Author Topic: Say we do well without Rondo  (Read 4109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #75 on: January 31, 2013, 12:24:29 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22652
  • Tommy Points: 1042
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.

  So you're claiming that a 7 footer doesn't suffer the same drop in shooting efficiency as a 6'1 guard when they get closer to the (taller) defenders? Color me surprised.

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #76 on: January 31, 2013, 12:27:37 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38864
  • Tommy Points: 1962
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

  So you're claiming that a 7 footer doesn't suffer the same drop in shooting efficiency as a 6'1 guard when they get closer to the (taller) defenders? Color me surprised.
Its a good point, not exactly comparing apples to apples.

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

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #77 on: January 31, 2013, 12:29:40 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9474
  • Tommy Points: 509
So you're claiming that a 7 footer doesn't suffer the same drop in shooting efficiency as a 6'1 guard when they get closer to the (taller) defenders? Color me surprised.
Guys like Kyrie Irving and Chris Paul seems to do just fine in this respect, too. This has nothing (or at least not as much as you'd expect) to do with size.
Managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #78 on: January 31, 2013, 01:10:32 PM »

Offline Q_FBE

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2177
  • Tommy Points: 234
    • Coach Q
Or is the teams vets following last year pattern of playing better the later the season got?

Yeah, if the team does well, there's never going to be a cut & dry answer on the value of Rondo.

I think the team was going to be getting it together for a post all star break surge to a top four seed, HCA in the first round, followed by a probable 2nd round exit with Rondo. My guess is now, the Celtics surge upward but get a lower seed and get dismissed in the 1st round. They may very well end up exceeding my expectations listed above but I have considered it a bridge year. Now the latest Sully injury is a concern to me.
The NBA is a very stupid, corrupt, and unethical league

Re: Say we do well without Rondo
« Reply #79 on: January 31, 2013, 01:44:07 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23638
  • Tommy Points: -29131
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
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.

basketball-reference.com probably has the most complete shot data:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01/shooting/2013/


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / 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 #80 on: January 31, 2013, 02:50:53 PM »

Online BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22652
  • Tommy Points: 1042
So you're claiming that a 7 footer doesn't suffer the same drop in shooting efficiency as a 6'1 guard when they get closer to the (taller) defenders? Color me surprised.
Guys like Kyrie Irving and Chris Paul seems to do just fine in this respect, too. This has nothing (or at least not as much as you'd expect) to do with size.

  I'm sure that there are other factors as well. For instance, Rondo rarely shoots from 10-15 feet. If 2 of his misses in half a season had gone in he'd have an average from that range similar to his 16-23 foot average.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog