Author Topic: Kyrie > Rondo  (Read 34849 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #300 on: February 21, 2013, 11:35:44 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.

I am not even sure it's close.

  Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.

How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...

  OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.

I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.

  Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.

He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.

  So? Was anyone disputing those things?

The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited.  Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points.  Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds. 

  The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.

Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post.  I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing.  Geez, calm down a bit, chief.

And yes, that is why the strategy was effective.  Nobody is disputing that either.  If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.

  And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.

I wouldn't call Cleveland the best team in the league.  I'd call them LeBron James and a very limited supporting cast. 

It's funny that you often proclaim that the playoffs are the only games that truly matter and use that to criticize other elite point guards and then call a team that never won a Finals game the "best team in the league".

Cleveland is exactly the type of team that always fades in the playoffs.  They were a one dimensional team that had no other options once you were able to control and gameplan for that single dimension over a 7 game series.  Unless you're the Wizards, of course.  This is all not to mention LeBron's impending departure and the possibility that he wasn't at his best for that reason.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #301 on: February 21, 2013, 11:36:38 AM »

Offline jgod213

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2258
  • Tommy Points: 300
Quote from: BballTim
  And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.

No it's certainly not a sure thing, but then again you're allowing the idea that a rookie PG might have eclipsed what a 6 year veteran in his prime was doing in the playoffs against the best team in the NBA.

To me it's just a matter of time before everyone recognizes Irving as a top 5 player in the NBA.  Might take another year or two, but if I'm starting a team (even if my goal is to win now) I'm taking Irving over Rondo 10/10.

DKC Utah Jazz
http://tinyurl.com/kqjb3cv

Starters:   Bledsoe-Gordon-Hayward-Patterson-Favors  | 6th-Kanter
Reserves: Warren-Hardaway-Plumlee-Larkin-Evans-Mbakwe-Huestis-Hummel-Calathes

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #302 on: February 21, 2013, 11:37:42 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.

Sorry, can't agree with you there.

  No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.

So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".

  The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.

  However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.

Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts.  Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie.  No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability.  Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.

   Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.

There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).

Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open.  Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.

You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average.  Care to guess why?  Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.

  I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #303 on: February 21, 2013, 11:42:59 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.

I am not even sure it's close.

  Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.

How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...

  OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.

I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.

  Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.

He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.

  So? Was anyone disputing those things?

The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited.  Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points.  Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds. 

  The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.

Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post.  I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing.  Geez, calm down a bit, chief.

And yes, that is why the strategy was effective.  Nobody is disputing that either.  If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.

  And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.

I wouldn't call Cleveland the best team in the league.  I'd call them LeBron James and a very limited supporting cast. 

It's funny that you often proclaim that the playoffs are the only games that truly matter and use that to criticize other elite point guards and then call a team that never won a Finals game the "best team in the league".

Cleveland is exactly the type of team that always fades in the playoffs.  They were a one dimensional team that had no other options once you were able to control and gameplan for that single dimension over a 7 game series.

  They had the best player in the league and the best record in the league. If you want to claim that they weren't the best team because "teams like that always fall apart in the playoffs" (in spite of the fact that they'd gone to the finals and the ecf in recent years) go for it.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #304 on: February 21, 2013, 11:44:16 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
There's no doubt Irving is better than Rondo.

I am not even sure it's close.

  Of course there is, unless your method of comparing players consists entirely of how much they score.

How I wish your Rondo obsession would be shared by at least one rival GM. To think of what we could land...

  OTOH, put most of the people here in charge of a team and we'd be perennial bottom feeders. The consensus opinion in the forums has been wrong often enough that I don't find being in the minority to be particularly distressing.

I'd prefer a player who doesn't have such a glaring weakness (shooting) and who doesn't need the ball in his hands 90% of the time because that weakness could be exploited if he's off the ball. Rondo has improved his shooting, but teams will still dare him to beat them, and if he's spotting up shooting jumpers then that's a major win for the opposition. Try that strategy on Irving. Another thing is the FT shooting. Rondo is at 65%, which is the equivalent of Shaq for a PG, while Irving is at 85%. Then when you factor in the ages (Rondo soon to be 27, Irving 20) and it truly is a no-brainer.

  Sure, Irving's a better shooter, better ft shooter and younger. He doesn't have a glaring weakness, but there are also a number of areas where Rondo's clearly better than him. But I'd say that if Rondo were anywhere near the liability on offense you think he is then the Celts wouldn't have anywhere near the success that they have with him and you wouldn't spend most playoff series hearing opposing coaches talking about what they're going to try to change to try and limit Rondo's effectiveness. It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.

He's also signed to 2015/2016 to a cheaper contract and isn't coming off of a torn ACL.

  So? Was anyone disputing those things?

The previous poster also didn't call Rondo an overall liability, he said that Rondo has a weakness that can be exploited.  Game 7 against the Lakers is a key example, a game in which our offense couldn't score and we lost the NBA Finals by 4 points.  Kobe left Rondo open for the bulk of the game, on his way to collecting 15 rebounds. 

  The main reasons the "Kobe" on Rondo strategy was somewhat successful were Rondo not being his healthiest in that series and (more importantly) Ray getting kneed in the thigh by Artest. Ray was having a field day vs Fisher while the Lakers were putting their better defender on Rondo.

Nobody was disputing that Kyrie is younger, but you decided to make that the beginning of your post.  I see plenty in your post that nobody is disputing.  Geez, calm down a bit, chief.

And yes, that is why the strategy was effective.  Nobody is disputing that either.  If Rondo were a better shooter, like Kyrie, that strategy wouldn't have worked.

  And if Rondo hadn't almost single-handedly dismantled the best team in the league the Celts wouldn't have gotten to the finals. Would Irving have matched the 21/6/12 put up against the Cavs? Would he have controlled the pace and tempo of the games as well as Rondo did? We'll never know, but it's far from a sure thing that he would have.

I wouldn't call Cleveland the best team in the league.  I'd call them LeBron James and a very limited supporting cast. 

It's funny that you often proclaim that the playoffs are the only games that truly matter and use that to criticize other elite point guards and then call a team that never won a Finals game the "best team in the league".

Cleveland is exactly the type of team that always fades in the playoffs.  They were a one dimensional team that had no other options once you were able to control and gameplan for that single dimension over a 7 game series.

  They had the best player in the league and the best record in the league. If you want to claim that they weren't the best team because "teams like that always fall apart in the playoffs" (in spite of the fact that they'd gone to the finals and the ecf in recent years) go for it.

They weren't the best team in the league.  Regular season record means very little.  BBallTim has often told me so.  You can ask him.

The Lakers were the best team in the league.  They won the championship, after all.  The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.

A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league.  Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 11:54:23 AM by celtsfan84 »

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #305 on: February 21, 2013, 11:47:39 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.

Sorry, can't agree with you there.

  No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.

So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".

  The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.

  However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.

Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts.  Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie.  No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability.  Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.

   Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.

There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).

Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open.  Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.

You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average.  Care to guess why?  Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.

  I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

  I'd have to look for the info, but it's not a large enough difference to knock Rondo's shooting in that range out of the "above average" category. I don't know off the top of my head, but I have a general idea of what the difference is. You apparently don't.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #306 on: February 21, 2013, 11:57:34 AM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.

Sorry, can't agree with you there.

  No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.

So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".

  The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.

  However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.

Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts.  Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie.  No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability.  Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.

   Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.

There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).

Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open.  Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.

You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average.  Care to guess why?  Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.

  I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

  I'd have to look for the info, but it's not a large enough difference to knock Rondo's shooting in that range out of the "above average" category. I don't know off the top of my head, but I have a general idea of what the difference is. You apparently don't.

An open shot is always a higher percentage than a covered shot.  Aren't you always boasting about how Rondo gets his teammates open shots?  If the difference were as minimal as you claim, then Rondo's greatest attribute would be severely diminised.  I'd suggest that you have not the slightest idea about how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.  My guess is that your "general idea" is an immense exaggeration.

You should stop slamming Rondo.  His ability to get us open shots is very important, because open shots are higher percentage than covered shots. 

Anyway, this thread has turned into the usual He Said, BBallTym said about Rondo so I will make my exit.  I'm sure the other posters are awaiting your reply with baited breath but I'll pass.  I've already learned so much about the juggernaut 2010 Cavs, the best team in the league who lost in Round 2 to the team that lost in the Finals (and also lost the year prior to the team that lost in the ECF).  But the 2010 Cavs were definitely better than the Celtics, Lakers, and Magic because they had a better reular season record.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 12:04:44 PM by celtsfan84 »

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #307 on: February 21, 2013, 12:05:26 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11677
  • Tommy Points: 1466


They weren't the best team in the league.  Regular season record means very little.  BBallTim has often told me so.  You can ask him.

The Lakers were the best team in the league.  They won the championship, after all.  The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.

A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league.  Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.

Yup, the Celtics were better than the Cavs in 2010, even though few observers thought that was the case going into their Eastern Conference Semifinals series.  I submit that a major reason that the Celtics ended up being better than the Cavs was that we had Rajon Rondo.

Would you dispute the statement that we would have had very little chance to win that series without him?
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #308 on: February 21, 2013, 12:09:09 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

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


They weren't the best team in the league.  Regular season record means very little.  BBallTim has often told me so.  You can ask him.

The Lakers were the best team in the league.  They won the championship, after all.  The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.

A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league.  Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.

Yup, the Celtics were better than the Cavs in 2010, even though few observers thought that was the case going into their Eastern Conference Semifinals series.  I submit that a major reason that the Celtics ended up being better than the Cavs was that we had Rajon Rondo.

Would you dispute the statement that we would have had very little chance to win that series without him?

The media pundits are often wrong and I agree that the 2010 Celtics were better than the 2010 Cavs.

I don't dispute that Rondo was part of the reason why and I don't dispute that our chances to win the series without him would've been severely diminished.

I will say that the 2010 Cavs had the best player in the league, as BBallTym noted, but of the 5 best players in the series, Boston had 4.  I'd like to know how many times the "best team in the league" only had 1 of the 5 best players in a given series.  Please ask BBallTym to cite examples of the "best team in the league" having 1 of the top 5 players in any series (in some order, LeBron, KG, Pierce, Ray, Rondo).  He has a long stretch of NBA history to work with.  My guess is he has no sensible answer to that one, maybe a sarcastic, forgettable answer.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #309 on: February 21, 2013, 12:22:38 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
It's easy to explain how Rondo's "glaring weakness" makes it easy to defend the Celts. The explanations just don't generally match up with what happens on the court.
Wait, you mean Rondo's defender doesn't play "free safety"? Or Rondo beats teams all the time when they give him open jumpers.

Sorry, can't agree with you there.

  No, I mean the way that we're generally among the better teams in the league in terms of things like fg%, efg% and ts% because what Rondo contributes to the offense more than offsets his shooting. You might not think this matters but Rondo beating teams by getting his teammates open shots counts.

So I guess the false claims that Rondo is a great shooter have finally been given up, otherwise there'd be nothing to "offset".

  The "false claims that Rondo is a great shooter" probably occurred in your head, not on the blog. Allow me to clarify, I was talking about how defenders give Rondo space to shoot because his shooting, while not as bad as many claim, is a weaker part of his game than penetration or passing.

  However, since you brought it up, Rondo's long jump shooting (16-23 feet) was above average this year, which is clearly an encouraging sign.

Of course his creating open shots for teammates counts.  Even with that taken into consideration, some will prefer Kyrie. This thread is about comparing Rondo to Kyrie Irving, not to Kevin Ollie.  No one is stating that Rondo has no impact on the game or calling him an overall liability.  Some people just prefer the package of skills of a different top-level point guard.

   Yes, that pretty much sums up what we're discussing.

There have definitely been posts on this forum that Rondo is a great shooter (this is the forum part of the CelticsBlog website, not the blog part, by the way, someone with over 16,000 forum posts should be able to tell the difference).

Rondo's long jump shooting is above average because he is often left open.  Plus, the sample size there is pretty small anyway.

You choose to ignore the fact that his long jump shooting is "above average" this year, but his free throw shooting is well below average.  Care to guess why?  Probably because everyone is left open on free throws, not just Rondo.

  I didn't say anything about his free throw shooting in that post because that's not what we were discussing. And I'll go out on a limb and claim that you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

I wouldn't need to go out on a limb, but I'd suggest you don't have any idea how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.

  I'd have to look for the info, but it's not a large enough difference to knock Rondo's shooting in that range out of the "above average" category. I don't know off the top of my head, but I have a general idea of what the difference is. You apparently don't.

An open shot is always a higher percentage than a covered shot.  Aren't you always boasting about how Rondo gets his teammates open shots?  If the difference were as minimal as you claim, then Rondo's greatest attribute would be severely diminised.  I'd suggest that you have not the slightest idea about how much better players shoot when they're open compared to when they're covered.  My guess is that your "general idea" is an immense exaggeration.

You should stop slamming Rondo.  His ability to get us open shots is very important, because open shots are higher percentage than covered shots. 

Anyway, this thread has turned into the usual He Said, BBallTym said about Rondo so I will make my exit.  I'm sure the other posters are awaiting your reply with baited breath but I'll pass.  I've already learned so much about the juggernaut 2010 Cavs, the best team in the league who lost in Round 2 to the team that lost in the Finals (and also lost the year prior to the team that lost in the ECF).  But the 2010 Cavs were definitely better than the Celtics, Lakers, and Magic because they had a better reular season record.

  I could probably get you the info later today, I don't know how hard it is to find compared to a couple of years ago. Same with info on Rondo's assists. Let me know if you want it (because it might take a while) but I suspect your leaving the conversation is your way of admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

Re: Kyrie > Rondo
« Reply #310 on: February 21, 2013, 12:31:55 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


They weren't the best team in the league.  Regular season record means very little.  BBallTim has often told me so.  You can ask him.

The Lakers were the best team in the league.  They won the championship, after all.  The Celtics were also better than the Cavs.

A team getting swept three years prior in the Finals after winning a historically bad Eastern Conference doesn't merit calling them the best team in the league.  Especially since the Lakers hadn't acquired Gasol and the Celtics hadn't acquired KG or Ray back in 2007.

Yup, the Celtics were better than the Cavs in 2010, even though few observers thought that was the case going into their Eastern Conference Semifinals series.  I submit that a major reason that the Celtics ended up being better than the Cavs was that we had Rajon Rondo.

Would you dispute the statement that we would have had very little chance to win that series without him?

The media pundits are often wrong and I agree that the 2010 Celtics were better than the 2010 Cavs.

I don't dispute that Rondo was part of the reason why and I don't dispute that our chances to win the series without him would've been severely diminished.

I will say that the 2010 Cavs had the best player in the league, as BBallTym noted, but of the 5 best players in the series, Boston had 4.  I'd like to know how many times the "best team in the league" only had 1 of the 5 best players in a given series.  Please ask BBallTym to cite examples of the "best team in the league" having 1 of the top 5 players in any series (in some order, LeBron, KG, Pierce, Ray, Rondo).  He has a long stretch of NBA history to work with.  My guess is he has no sensible answer to that one, maybe a sarcastic, forgettable answer.

  I think my answer (they had the best player and the best record, but feel free to disagree) was sufficient. If you want to see examples of top teams with certain roster profiles you should check yourself, maybe you'll gain some insight for future discussions.