(Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate

[Eja117]

Didn't the Celtics do something very similar last year with Rondo?   


You know, start the season awful only to play like one of the better teams down the stretch and into the playoffs?

Well yeah, but now it's happening without him....so I guess that would actually mean they aren't better or worse with him or without him

[Jeff]

you know what, this debate is pointless not because it can be proved one way or the other, but because it doesn't answer a relevant question

Who cares if this particular team is better or worse than Rondo?  This is probably the last time we'll see this current mix of players play together.

even if KG and Pierce come back, they only have maybe a year left

so the more relevant question is "Can we build around Rondo?"

if you think this latest bit of success is proof that we shouldn't build around Rondo, then you make up your mind to trade him - which will bring back assets in addition to what we have already (so basically subtract Rondo, KG, and Pierce, and add what you can get for Rondo)

if you think that the team is simply winning in spite of Rondo's absence, then you might want to simply trust that Rondo will be able to learn from this and use this new information to guide and lead the team into the future (post KG and Pierce era)

"I hope this settles this debate once and for all" - yeah, me too, so we can get on with something that actually merits discussion

drops mic

[JOMVP]

Didn't the Celtics do something very similar last year with Rondo?   


You know, start the season awful only to play like one of the better teams down the stretch and into the playoffs?

Well yeah, but now it's happening without him....so I guess that would actually mean they aren't better or worse with him or without him

This is a great point. Rondo is clearly a talented player, and I think in a different system he can be a difference maker. But in Doc Rivers and the Celtics system, they do not need a pure ball dominant PG like Rondo. Bradley plus Pierce can run this team just fine with the way they play. Defensively, Rondo is such a downgrade over the backcourt we have right now that what he does to set up the offense isnt worth losing the defensive intensity over.

If they can trade Rondo in the offseason and turn him into a reliable big, I'd be all for it and the Celtics need to seriously consider it. If they plan on contending with this group, they need a big who is capable offensively but also a dominant defense and rebounding presence.

Like I said, Rondo is a great player. I think, though, if we hold onto Rondo as a building block after the Garnett and Pierce go, we are going to be no where near contenders because Rondo isnt that type of player. I'd rather trade Rondo to get pieces to contend for the next two years with the core we have and then just go into full rebuild mode.

[thirstyboots18]

Bradley and Pierce, together, may be able to run this team, but it seems to me the question would be can Bradley run the team without Pierce?  Can Rondo?

[SHAQATTACK]

In the field of debate and forensics there is fact and opinion.

Here are the facts:

The Celtics in 2012-2013 season have a better record without Rondo than they have with Rondo. Regardless of how you feel about Rondo, the Celtics, or basketball, this is an indisputable fact.

The 2012-2013 Boston Celtics have a better winning percentage post Rondo injury than pre-Rondo injury.

The team as more assists per game post Rondo injury than pre Rondo injury. Now those are the facts, everything else is spin.

Things like play you have not seen playoff Rondo or the team is going to lose steam are speculation without any basis in reality.

Arguments such as the team is only doing better because they other players did not perform when Rondo was on the team are just opinions that could be spun both ways. For example, what exactly was it about Rondo being on the team that made the other players not perform? The fact that other players did not perform when he was on team can be blamed on the other players by Rondo supporters, but Rondo could also be blamed for this observation. The fact however remains that the other players did not perform as well with Rondo regardless of who was responsible.

I hope this puts an end to the debate.

I don't care about wins anymore.......thats old school

Just give me the  TRIPLE DOUBLES !!!!!!!

and more tweets  .....and kardashians too!

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

you know what, this debate is pointless not because it can be proved one way or the other, but because it doesn't answer a relevant question

Who cares if this particular team is better or worse than Rondo?  This is probably the last time we'll see this current mix of players play together.

even if KG and Pierce come back, they only have maybe a year left

so the more relevant question is "Can we build around Rondo?"

if you think this latest bit of success is proof that we shouldn't build around Rondo, then you make up your mind to trade him - which will bring back assets in addition to what we have already (so basically subtract Rondo, KG, and Pierce, and add what you can get for Rondo)

if you think that the team is simply winning in spite of Rondo's absence, then you might want to simply trust that Rondo will be able to learn from this and use this new information to guide and lead the team into the future (post KG and Pierce era)

"I hope this settles this debate once and for all" - yeah, me too, so we can get on with something that actually merits discussion

drops mic

Amen. TP. Fact.

The idea that there is only one "Fact" worth looking at, that it is incontrovertible, that there is only way of looking, to deny ways of looking, well, it goes on endlessly around here and it is ___________ (censored). It is a 6th grade debate team idea.

[CelticConcourse]

Not again....

Mods, please do something

[Donoghus]

This debate certainly isn't over now with the playoffs still looming and probably still won't be put to bed once this season finaly does come to an end whenever that may be.  You can certainly make some interesting discussion, though.

Trying to be definitive about it doesn't make it fact.

[Donoghus]

Not again....

Mods, please do something

You can always just avoid it.

[SHAQATTACK]

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.

To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

agree......NEED A player who can shoot, hit free-throws and put the offense in motion .

Other words , a player like Tony Parker, CP3 , Irving , ect  ....not a non shooting ball hog.

[BballTim]

In the field of debate and forensics there is fact and opinion.

Here are the facts:

The Celtics in 2012-2013 season have a better record without Rondo than they have with Rondo. Regardless of how you feel about Rondo, the Celtics, or basketball, this is an indisputable fact.

The 2012-2013 Boston Celtics have a better winning percentage post Rondo injury than pre-Rondo injury.

The team as more assists per game post Rondo injury than pre Rondo injury. Now those are the facts, everything else is spin.

Things like play you have not seen playoff Rondo or the team is going to lose steam are speculation without any basis in reality.

Arguments such as the team is only doing better because they other players did not perform when Rondo was on the team are just opinions that could be spun both ways. For example, what exactly was it about Rondo being on the team that made the other players not perform? The fact that other players did not perform when he was on team can be blamed on the other players by Rondo supporters, but Rondo could also be blamed for this observation. The fact however remains that the other players did not perform as well with Rondo regardless of who was responsible.

I hope this puts an end to the debate.

  First of all Doc changed the offense after Rondo went out, attributing any of our success to Rondo leaving and not Doc changing the offense would be pure speculation on your part.

  But here are a few more facts.

  In Nov PP and Jet combined for 31 ppg on 46% fg%, 41% on 3s.
  In Jan they combined for 23 ppg on 41% fg%, 30% on 3s.
  In Feb they combined for 30 ppg on 44% fg%, 40% on 3s.

  It's a fact that the shooting and scoring drought of those two had an adverse effect on the offense.

  It's a fact that they played both good and bad with Rondo and not just poorly with Rondo so he can't be the cause of their poor play.

  It's a fact that it's pretty widespread knowledge that PP and Terry were struggling with injuries yet you're trying to pin their struggles on "Rondo being on the team". Classy.

  It's also a fact that Jeff Green's play has improved significantly as the season's gone on.

  In Dec he shot 41% from the field, 32% on 3s.
  In Jan he shot 49% from the field, 35% on 3s.
  In Feb he shot 51% from the field, 41% on 3s.

  It's a fact that Green's improvement started well before Rondo left so you can't realistically attribute his improvement to Rondo leaving.

  It's a fact that you clearly hadn't noticed anything I mentioned above, and it's a fact that there are plenty of other things that can effect the team that you hadn't considered.

  It's a fact that our best shooting month was November *with* Rondo. It's also a fact that I haven't seen anyone who claims that Rondo's a "bad fit" for the team explain why our best offensive play came with Rondo controlling the offense, or acknowledge that much of our poor play on offense was based on other players performing poorly for reasons that had nothing to do with Rondo.

  As a basketball analysis your "facts" are about as in-depth as the claim that Tyson Chandler and DeAndre Jordan are the best shooters in the nba because they have the highest fg%.


 

[BballTim]

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.

To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

  If Rondo was a little healthier in 2010 he'd have given us a title. Clearly he's capable of it despite your claims to the contrary.

[kozlodoev]

While this may be working during the regular season, we're going to struggle in the postseason.  To win a title, you need a superstar (unless you're the 2004 Detroit Pistons), and Rondo was that guy for us.

To win a title you need a superstar...well...but Rondo is not the superstar who can give you the title. Rondo is a great point guard but not a superstar, not  a game closer or kind of player to resolve the games like Lebron, Durant, Koby etc. There is no team during all NBA history winning NBA title based on point guard. See the Chicago of 90s, who based the team on 2 big guys: Jordan and Pippen

  If Rondo was a little healthier in 2010 he'd have given us a title. Clearly he's capable of it despite your claims to the contrary.

We lost 2010 because of poor rebounding, not because of Rondo...

[BballTim]

imagine a player who twists his ankle and hobbles around on the court until the next time out. They take his shoe off and tape up his ankle so he can run fine but put the wrong size shoe back on his foot. He can barely run in the too tight shoe but you keep telling him he doesn't need a different shoe because he's running a little bit faster than he was with the twisted ankle.

I think you're right. I am missing your point, because I really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

What the first part of your answer boils down to? Basically the Cs miss sizzle, even if it doesn't result in anything tangible.

So maybe we can try this a different, more productive way. Do you think Rondo can learn anything from how the Cs have been playing without him? If so, how do you see him taking that knowledge and applying it to improve his play and approach?

  First of all it's not about sizzle. I don't see why you can't get this. We didn't suck on offense all year long and suddenly start playing good when Rondo left. We started out playing very good offense (even with Green, who's playing very good now, playing much less consistently). We went from playing very well to playing poorly. Since Rondo was controlling the offense when we were playing very good on offense and he was still controlling the offense when it slumped it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something other than Rondo controlling the ball led to the slump.

  So for whatever reason, the team was in a slump. You can see it in PP and KG and Terry's numbers for various months. They're no longer in that slump. So considering how well Green is playing and our main offensive players are all playing better we should be *better* than we were earlier this year. We're not. That's because we're missing our best player.

  And it's probably a mix of Rondo, Doc and the other players all learning things based on how the team's played over the last month or so. I know that people here think that Rondo rules the team with an iron fist and oppresses his teammates but that's not the case. He's probably doing pretty much what Doc wants him to, and there's probably a lot of truth to what Danny and KG said about the team relying too much on Rondo.

Ha, a 43 game slump? That's epic.

  So was our 54 game slump in 2010 and our 32 game slump last year. You must not have been following the team for long.

[Evantime34]

Correlation does not prove causation.

Correlation: The Celtics have played better without Rondo.

Causation: The Celtics have played better because they are without Rondo.

There are too many independent variables to prove that Rondo is/was the cause, here are a few, Jeff Green's return from heart surgery, the change in the structure of the offense, the return of Avery Bradley, the new emphasis on going small due to the Sullinger injury.

I think Rondo can come back next year and lead the offense we are currently running (more ball movement and pushing the tempo) even more effectively than it is being run now.