that. Deron has been a much better point guard than Rondo in pretty much every year since Rondo has been in the league, save for last year when he was surrounded by garbage teammates.

  Turnover percentage is influenced significantly by how many shots you take. Compared to Williams Rondo's had more assists, a higher assist% and a better assist/turnover ratio in each of the last 3 years.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #200 on: January 24, 2013, 02:12:16 AM »

Offline ejk3489

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2233
  • Tommy Points: 215
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons. 

Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs.   Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo.  To me, this is a distinct positive.  I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is.  When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better.  He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game.  The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo. 

To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs.  He hasn't been there.  Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level.   That's worth a lot to me.  I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.

A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.

And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all.  He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.

Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.

His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.

His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.

So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse.  He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.

There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse.  Overall, it's pretty much a draw.  Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth.  He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.  Kyrie's 20 years old.  I'm pretty certain he can handle more minutes if he is given some extra nights off and no back-to-backs (a playoff schedule).

To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.
Looking strictly at per minute stats for playoffs and regular season when talking about Rondo's clutchness in the playoffs is unfair. In the playoffs you play against only the best teams, play against that team's shortened rotation and best players, play at a completely different intensity level, and on a much larger stage. Some of Rondo's biggest games in terms of stats and his impact on the results of the game have come during the playoffs.

I find Rondo to be very clutch in the playoffs because even though he coasts at points during the regular season and slacks on defense during the regular season, in the playoffs, Rondo doesn't do this and he can effect a game in an elite manner in so many ways both offensively and defensively.

Rondo's game has some real holes in it, including his decision making, effort and immaturity, areas you would have hoped wouldn't be a problem at this point in his career. But saying he doesn't come up clutch in the playoffs doesn't pass the eye or smell test to me.

He's the same guy as he is in the regular season.  You just remember the games more.  He has some impressive stat lines in some regular season games too.

I think he's pretty clearly a different offensive player in the playoffs. His style of play is much, much more aggressive than it is in the regular season. For example, over the last 4 seasons his scoring, shot attempts, and free throw attempts have usually increased in the playoffs:

(Per 36 minutes)
'09 season: 13PTS - 11FGA - 3.7FTA
playoffs: 14.7PTS - 14FGA - 4.2FTA

'10 season: 13.5PTS - 9.5FGA - 3.4FTA
playoffs: 14PTS - 12FGA - 4.2FTA

'11 season: 10.3PTS - 10.5FGA - 1.9FTA
playoffs: 13.1PTS - 11.2FGA - 4FTA

'12 season: 11.6PTS - 11.5FGA - 3.3FTA
playoffs: 14.6PTS - 13.4FGA - 2.7FTA

You're right that his stats generally stay about the same, give or take a few series (MIA'12, NYK'11, CLE'10, and CHI'09 are stand outs), but is that really a representation of him not stepping up?

I mean, look at our MVP's of the championship season in '08:

Pierce (per 36min):
Regular: 19.7 - 4.5 - 5.1 .529eFG%
Playoffs: 18.6 - 4.3 - 4.5 .499eFG%

KG (per 36min):
Regular: 20.7 - 3.8 - 10.1 .539eFG%
Playoffs: 19.3 - 3.2 - 10 .498eFG%

Both played "worse" by their regular season standards, but can anyone actually argue that they weren't clutch or the reason we won that year?

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #201 on: January 24, 2013, 08:19:33 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons. 

Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs.   Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo.  To me, this is a distinct positive.  I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is.  When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better.  He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game.  The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo. 

To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs.  He hasn't been there.  Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level.   That's worth a lot to me.  I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.

A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.

And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all.  He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.

Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.

His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.

His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.

So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse.  He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.  This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.

There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse.  Overall, it's pretty much a draw.  Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth.  He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.

To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.

  Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?

  Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?

  As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.

 Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).

  As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.

  Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.

In that case, after a quick look at their playoff performances, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, and Derrick Rose among many others all have the "clutch" gene.  Each of those players has performed roughly the same in the pressure cooker of the playoffs as they did in the regular season.

Chris Paul's playoff performances over his career are roughly the same as his regular season performances over his career, yet you never boast about how clutch he is.  Same for Nash, Parker, Rose.  Why is that, Tim?

Given the fact that every point guard of the modern era has the "clutch" attribute, as you measure it, is there any reason to conclude that Kyrie doesn't have it?  What you are calling the best game of Kyrie's career came against the #7 defense in basketball and the best point guard in the history of civilization (in your mind).  By your small sample size conclusions, he'd be a killer in the playoffs.  He just torched a top-level defense.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #202 on: January 24, 2013, 08:37:51 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons. 

Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs.   Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo.  To me, this is a distinct positive.  I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is.  When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better.  He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game.  The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo. 

To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs.  He hasn't been there.  Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level.   That's worth a lot to me.  I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.

A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.

And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all.  He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.

Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.

His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.

His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.

So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse.  He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.  This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.

There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse.  Overall, it's pretty much a draw.  Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth.  He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.


  Just to put a point on this, Rondo (who averages 14.5 a game in the postseason) has per36 scoring averages of 12.1 during the regular season and 13.6 in the playoffs. There are a total of 25 active players with more than 50 career playoff games who have more points a game in the playoffs than Rondo. Not a single one of them have a per36 scoring increase as high as Rondo's 1.5 points. All but a few drop a little in the playoffs.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 09:40:01 AM by BballTim »

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #203 on: January 24, 2013, 08:39:29 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26712
  • Tommy Points: 1972
Actually I would consider Nash, Paul, Parker and Rose very clutch performers. Parker is an NBA Finals MVP. Can you get more clutch than that award? Paul, Rose, and Nash practically carried their teams in most playoff series. That's pretty clutch for being the smallest guy on their teams in a big man's game.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #204 on: January 24, 2013, 08:42:36 AM »

Offline relja

  • Jared Sullinger
  • Posts: 349
  • Tommy Points: 26
  • Sullinger
Celtics fans when a player has a good game against us: OMG HES SO GOOD, LETS TRADE FOR HIM.. RONDO SUCKS, HOW CAN HE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OFF GAME?? WE DONT EVEN CARE WHEN HE HAS A GOOD GAME, WE SHOULD TAKE HIM FOR GRANTED..

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #205 on: January 24, 2013, 08:55:02 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26712
  • Tommy Points: 1972
Celtics fans when a player has a good game against us: OMG HES SO GOOD, LETS TRADE FOR HIM.. RONDO SUCKS, HOW CAN HE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OFF GAME?? WE DONT EVEN CARE WHEN HE HAS A GOOD GAME, WE SHOULD TAKE HIM FOR GRANTED..
Funny thing is Rondo had a bad defensive game but had a 17/13/8 game which most PGs would kill to have. Also, when great players have one of their great nights and can go off, sometimes it doesn't matter who is guarding them.

This fact seems to get lost here on Celticsblog. When a Celtic great goes off offensively, few blame the bad defense of the opponent. They say the Celtic had a great game. But when a great player goes off against the Celtics, its invariably the poor defensive job that a Celtic did that is the problem.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #206 on: January 24, 2013, 08:58:33 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons. 

Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs.   Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo.  To me, this is a distinct positive.  I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is.  When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better.  He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game.  The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo. 

To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs.  He hasn't been there.  Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level.   That's worth a lot to me.  I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.

A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.

And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all.  He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.

Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.

His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.

His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.

So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse.  He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.  This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.

There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse.  Overall, it's pretty much a draw.  Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth.  He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.

To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.

  Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?

  Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?

  As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.

 Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).

  As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.

  Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.

In that case, after a quick look at their playoff performances, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, and Derrick Rose among many others all have the "clutch" gene.  Each of those players has performed roughly the same in the pressure cooker of the playoffs as they did in the regular season.

Chris Paul's playoff performances over his career are roughly the same as his regular season performances over his career, yet you never boast about how clutch he is.  Same for Nash, Parker, Rose.  Why is that, Tim?

  Compare their per36 numbers. Rondo's got the largest scoring increase, the largest rebounding increase and, while all of them have lower assist levels, Rondo has the smallest dropoff of the group. Whatever you want to say about the "clutch gene" for that group of point guards, by *your* measure they all have less of it than Rondo.

  And if you're so concerned about whether I boast about how clutch other players are, what about you? One would think, if you're a Celts fan and your team's point guard steps up more than any of the point guards you listed, you'd be boasting about that. Instead you claim that Rondo isn't clutch because he only improves a little yet rush to defend the clutchness of players that step up less than him. What gives?

Given the fact that every point guard of the modern era has the "clutch" attribute, as you measure it, is there any reason to conclude that Kyrie doesn't have it?  What you are calling the best game of Kyrie's career came against the #7 defense in basketball and the best point guard in the history of civilization (in your mind).  By your small sample size conclusions, he'd be a killer in the playoffs.  He just torched a top-level defense.

  Haha. Here's what I said earlier in the thread about Irving's "clutch" attribute:

  "For the record, I'm a pretty big Irving fan. I still think he's lacking in some skills but I'd say he's probably the best shooting/scoring pg in the league and he's a fairly elite clutch scorer."
« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 09:38:38 AM by BballTim »

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #207 on: January 24, 2013, 09:16:33 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8307
  • Tommy Points: 835
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons. 

Rondo has already been the best player on a team that made it to game seven of the NBA Finals and game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals. 

He's shown over the course of the last four seasons that he steps up his game in the playoffs.   Some seem to take this as a negative against Rondo.  To me, this is a distinct positive.  I also don't think it's purely a cause of him "bringing it" more in the playoffs, but also a product of what a cerebral basketball player he is.  When he plays the same team four or more consecutive games, he learns tendencies, he adjusts, he gets better.  He's the type of player who is always thinking ahead to the next play or the next game.  The playoffs--where you face the same teams multiple times in a seven game series--are geared to benefit a thinking player like Rondo. 

To date, I have no idea how Irving will perform in the NBA playoffs.  He hasn't been there.  Rondo has been there a lot, and excelled at the highest level.   That's worth a lot to me.  I'm surprised that it's not worth more to others.

A case can be made that Rondo wasn't our best overall player on either of those teams in the playoffs.

And for all of the talk that Rondo is so much better in the playoffs, the numbers don't really bear it out at all.  He just plays more minutes in the playoffs.

Let's look at 2009-10 for an example, the year you called him the best player on our Finals team.

His regular season stats, per 36 minutes - 13.5 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9.6 APG, 51% shooting, .156 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 54% true shooting, 52% eFG%.

His postseason stats, per 36 minutes - 14.0 PPG, 4.9 RPG, 8.2 APG, 46% shooting, .131 Win Shares (per 48 minutes), 50% true shooting, 48% eFG%.

So his "stepping up in the playoffs" in 2009-2010 actually saw him arguably play worse.  He scored half a point more and got half a rebound more per 36 minutes, while losing 1.4 assists and scoring less efficiently.  This is all not to mention that his worst round of all was in the Finals, with some pretty grim looking box scores.

There are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly better, there are seasons where his playoff numbers are slightly worse.  Overall, it's pretty much a draw.  Rondo's "clutch" attribute is a myth.  He's an All-Star caliber player in the regular season and an All-Star caliber player of equal talent that plays more minutes in the postseason.

To the bolded statement, I'd say, no, he hasn't.

  Just curious, but if having the same (more or less) stats in the regular season as you do in the playoffs counts as not stepping up, how do we classify players that score *less* per36 in the playoffs? Stepping back? Shrinking in the spotlight?

  Because there are plenty of players that fall into that category. Start with PP, KG and RA. Add in players like LeBron, Durant and Chris Paul. And, for history buffs, we have Bird, Magic, Malone and Stockton. Is their "clutch attribute" a myth as well?

  As for the 2010 playoffs, Rondo's play took a dive in the Orlando series when he had some kind of leg injury, kind of like Ray's did in the finals after he got kneed in the thigh. But in spite of that Rondo was able to maintain his regular season numbers over the whole of the playoffs.

 Care to guess the names of some of the players who *weren't* able to maintain their regular season numbers over the playoffs? That's right, KG/PP/RA. I would guess you're wondering why none of them had a "clutch" attribute that year (or most years).

  As it turns out, you generally face tougher teams in the playoffs than during the regular season, so you don't get to pad your stats against the Wizards or the Bobcats or the like. In fact all 4 of the teams the Celts faced in the 2010 playoffs were among the top 7 defensive teams in the league.

  Being able to put up the same numbers in the playoffs as you do during the season when over 75% of your games are against defenses that are worse than any playoff defense you face is stepping up, and it shows that you have the "clutch" attribute.

In that case, after a quick look at their playoff performances, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, and Derrick Rose among many others all have the "clutch" gene.  Each of those players has performed roughly the same in the pressure cooker of the playoffs as they did in the regular season.

Chris Paul's playoff performances over his career are roughly the same as his regular season performances over his career, yet you never boast about how clutch he is.  Same for Nash, Parker, Rose.  Why is that, Tim?

Given the fact that every point guard of the modern era has the "clutch" attribute, as you measure it, is there any reason to conclude that Kyrie doesn't have it?  What you are calling the best game of Kyrie's career came against the #7 defense in basketball and the best point guard in the history of civilization (in your mind).  By your small sample size conclusions, he'd be a killer in the playoffs.  He just torched a top-level defense.

But, Kyrie Irving has yet to play in a playoff game.  I realize that he's only 20 years old and he'll surely get his chances, but Rondo, at the tender age of 26, has already played in 92 playoff games for a total of 3,528 minutes.


For some perspective, Chris Paul and Deron Williams have played in a combined 78 playoff games for 3,139 playoff minutes in their respective careers to date.  Rose and Westbrook combined have played 2,828 playoff minutes in 72 games. 

Those are insane numbers for Rondo.  I'm not trying to claim that he's garnered all that playoff experience based solely on his own play, but when I'm assessing players' worth, that mountain of playoff experience at such a young age factors heavily into the equation. 

A lot of players come into the league and manage to put up some impressive numbers during the regular season, but without the opportunity to do it on the big stage, those numbers quickly become fairly hollow. 

Rondo's done it on the big stage when the stakes were at their highest on many occasions so far in his career.  I say, let's give him the opportunity to keep adding to that resume as a member of the Boston Celtics. 


Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #208 on: January 24, 2013, 09:53:59 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9385
  • Tommy Points: 502
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.

Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #209 on: January 24, 2013, 10:10:38 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22121
  • Tommy Points: 1007
This has been an interesting debate.  I'm still not sure why none of the posters who claim that Irving is a superior player to Rondo, or think that Rondo can't be the best player on a contending team, refuse to take into consideration the way that Rondo has led this team deep into the playoffs over the course of the past four seasons.
Because it's quite obvious that Pierce, Garnett, and Allen lead this team deep into the playoffs, and now that they're not able to anymore, Rondo can't even lead the team to a .500 record.

Rondo wasn't the best player on any of those contenting teams. He's the best player on the team now, and we're observing the results first-hand.

  Flash back one year, this same argument was made ad nauseum. Everyone and his brother wanted to unload Rondo as soon as possible because the team's poor start. The team that was "going nowhere with Rondo as it's best player" ended up in game 7 of the ECF. Shocking, I know, but it really happened.

  Pierce, Garnett, and Allen led this team deep into the playoffs in 2008 and 2009, since then not so much. Rondo was clearly our best player in the playoffs in 2010 until he picked up an injury vs Orlando (and the teams's great run immediately began to sputter). Rondo wasn't healthy in 2011 and the team didn't get far. Rondo played great last year an the team had quite a bit of postseason success.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog