Author Topic: Say we do well without Rondo  (Read 4243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2013, 02:07:29 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8880
  • Tommy Points: 1153
Zach Lowe is a dirt bag.

How dare Lowe say Dirk and Chris Paul are better shooters than Rondo!  The nerve.

I don't care about that.  The guy seems to be on a bit of a Rondo smear campaign lately, though.  In addition to the Lee thing, he also calls Rondo a "brat" in the article you guys are referencing.

Here's the quote:

"The rumors about his sour personality are true — there are hundreds of whispered "Rondo's a brat" stories floating around the league — but his talent and smarts are overwhelming."

He throws that in as a little aside?  C'mpn.  That's scummy.

I think you're seeing motive where there isn't any. Everyone and their mother knows there are bad stories about Rondo out there. He's a tough and demanding teammate. He's butted heads with coaches at literally every level.

The fact that he didnt make that a major part of his analysis actually is counter-intuitive to your criticism.

I thought his piece on Rondo was one of the most well-thought and even handed pieces on Rondo you'll see. He praised him multiple times, and pointed out places where he found him lacking. A smear campaign? I don't see it. Did you miss the previous sentence to the one you posted?

"He is perhaps the NBA's best passer, with a savant's understanding of how to create space and shooting opportunities for others via an extra dribble or a tiny change of direction. "

His snotty, unfounded aside did nothing to serve his article which was an analysis piece about Rondo as a player and about the prospects of this Celtics team moving forward.

In conjunction with his baseless comments about Lee bad mouthing Rondo, I get the sense that Lowe has an axe to grind with our point guard.  I take exception. 
Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers  DKC General Manager

Dennis Schroeder/Ray McCallum
Tyreke Evans/Jeremy Lamb/R. Ledo
Giannis Antetokounpo/Darrell Arthur/V. Claver
Kelly Olynyk/Nerlens Noel/C. Jefferson
Timofey Mozgov/B. Wright/A. Nicholson

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2013, 02:10:08 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8880
  • Tommy Points: 1153
Zach Lowe is a dirt bag.

This got a LOL out of me.

The only thing better would've been, 'NO, Zack Lowe, YOU ARE!'

Warning:  Bad language.



"Are you saying, I amuse you?"
Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers  DKC General Manager

Dennis Schroeder/Ray McCallum
Tyreke Evans/Jeremy Lamb/R. Ledo
Giannis Antetokounpo/Darrell Arthur/V. Claver
Kelly Olynyk/Nerlens Noel/C. Jefferson
Timofey Mozgov/B. Wright/A. Nicholson

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2013, 02:10:25 AM »

Offline Atzar

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2978
  • Tommy Points: 191
Zack Lowe made a great point about Rondo's improved jump shooting:

Quote
Everyone knows Rondo's issues. His jumper is improved but still shaky, and teams ignore him in order to clog Boston's already so-so spacing. Yes, Rondo has hit a career-best 48 percent on long 2-point jumpers this season, a number roughly comparable to those of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk Nowitzki and Chris Paul. But the numbers mask an obvious difference between those guys and Rondo: The jump shots of Nowitzki and Paul are weapons defenses attempt to take away by throwing extra attention at them, and weapons those shooters are comfortable using in high volume. Rondo's jump shot is a wide-open, last-resort look defenses are happy to provide if it means containing other action. Nowitzki might shoot 75 percent on equivalent looks at the hoop.

On one hand this might be seen as looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I think it's a very valid point.

If Rondo isn't a good shooter at this point, then you can't call guys like Novak and Kidd good shooters either.  They all do the same thing - take shots when they're wide open. 

I'm not sure why a double-standard is created for Rondo here.  No, he's not on the level of guys like Kobe, Kyrie, and Durant, who continue to shoot at elite levels despite having a hand in their face all game.  They're on another level. 

But the fact is, most of the best shooters in this league only shoot when they're wide open.  Yet they're still regarded as good shooters, and Rondo isn't despite producing similar results.  I don't get it.

I think you're drawing lines that I (and Lowe) am not. Rondo's jump shooting is improved. But it is not a primary weapon in his game, it's not a primary weapon in the Celtics offense, and it benefits (in a fairly immeasurable way) from the fact that he shoots a disproportionate amount of them wide open.

Jason Kidd is not an elite offensive player, neither is Steve Novak. Rondo is a game changer, but pointing to his improved numbers as proof positive that he is a peer of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk or CP3 is likely misguided because of the context of what their abilities mean for their teams' offensive schemes.

It's a fine distinction, but one worth making. If Rondo was as good a jump shooter as his numbers suggest, spacing would be improved, and his teammates looks should get better. That's not happening yet, and for it to happen Rondo's jumper needs to be integrated better into the game plan, and he needs to continue to make it.

Like I said before, his shot is improved, and that's a good thing, but it doesn't alleviate the concerns many people have about his shooting ability, and it's impact on the offense. But it's a heck of a lot better than it was 2 years ago.

If I drew lines that you did not, then you just did the same to me.  I agree that he isn't on the level of guys like Dirk and CP3.  I said as much.  He's not elite.  That's absolutely true.  But he is good, or at least he was this season. 

In response to your other point, you're right that guys like Allen and Dirk change defenses by simply being on the court, but I don't think you can hold Rondo up to that same measuring stick because the other things he does will always be more dangerous to a defense.  They defend Ray as a shooter because that's his role on the court.  That's not Rondo's role, and it's unlikely that it ever will be.  Rondo could even take another step forward with his jumpshot, but teams still aren't going to play him as if that's his primary weapon.  He's too much of a problem when allowed to do the other things he does. 

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2013, 02:16:47 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 39236
  • Tommy Points: 1995
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Zach Lowe is a dirt bag.

How dare Lowe say Dirk and Chris Paul are better shooters than Rondo!  The nerve.

I don't care about that.  The guy seems to be on a bit of a Rondo smear campaign lately, though.  In addition to the Lee thing, he also calls Rondo a "brat" in the article you guys are referencing.

Here's the quote:

"The rumors about his sour personality are true — there are hundreds of whispered "Rondo's a brat" stories floating around the league — but his talent and smarts are overwhelming."

He throws that in as a little aside?  C'mpn.  That's scummy.

I think you're seeing motive where there isn't any. Everyone and their mother knows there are bad stories about Rondo out there. He's a tough and demanding teammate. He's butted heads with coaches at literally every level.

The fact that he didnt make that a major part of his analysis actually is counter-intuitive to your criticism.

I thought his piece on Rondo was one of the most well-thought and even handed pieces on Rondo you'll see. He praised him multiple times, and pointed out places where he found him lacking. A smear campaign? I don't see it. Did you miss the previous sentence to the one you posted?

"He is perhaps the NBA's best passer, with a savant's understanding of how to create space and shooting opportunities for others via an extra dribble or a tiny change of direction. "

His snotty, unfounded aside did nothing to serve his article which was an analysis piece about Rondo as a player and about the prospects of this Celtics team moving forward.

Id hardly call his comment unfounded. There have been lots of stories about Rondo's personality conflicts with teammates and coaches.

Quote
In conjunction with his baseless comments about Lee bad mouthing Rondo, I get the sense that Lowe has an axe to grind with our point guard.  I take exception.

You know, I never even read those Lee comments as important news. It just checked out. Rondo is a demanding teammate. He can rub people the wrong way. You know the number 1 source for sports writers? Agents and entourage.

I found it completely feasible that either an agent or a friend acted as a source for that piece, and I dismissed it. They're looking out for Courtney Lee, not the Celtics. Everyone complains about their coworkers behind their backs. Lowe just broke a very asinine piece of news. Courtney lee had been playing poorly, and said something stupid. End of story, for me at least.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2013, 10:01:31 AM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
  • Tommy Points: 134
Zack Lowe made a great point about Rondo's improved jump shooting:

Quote
Everyone knows Rondo's issues. His jumper is improved but still shaky, and teams ignore him in order to clog Boston's already so-so spacing. Yes, Rondo has hit a career-best 48 percent on long 2-point jumpers this season, a number roughly comparable to those of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk Nowitzki and Chris Paul. But the numbers mask an obvious difference between those guys and Rondo: The jump shots of Nowitzki and Paul are weapons defenses attempt to take away by throwing extra attention at them, and weapons those shooters are comfortable using in high volume. Rondo's jump shot is a wide-open, last-resort look defenses are happy to provide if it means containing other action. Nowitzki might shoot 75 percent on equivalent looks at the hoop.

On one hand this might be seen as looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I think it's a very valid point.

If Rondo isn't a good shooter at this point, then you can't call guys like Novak and Kidd good shooters either.  They all do the same thing - take shots when they're wide open. 

I'm not sure why a double-standard is created for Rondo here.  No, he's not on the level of guys like Kobe, Kyrie, and Durant, who continue to shoot at elite levels despite having a hand in their face all game.  They're on another level. 

But the fact is, most of the best shooters in this league only shoot when they're wide open.  Yet they're still regarded as good shooters, and Rondo isn't despite producing similar results.  I don't get it.

I think you're drawing lines that I (and Lowe) am not. Rondo's jump shooting is improved. But it is not a primary weapon in his game, it's not a primary weapon in the Celtics offense, and it benefits (in a fairly immeasurable way) from the fact that he shoots a disproportionate amount of them wide open.

Jason Kidd is not an elite offensive player, neither is Steve Novak. Rondo is a game changer, but pointing to his improved numbers as proof positive that he is a peer of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk or CP3 is likely misguided because of the context of what their abilities mean for their teams' offensive schemes.

It's a fine distinction, but one worth making. If Rondo was as good a jump shooter as his numbers suggest, spacing would be improved, and his teammates looks should get better. That's not happening yet, and for it to happen Rondo's jumper needs to be integrated better into the game plan, and he needs to continue to make it.

Like I said before, his shot is improved, and that's a good thing, but it doesn't alleviate the concerns many people have about his shooting ability, and it's impact on the offense. But it's a heck of a lot better than it was 2 years ago.

If I drew lines that you did not, then you just did the same to me.  I agree that he isn't on the level of guys like Dirk and CP3.  I said as much.  He's not elite.  That's absolutely true.  But he is good, or at least he was this season. 

In response to your other point, you're right that guys like Allen and Dirk change defenses by simply being on the court, but I don't think you can hold Rondo up to that same measuring stick because the other things he does will always be more dangerous to a defense.  They defend Ray as a shooter because that's his role on the court.  That's not Rondo's role, and it's unlikely that it ever will be.  Rondo could even take another step forward with his jumpshot, but teams still aren't going to play him as if that's his primary weapon.  He's too much of a problem when allowed to do the other things he does.
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them.  For every shot rondo makes, how many times does he pass up a wide open look and try to force offense that isn't there because the defense is clogging the lane and causing spacing issues.  Calling rondo a good shooter is like calling shaq a good shooter because he shot over 60%. 

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2013, 10:08:23 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8880
  • Tommy Points: 1153
Zack Lowe made a great point about Rondo's improved jump shooting:

Quote
Everyone knows Rondo's issues. His jumper is improved but still shaky, and teams ignore him in order to clog Boston's already so-so spacing. Yes, Rondo has hit a career-best 48 percent on long 2-point jumpers this season, a number roughly comparable to those of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk Nowitzki and Chris Paul. But the numbers mask an obvious difference between those guys and Rondo: The jump shots of Nowitzki and Paul are weapons defenses attempt to take away by throwing extra attention at them, and weapons those shooters are comfortable using in high volume. Rondo's jump shot is a wide-open, last-resort look defenses are happy to provide if it means containing other action. Nowitzki might shoot 75 percent on equivalent looks at the hoop.

On one hand this might be seen as looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I think it's a very valid point.

If Rondo isn't a good shooter at this point, then you can't call guys like Novak and Kidd good shooters either.  They all do the same thing - take shots when they're wide open. 

I'm not sure why a double-standard is created for Rondo here.  No, he's not on the level of guys like Kobe, Kyrie, and Durant, who continue to shoot at elite levels despite having a hand in their face all game.  They're on another level. 

But the fact is, most of the best shooters in this league only shoot when they're wide open.  Yet they're still regarded as good shooters, and Rondo isn't despite producing similar results.  I don't get it.

I think you're drawing lines that I (and Lowe) am not. Rondo's jump shooting is improved. But it is not a primary weapon in his game, it's not a primary weapon in the Celtics offense, and it benefits (in a fairly immeasurable way) from the fact that he shoots a disproportionate amount of them wide open.

Jason Kidd is not an elite offensive player, neither is Steve Novak. Rondo is a game changer, but pointing to his improved numbers as proof positive that he is a peer of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk or CP3 is likely misguided because of the context of what their abilities mean for their teams' offensive schemes.

It's a fine distinction, but one worth making. If Rondo was as good a jump shooter as his numbers suggest, spacing would be improved, and his teammates looks should get better. That's not happening yet, and for it to happen Rondo's jumper needs to be integrated better into the game plan, and he needs to continue to make it.

Like I said before, his shot is improved, and that's a good thing, but it doesn't alleviate the concerns many people have about his shooting ability, and it's impact on the offense. But it's a heck of a lot better than it was 2 years ago.

If I drew lines that you did not, then you just did the same to me.  I agree that he isn't on the level of guys like Dirk and CP3.  I said as much.  He's not elite.  That's absolutely true.  But he is good, or at least he was this season. 

In response to your other point, you're right that guys like Allen and Dirk change defenses by simply being on the court, but I don't think you can hold Rondo up to that same measuring stick because the other things he does will always be more dangerous to a defense.  They defend Ray as a shooter because that's his role on the court.  That's not Rondo's role, and it's unlikely that it ever will be.  Rondo could even take another step forward with his jumpshot, but teams still aren't going to play him as if that's his primary weapon.  He's too much of a problem when allowed to do the other things he does.
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them.  For every shot rondo makes, how many times does he pass up a wide open look and try to force offense that isn't there because the defense is clogging the lane and causing spacing issues.  Calling rondo a good shooter is like calling shaq a good shooter because he shot over 60%.

Well, you've obviously given up on your own argument once you start comparing Rondo to Shaq as a perimeter shooter. 
Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers  DKC General Manager

Dennis Schroeder/Ray McCallum
Tyreke Evans/Jeremy Lamb/R. Ledo
Giannis Antetokounpo/Darrell Arthur/V. Claver
Kelly Olynyk/Nerlens Noel/C. Jefferson
Timofey Mozgov/B. Wright/A. Nicholson

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2013, 10:20:06 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23069
  • Tommy Points: 1082
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them. 

  This isn't true at all. There's a widespread assumption by Rondo detractors that every other nba player would hit almost all the wide open jumpers they take. Anyone who actually looks for those shots in a game would know that's not the case. In fact anyone who watches KG play would know this isn't true, he takes quite a few wide open long 2s and misses a decent amount of them. Is the claim that KG is an abnormally poor shooter?

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2013, 11:57:33 AM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
  • Tommy Points: 134
Zack Lowe made a great point about Rondo's improved jump shooting:

Quote
Everyone knows Rondo's issues. His jumper is improved but still shaky, and teams ignore him in order to clog Boston's already so-so spacing. Yes, Rondo has hit a career-best 48 percent on long 2-point jumpers this season, a number roughly comparable to those of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk Nowitzki and Chris Paul. But the numbers mask an obvious difference between those guys and Rondo: The jump shots of Nowitzki and Paul are weapons defenses attempt to take away by throwing extra attention at them, and weapons those shooters are comfortable using in high volume. Rondo's jump shot is a wide-open, last-resort look defenses are happy to provide if it means containing other action. Nowitzki might shoot 75 percent on equivalent looks at the hoop.

On one hand this might be seen as looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I think it's a very valid point.

If Rondo isn't a good shooter at this point, then you can't call guys like Novak and Kidd good shooters either.  They all do the same thing - take shots when they're wide open. 

I'm not sure why a double-standard is created for Rondo here.  No, he's not on the level of guys like Kobe, Kyrie, and Durant, who continue to shoot at elite levels despite having a hand in their face all game.  They're on another level. 

But the fact is, most of the best shooters in this league only shoot when they're wide open.  Yet they're still regarded as good shooters, and Rondo isn't despite producing similar results.  I don't get it.

I think you're drawing lines that I (and Lowe) am not. Rondo's jump shooting is improved. But it is not a primary weapon in his game, it's not a primary weapon in the Celtics offense, and it benefits (in a fairly immeasurable way) from the fact that he shoots a disproportionate amount of them wide open.

Jason Kidd is not an elite offensive player, neither is Steve Novak. Rondo is a game changer, but pointing to his improved numbers as proof positive that he is a peer of elite mid-range shooters like Dirk or CP3 is likely misguided because of the context of what their abilities mean for their teams' offensive schemes.

It's a fine distinction, but one worth making. If Rondo was as good a jump shooter as his numbers suggest, spacing would be improved, and his teammates looks should get better. That's not happening yet, and for it to happen Rondo's jumper needs to be integrated better into the game plan, and he needs to continue to make it.

Like I said before, his shot is improved, and that's a good thing, but it doesn't alleviate the concerns many people have about his shooting ability, and it's impact on the offense. But it's a heck of a lot better than it was 2 years ago.

If I drew lines that you did not, then you just did the same to me.  I agree that he isn't on the level of guys like Dirk and CP3.  I said as much.  He's not elite.  That's absolutely true.  But he is good, or at least he was this season. 

In response to your other point, you're right that guys like Allen and Dirk change defenses by simply being on the court, but I don't think you can hold Rondo up to that same measuring stick because the other things he does will always be more dangerous to a defense.  They defend Ray as a shooter because that's his role on the court.  That's not Rondo's role, and it's unlikely that it ever will be.  Rondo could even take another step forward with his jumpshot, but teams still aren't going to play him as if that's his primary weapon.  He's too much of a problem when allowed to do the other things he does.
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them.  For every shot rondo makes, how many times does he pass up a wide open look and try to force offense that isn't there because the defense is clogging the lane and causing spacing issues.  Calling rondo a good shooter is like calling shaq a good shooter because he shot over 60%.

Well, you've obviously given up on your own argument once you start comparing Rondo to Shaq as a perimeter shooter.
The point is, shooting percentage only tell half the story.  A players shooting percentage says a whole lot more about the kind of shots a guy gets than it does about what kind of shooter they are. 

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2013, 12:01:06 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
  • Tommy Points: 134
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them. 

  This isn't true at all. There's a widespread assumption by Rondo detractors that every other nba player would hit almost all the wide open jumpers they take. Anyone who actually looks for those shots in a game would know that's not the case. In fact anyone who watches KG play would know this isn't true, he takes quite a few wide open long 2s and misses a decent amount of them. Is the claim that KG is an abnormally poor shooter?
Okay, how does KG's shooting compare to Rondo's in the same area?  I am sure someone can look this up.

And, teams don't guard Rondo's shot.  Can anyone honestly say that this doesn't cause spacing problems and often hinders our other offensive players?  Just like great shooters help the offense by there mere presense on the floor, poor shooters do the opposite.  I think this is irrefutable.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 12:13:01 PM by droopdog7 »

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #69 on: January 31, 2013, 12:08:59 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24089
  • Tommy Points: -29097
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them. 

  This isn't true at all. There's a widespread assumption by Rondo detractors that every other nba player would hit almost all the wide open jumpers they take. Anyone who actually looks for those shots in a game would know that's not the case. In fact anyone who watches KG play would know this isn't true, he takes quite a few wide open long 2s and misses a decent amount of them. Is the claim that KG is an abnormally poor shooter?
Okay, how does KG's shooting compare to Rondo's in the same area?  I am sure someone can look this up.

Rondo (10 to 23 feet):  77-for-164 (46.9%)
KG (10 to 23 feet): 160-for-335 (47.8%)

They hit their non-threes at a pretty similar percentage, but KG of course takes twice as many of them.


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobili / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

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

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2013, 12:10:44 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26595
  • Tommy Points: 1017
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them. 

  This isn't true at all. There's a widespread assumption by Rondo detractors that every other nba player would hit almost all the wide open jumpers they take. Anyone who actually looks for those shots in a game would know that's not the case. In fact anyone who watches KG play would know this isn't true, he takes quite a few wide open long 2s and misses a decent amount of them. Is the claim that KG is an abnormally poor shooter?
Okay, how does KG's shooting compare to Rondo's in the same area?  I am sure someone can look this up.

Rondo (10 to 23 feet):  77-for-164 (46.9%)
KG (10 to 23 feet): 160-for-335 (47.8%)

They hit their non-threes at a pretty similar percentage, but KG of course takes twice as many of them.
And honestly while teams bigs do try to contest them a ton of KG's shots are wide open as well. Similar to Rondo because while teams go under screens they'll still run out at him.

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2013, 12:11:43 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26595
  • Tommy Points: 1017
Rondo's issue with spacing has to do with his lack of a 3 point shot more than "shooting" in general.

Makes it tough to have him space the floor when he doesn't have the ball. Remember all the times he'd sneak in on the baseline for layups because his man fell asleep worrying about how he should help off Rondo?

Teams don't care about two point shots off the ball nearly as much as they do 3s or layups.

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #72 on: January 31, 2013, 12:13:21 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9900
  • Tommy Points: 561
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them. 

  This isn't true at all. There's a widespread assumption by Rondo detractors that every other nba player would hit almost all the wide open jumpers they take. Anyone who actually looks for those shots in a game would know that's not the case. In fact anyone who watches KG play would know this isn't true, he takes quite a few wide open long 2s and misses a decent amount of them. Is the claim that KG is an abnormally poor shooter?
Okay, how does KG's shooting compare to Rondo's in the same area?  I am sure someone can look this up.

Rondo (10 to 23 feet):  77-for-164 (46.9%)
KG (10 to 23 feet): 160-for-335 (47.8%)

They hit their non-threes at a pretty similar percentage, but KG of course takes twice as many of them.
And honestly while teams bigs do try to contest them a ton of KG's shots are wide open as well. Similar to Rondo because while teams go under screens they'll still run out at him.
So there's the problem: Rondo shoots more, and at a better percentage towards the higher end of the range (16 to 23 feet). Which pretty much means he's only taking wide open jumpers when defenders go under the pick. It's great that he makes these, but when he makes three steps in (and likely ends up with a hand in his face), he can't hit the broad side of a barn. In contrast, Garnett percentages are comparable in both the 10-15 and the 16-23 ft range.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #73 on: January 31, 2013, 12:15:16 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Global Moderator
  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26595
  • Tommy Points: 1017
Frankly, regardless of what the numbers say, Rondo is not a good shooter.  Good shooters would be shooting 65-70% with his looks and would be taking three times as many of them. 

  This isn't true at all. There's a widespread assumption by Rondo detractors that every other nba player would hit almost all the wide open jumpers they take. Anyone who actually looks for those shots in a game would know that's not the case. In fact anyone who watches KG play would know this isn't true, he takes quite a few wide open long 2s and misses a decent amount of them. Is the claim that KG is an abnormally poor shooter?
Okay, how does KG's shooting compare to Rondo's in the same area?  I am sure someone can look this up.

Rondo (10 to 23 feet):  77-for-164 (46.9%)
KG (10 to 23 feet): 160-for-335 (47.8%)

They hit their non-threes at a pretty similar percentage, but KG of course takes twice as many of them.
And honestly while teams bigs do try to contest them a ton of KG's shots are wide open as well. Similar to Rondo because while teams go under screens they'll still run out at him.
So there's the problem: Rondo shoots more, and at a better percentage towards the higher end of the range (16 to 23 feet). Which pretty much means he's only taking wide open jumpers when defenders go under the pick. It's great that he makes this, but when he makes three steps in (and likely ends up with a hand in his face), he can't hit the broad side of a barn. In contrast, Garnett percentages are comparable in both the 10-15 and the 16-23 ft range.
I wonder how many of those are jumpers or are the floater/scoop shot he throws up on drives sometimes. But yeah he's got his range, he's not a shooter that can hit from anywhere.

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #74 on: January 31, 2013, 12:20:37 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9900
  • Tommy Points: 561
I wonder how many of those are jumpers or are the floater/scoop shot he throws up on drives sometimes. But yeah he's got his range, he's not a shooter that can hit from anywhere.
Can't really tell, frankly, because the source that differentiates between "close" shots and "jumpers" (82games.com) doesn't track distance, and HoopData doesn't track shot type. Not familiar with Synergy data, there may be something useful there.

In any case, while Rondo has improved considerably in his ability to knock down shots from mid-range (I now consider him "reliable" when he gets his shot rather than "shaky"), his shooting ability still remains situational.

The point here is that we still need to see how he'll adapt when defenses figure out they have to change the way they guard him on picks.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.