next »

[eugen]

I think the team is clearly worse off without Rondo, however to stir the pot here are the Celtics numbers with and without him
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4701661/with-or-without-you

We are talking about this season.

The article is several paragraphs with charts and you can't be bothered to read the entire thing? Look at the last chart, it compares Boston's production this season with and without Rondo.

Did you read the stats???

Season 2012-13

With Rondo
 
2012-13
 
18-20 (.474)

Without Rondo
 
3-3 (.500)...in this games you beat HEAT and NYK!!!

[Evantime34]

I think the team is clearly worse off without Rondo, however to stir the pot here are the Celtics numbers with and without him
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4701661/with-or-without-you

We are talking about this season.

The article is several paragraphs with charts and you can't be bothered to read the entire thing? Look at the last chart, it compares Boston's production this season with and without Rondo.

Did you read the stats???

Season 2012-13

With Rondo
 
2012-13
 
18-20 (.474)

Without Rondo
 
3-3 (.500)

That is the first chart (which is a positive winning percentage wise). Look at the last chart
+.04 without him on the court -1.3 with him on the court.

BTW, sorry for the snark earlier. Losing Rondo has put me on edge, haha.

[BballTim]

I think the team is clearly worse off without Rondo, however to stir the pot here are the Celtics numbers with and without him
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4701661/with-or-without-you

We are talking about this season.

The article is several paragraphs with charts and you can't be bothered to read the entire thing? Look at the last chart, it compares Boston's production this season with and without Rondo.

  I would think that it's fairly obvious that numbers like these would be more valuable on teams that play at a consistent level, and the Celts are far from consistent. They go on hot and cold streaks, and whether the rest of the team's playing really well or really poorly will have quite an effect on how well it does without certain players.

[ejk3489]

The Bulls are 26-17 in Rose's absence this season. Last season the Heat were 13-1 without Wade.

Does anyone actually believe the Heat win the championship without Wade last season or that the Bulls are better off without Rose? Regular season success doesn't win you playoff games, talent does.

[Fafnir]

I think the team is clearly worse off without Rondo, however to stir the pot here are the Celtics numbers with and without him
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4701661/with-or-without-you

We are talking about this season.

The article is several paragraphs with charts and you can't be bothered to read the entire thing? Look at the last chart, it compares Boston's production this season with and without Rondo.

  I would think that it's fairly obvious that numbers like these would be more valuable on teams that play at a consistent level, and the Celts are far from consistent. They go on hot and cold streaks, and whether the rest of the team's playing really well or really poorly will have quite an effect on how well it does without certain players.

+/- depends a ton on your teammates if you're not controlling for those interactions.

Unfortunately controlling for those things takes a lot of data.

[mgent]

No, although I'd say we play about the same.

Players get more touches without Rondo which causes them to feel more involved and gives them a better chance of getting hot.

This also consequently inspires them to play harder on defense.

We get into our plays quicker without Rondo pounding the rock, and go from one play to the next quicker because we don't have to get the ball back into his hands.

It makes our offense much more unpredictable, which makes the other team think harder on defense and make more mistakes.

Pierce and KG are both elite passers that are perfectly capable of running an offense.  With Rondo they are almost reduced to pure shooters/scorers.  When they are making plays for others it really opens up more and easier scoring opportunities for them like they've been used to throughout their careers (and in 08).

Rondo's excellent shooting has been a huge asset for us this year, but it still doesn't do as much for an offense as a historic floor-spacer like Terry that can keep defenders from helping off and going under picks.

No, we aren't better, but I think with some effort we can easily maintain our current level (a middle of the pack regular season team that can beat any team 4 times in the playoffs).

The biggest loss will be his rebounding, which everyone will have to step up, mainly Sullinger, KG, Green, and Lee.

Leaves a smaller margin for error, but this isn't anything like losing KG in 09.  This isn't even as devastating as losing KG or arguably Pierce now (our best defender and scorer).

[EJPLAYA]

I think that we need to remember that the vast majority of the people on here that think this team is better off without Rondo aren't saying Rondo isn't talented or the best PG on this team. They do point to actual facts that show the statistics say that this is true and not just with a one or two game sample. Over his career games missed we have won more when he is off the floor versus on. That doesn't tell the whole story, however it is true.

That being said, the thing I see as the main reason this could be true is that Rondo is a very over rated defender and we clearly are a better defensive team with him sitting. Especially now that we have Bradley and Lee who are better defenders. Rondo gambles and creates rotation issues for our bigs who have to cover for him when he tries to poke the ball from behind and misses. Lee and especially Bradley do a much better job keeping in front of their man. When we play better defense we win. Fact.

Also, Rondo tends to dribble the ball at the top too much with guys standing their watching to see if he is going to take it to the rim. Some games he does, and some he just causes us to take a poor shot late in the shot clock. Terry for example runs the pick and roll really well. Rondo not so much. Bradley attacks much more and doesn't sit and dribble out the clock. The stats show we aren't really worse offensively without Rondo.

So in a nutshell, we are a better defensive team without Rondo, and about the same offensively. I doubt that this would be true if Rondo would play each game with effort, however it is what it is. This is why it is so maddening. Rondo at this point is what he is. He isn't going to improve much going forward. With this injury he very well may slip. Especially since he relies on his cutting so much.

Not sure why people are up in arms so much about the idea that maybe this TEAM plays better without him. Or at least about as well. Utah didn't slip that much after Deron Williams left and they don't have a "big name" PG. I don't think historically the stats say that a PG is that important in winning a title. I'd have been glad to have seen him traded for a legit center and think we would have returned to realistic title contenders.

[Evantime34]

I think that we need to remember that the vast majority of the people on here that think this team is better off without Rondo aren't saying Rondo isn't talented or the best PG on this team. They do point to actual facts that show the statistics say that this is true and not just with a one or two game sample. Over his career games missed we have won more when he is off the floor versus on. That doesn't tell the whole story, however it is true.

That being said, the thing I see as the main reason this could be true is that Rondo is a very over rated defender and we clearly are a better defensive team with him sitting. Especially now that we have Bradley and Lee who are better defenders. Rondo gambles and creates rotation issues for our bigs who have to cover for him when he tries to poke the ball from behind and misses. Lee and especially Bradley do a much better job keeping in front of their man. When we play better defense we win. Fact.

Also, Rondo tends to dribble the ball at the top too much with guys standing their watching to see if he is going to take it to the rim. Some games he does, and some he just causes us to take a poor shot late in the shot clock. Terry for example runs the pick and roll really well. Rondo not so much. Bradley attacks much more and doesn't sit and dribble out the clock. The stats show we aren't really worse offensively without Rondo.

So in a nutshell, we are a better defensive team without Rondo, and about the same offensively. I doubt that this would be true if Rondo would play each game with effort, however it is what it is. This is why it is so maddening. Rondo at this point is what he is. He isn't going to improve much going forward. With this injury he very well may slip. Especially since he relies on his cutting so much.

Not sure why people are up in arms so much about the idea that maybe this TEAM plays better without him. Or at least about as well. Utah didn't slip that much after Deron Williams left and they don't have a "big name" PG. I don't think historically the stats say that a PG is that important in winning a title. I'd have been glad to have seen him traded for a legit center and think we would have returned to realistic title contenders.

I agree with this I posted the article to paly devil's advocate. I do think we are better defensively without Rondo due to his gambling. I also think we might be better in the half court without him dribbling the air out of the ball. However, the points he gives us on the fast break and the rebounds he gets makes him more valuable on the court than not.

[2short]

Yeah I for the life of me can't believe Ainge hasn't traded Rondo for a draft pick or that Doc even plays Rondo much less starts him. 

[eugen]

BTW, sorry for the snark earlier. Losing Rondo has put me on edge, haha.

Grow up man.Can not jump from statistics to hahaha

[Evantime34]

BTW, sorry for the snark earlier. Losing Rondo has put me on edge, haha.

Grow up man.Can not jump from statistics to hahaha

Ok I'll remove the haha, but I think apologizing for coming off like **** is a sign of maturity.

[eugen]

BTW, sorry for the snark earlier. Losing Rondo has put me on edge, haha.

Grow up man.Can not jump from statistics to hahaha

Ok I'll remove the haha, but I think apologizing for coming off like **** is a sign of maturity.

Grow up anyways.

[Jeff]

don't make me turn this car around

[Evantime34]

don't make me turn this car around

Haha

[BballTim]

I think the team is clearly worse off without Rondo, however to stir the pot here are the Celtics numbers with and without him
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4701661/with-or-without-you

We are talking about this season.

The article is several paragraphs with charts and you can't be bothered to read the entire thing? Look at the last chart, it compares Boston's production this season with and without Rondo.

  I would think that it's fairly obvious that numbers like these would be more valuable on teams that play at a consistent level, and the Celts are far from consistent. They go on hot and cold streaks, and whether the rest of the team's playing really well or really poorly will have quite an effect on how well it does without certain players.

+/- depends a ton on your teammates if you're not controlling for those interactions.

Unfortunately controlling for those things takes a lot of data.

  But it doesn't account for inconsistent overall play. Look at Ray (not to defend him obviously, just to make a point). He was playing a lot of minutes early in the season when KG and PP sucked and missed a lot of minutes late in the season when they were playing well. That fact alone will have a huge effect on his +/- numbers and adjusting for teammates won't affect that.