Author Topic: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate  (Read 36904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #330 on: March 15, 2013, 05:46:20 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

  Showing why my arguments are incorrect would probably be more impressive than whining and personal attacks because I disagree with your opinions.

  By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player? Most people would have a different definition of that term than you do.

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #331 on: March 15, 2013, 05:58:20 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

  Showing why my arguments are incorrect would probably be more impressive than whining and personal attacks because I disagree with your opinions.

  By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player? Most people would have a different definition of that term than you do.


I do think Rondo is a hell of a player, but I'm objective and can easily point out the strengths and weaknesses of our players. Being completely objective, which one of the things I said would you disagree with? Moreover, because I point out his weaknesses doesn't mean that they outweigh his strengths.

How long have you been watching the C's? Are you a C's fan or a Rondo fan? There is a difference.

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #332 on: March 15, 2013, 06:24:59 PM »

Offline Greenback

  • NCE
  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 734
  • Tommy Points: 63
  • Take away love and the earth is a tomb. ~ Browning
I am a Celtics fan - since 1965.

Walt Frazier called Rondo:  "The Celtics erratic, dramatic point guard."
Everyone wants truth on his side, not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #333 on: March 15, 2013, 07:21:25 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player?
Probably because of the massive positive impact he has on the game despite suffering from all of the listed flaws?
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #334 on: March 15, 2013, 08:29:23 PM »

Offline Greenback

  • NCE
  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 734
  • Tommy Points: 63
  • Take away love and the earth is a tomb. ~ Browning
The Celtics record without Rondo is 15-6.  With Rondo its 20-23.

The Celtics OT record without Rondo is 4-0.  With Rondo its 3-4.

These are brute facts.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 08:35:11 PM by Greenback »
Everyone wants truth on his side, not everyone wants to be on the side of truth.

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #335 on: March 15, 2013, 10:35:16 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Quote
By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

  Showing why my arguments are incorrect would probably be more impressive than whining and personal attacks because I disagree with your opinions.

  By the way, why would you think a player who "takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration" is a hell of a player? Most people would have a different definition of that term than you do.


I do think Rondo is a hell of a player, but I'm objective and can easily point out the strengths and weaknesses of our players. Being completely objective, which one of the things I said would you disagree with? Moreover, because I point out his weaknesses doesn't mean that they outweigh his strengths.

How long have you been watching the C's? Are you a C's fan or a Rondo fan? There is a difference.

  I don't think he really takes nights off, he generally doesn't dribble the ball too much, he attacks the basket like he should, he had pretty good range on his jumper this year, he's probably supposed to do some gambling on defense, and when he's healthy he does a better job of keeping people in front of him than people claim. He probably displays most if not all of the faults you listed on occasion, but not as often as most players and nowhere near as often as people here claim.


Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #336 on: March 15, 2013, 11:52:31 PM »

Offline jdz101

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Tommy Points: 404
Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 ::)

Why would he need to show results for playoff games or take into account opponent record when the study is purely about Rondo in games that are nationally televised or not nationally televised?

In what way is he skimping on the data when he never mentions how rondo plays in playoff games vs not? This was never mentioned in his introduction.

Its all very well to sit back in the armchair and say "this is a bare bones study because it lacks data for this, this, and this" when the writer has never even mentioned those things as variables in the brief before the data is actually presented.

It is a simple analysis of rondo in nationally televised games vs not nationally televised games. Use it for that purpose. I don't think the writer implies that you should use it for anything outside that purpose either.


how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was chris bosh?

Re: (Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate
« Reply #337 on: March 16, 2013, 09:03:18 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 ::)

Why would he need to show results for playoff games or take into account opponent record when the study is purely about Rondo in games that are nationally televised or not nationally televised?

In what way is he skimping on the data when he never mentions how rondo plays in playoff games vs not? This was never mentioned in his introduction.

Its all very well to sit back in the armchair and say "this is a bare bones study because it lacks data for this, this, and this" when the writer has never even mentioned those things as variables in the brief before the data is actually presented.

It is a simple analysis of rondo in nationally televised games vs not nationally televised games. Use it for that purpose. I don't think the writer implies that you should use it for anything outside that purpose either.

  Because Rondo puts up better numbers in the playoffs than the regular season. If you add in those numbers all you're doing is measuring the "playoff Rondo" effect and not the "national tv Rondo" effect. The best thing to do would be to compare Rondo's play in the regular season national tv games to his play against the same teams in non-national tv games but the sample size might be small. The next best thing would be to compare regular season national tv to non-national tv games.