Author Topic: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?  (Read 12668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« on: March 08, 2013, 12:05:52 PM »

Offline quidinqui33

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 315
  • Tommy Points: 71
ESPN has joined the discussion:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/PerDiem-130308/nba-boston-celtics-really-better-rajon-rondo

When the Boston Celtics lost at Portland on Feb. 24 to drop to 1-3 on their West Coast trip, the notion the team was better without injured All-Star Rajon Rondo was a distant memory. The next night, however, the Celtics pulled out a win at Utah to jump-start a four-game winning streak. Entering this weekend's pair of games on national TV, Boston is a season-high six games above .500 and looking to move up in the Eastern Conference standings.

The Celtics have now played 17 games since Rondo tore his ACL in Atlanta, plus five more he missed because of suspension or injury before going down for the season. That's enough of a sample to suggest their initial success without him is not a fluke. Boston has gone 15-7 in those games as compared with 18-20 with Rondo in the lineup. But the numbers show that if the Celtics are indeed playing better without Rondo, it's not for the reasons you think.

Check out the chart comparing Boston's advanced statistics this season with and without Rondo.

WITH AND WITHOUT RONDO
Stat    Rondo    No Rondo
Win %   .473   .682
Offensive Rating   104.6   106.9
Defensive Rating   105.7   102.0
Adjusted Offense   -2.0   -0.7
Adjusted Defense   0.7   5.5
Adjusted Rating   -2.2   4.0

Although the Celtics did benefit from an easy schedule to win their first seven games without Rondo, six of them at home, that has since evened out with seven of the team's past eight games on the road. Overall, Boston has now faced slightly more difficult opposition since Rondo's injury -- including Tuesday's last-second win at Indiana, the team's most challenging victory of the season given opponent and location.

After taking that into account, the Celtics have played much better without Rondo -- a difference of 6.2 points per game against average opposition. But most of that improvement -- more than three-quarters of it, in fact -- has come at the defensive end of the floor. Let's take a closer look at each end to figure out how Boston has been a different team since Rondo's injury.

OFFENSE

By going from Rondo dominating the ball on offense to sharing ballhandling responsibilities among several players, the Celtics have become a more dangerous offense, the narrative goes. Not quite. Really, after a stretch of hot shooting during the initial seven-game winning streak, when they made 50.8 percent of their 2-point tries, Boston has been the same below-average offense. Across the board, their statistics are nearly identical to when Rondo is in the lineup.

Hollinger's Playoff Odds

Which teams do the odds favor? Check our projections daily. Playoff Odds »

The Celtics have been able to fill Rondo's playmaking role by committee. Thanks to seven players averaging at least two assists per game, Boston has handed out assists on 61.8 percent of its field goals -- down only marginally from the 63.1 percent of baskets that were assisted with Rondo. And the Celtics' assist rate has actually gotten slightly better since Rondo was sidelined.

Give much of the credit to Paul Pierce for showing a playmaking side of his game that hasn't been seen in years. Pierce has averaged a team-high 6.5 assists in Rondo's absence, nearly 40 percent more assists per minute than he's ever handed out in his career. Though Pierce is turning the ball over a bit more frequently because of the extra responsibility, it hasn't affected his scoring output.

If you're looking for evidence that Rondo's style is detrimental to his team, it doesn't really exist. Boston is still the same offense, depending heavily on long 2-pointers that are difficult to make at a high rate of efficiency. The Celtics are still more likely to cheer for the Lakers than get an offensive rebound and rarely get to the free throw line. And they still overcome it because of their defense -- now more than ever.

DEFENSE

Before Rondo's injury, Boston was a very good defense. According to NBA.com/Stats, the team ranked seventh in the league in defensive rating when Rondo was sidelined. Since then, they've been elite. The Celtics are holding opponents 5.5 points per 100 possessions below their usual offensive rating. Over the course of the season, only two teams (the Indiana Pacers and the Memphis Grizzlies) have been so stingy on defense.

Boston has offset a decline on the defensive glass by sending teams to the foul line less frequently. Nearly all of the defensive improvement can be traced to how opponents are shooting against the Celtics. Teams are making just 45.4 percent of their 2-point attempts, down from 47.9 percent, and 31.1 percent of their 3s, down from 35.0 percent. If maintained for a full season, that would be the NBA's best 3-point defense; only the Pacers have defended 2s better.

Explaining this effect is more difficult than observing it. After all, Rondo is a four-time All-Defensive Team selection. His defense appeared to slip this season, but before Rondo's injury Boston had shown no tendency to defend better with him on the bench. That suggests the real changes lie elsewhere.

First, the Celtics have benefited from the return of defensive ace Avery Bradley after surgery on both shoulders. In the month Bradley and Rondo played together, they were just as stout defensively as they have been since Rondo went down. Secondly, Boston has figured out how to defend when a different star -- center Kevin Garnett -- is on the bench. During the first two months of the season, the Celtics' D sprung leaks every time Garnett rested. Since then, as NBA.com's John Schuhmann noted on Twitter earlier this week, they've actually defended slightly better when Garnett is off the floor.

THE PLAYOFFS

Taken together, the numbers indicate that Boston is playing better without Rondo, but not that the Celtics are playing better because Rondo is out. It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.

The Celtics' ability to win without Rondo is good news for the next few months. When Rondo went down, conventional wisdom had it that they might survive his absence the rest of the regular season but would be unable to duplicate their Rondo-led run to last year's Eastern Conference finals. Their performance thus far might disprove that assumption. Boston's level of play without Rondo, 4.0 points better than an average team, would put the C's ahead of Indiana (+3.4) and New York (+3.0) this season. Only Miami (+6.8) has been better in the Eastern Conference.

Average offense and elite defense has historically been a powerful combination for the Celtics in the postseason. They'll surely have to win at least one series on the road to get back to the conference finals, but that has never been a problem for Boston before. Tuesday's win at Indiana was one indicator that the Celtics can still win anywhere against anyone. A strong performance Sunday at Oklahoma City on ABC would only add to the evidence that Boston is a threat without Rondo.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2013, 12:09:08 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
Thanks for the article.

I'll say the sample size remains way too small to determine.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2013, 12:17:14 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30933
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2013, 12:20:51 PM »

Offline quidinqui33

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 315
  • Tommy Points: 71
This quote from the article is key:

"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.


Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?"  I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.

Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?"  I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.


Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2013, 12:30:02 PM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6069
  • Tommy Points: 336
This quote from the article is key:

"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.


Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?"  I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.

Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?"  I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.

TP for an excellent point. I also am confident that Rondo will be actively shopped for a big in the off-season, a decision I would totally support.

That's an interesting, albeit flawed, article that totally fails to account for several factors that are key in the Celtics' resurgence - vastly improved offensive ball movement, shots off primary and secondary transition, what we used to call "rim attacks," and, most importantly, opposition baskets off defensive breakdowns. Our defensive rotations simply aren't getting broken down as often out front.

It makes some quality points - the defense has improved with Garnett on the bench, for example.

And it does get at the point made by the above poster: It isn't about how talented Rondo is, it's about how necessary Rondo is to the success of the Boston Celtics.

Coined the CelticsBlog term, "Euromistake."

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2013, 12:38:58 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
we need Rondo healthy ASAP .... 


so we can trade him and Bass for a lottery pick or serious big man ...


we need to play a least another 150 games to decide. ;D

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2013, 01:02:30 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
This quote from the article is key:

"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.


Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?"  I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.

Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?"  I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.
To add to this point, I think there is another question that isn't being asked enough.  It's not as simple as, are we better without Rondo.  The real question should be, and I think DA knew this all the time, would we be be better by trading Rondo for another piece (perhaps a big man)?

To me, that last question is fairly clear.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2013, 01:04:00 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy.  It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.

In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
Yup

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2013, 01:05:54 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
The with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy.  It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt.

Agreed.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2013, 01:13:34 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9666
  • Tommy Points: 324
This quote from the article is key:

"It's somewhat troubling in its own right that they've been able to replace an All-Star point guard so easily, but any notion that Rondo was holding back his Boston teammates overstates the case.


Up to this point, the debate has been "Are the celtics better without Rondo?"  I personally do not think we are, but that leads me to the next point.

Perhaps the real question is "Is Rondo more replaceable than we thought?"  I personally think he might be, and this 17 game sample and what remains of the season should be enough to definitively answer that question. I think Danny feels the same way which is why I expect that he will continue to shop Rondo once he is back.

TP for posting the article. It's an interesting read, and in the above-quoted post you make a good point as well:

If a team loses its All-Star point guard, and not only doesn't replace him with another All-Star-level player but doesn't even replace him with an actual, honest-to-goodness point guard, yet the team improves in terms of win-loss (which is what ultimately matters), that tells me that something is severely lacking regarding the original situation with the All-Star point guard.

What is that thing? I think it's the "involvement" factor. Regardless of whose fault it was, the other players used to think that Rondo must have the ball most of the time, and sure, Rondo would make good passes to open guys in their favorite spots, but unless you were that guy on that play, you probably didn't touch the ball; you probably just stood around, feeling useless. Now we have most players getting lots of touches, including guys who should have the ball a good deal, such as Jeff Green, and when everyone feels involved and invested, they're more aggressive in taking ownership of the product, which in this case means that guys are being aggressive, taking initiative more, and moving the ball more.

That, and the Bradley-Lee defensive combo is more effective than the Bradley-Rondo combo.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2013, 01:21:39 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I technically don't even count the losses vs Charlotte, Denver, LA and Portland, because those all happened arguably due to Barbosa being injured and the team transitioning to Crawford off the bench as an alternative.   As far as I'm concerned, since Rondo went down and we had 4 healthy contributing guards in his wake... this team has been brilliant.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2013, 01:25:59 PM »

Offline erisred

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 650
  • Tommy Points: 37
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy.  It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.

In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
The problem I'm having with these snap judgments is one of cause and effect. Rondo is out, a fact. The Celtics are winning more, a fact.

However, Rondo being out being the cause of the Celtics improved play is not a fact. This is an opinion. Nothing wrong with expressing opinions here, but don't expect everyone to agree with you and don't get upset when they don't.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2013, 01:26:25 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
I technically don't even count the losses vs Charlotte, Denver, LA and Portland, because those all happened arguably due to Barbosa being injured and the team transitioning to Crawford off the bench as an alternative.   As far as I'm concerned, since Rondo went down and we had 4 healthy contributing guards in his wake... this team has been brilliant.

We could make an excuse for every game. No. A loss is a loss, no matter why.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2013, 01:28:57 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8509
  • Tommy Points: 285
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy.  It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.

In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.

TP, great point.


Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2013, 01:35:30 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
The problem with any of these hypothetical comparisons is that they don't really allow for a parallel possibility for improvement if Rondo had stayed healthy.  It's pretty cut and dry that the Celtics are playing better ball now than they were before he got hurt, but it's also reasonable to expect that the team would have figured out how to play with each other more effectively if he was still around.

In the end, just be happy that they are playing a good brand of basketball, and the season is not a lost cause.
The problem I'm having with these snap judgments is one of cause and effect. Rondo is out, a fact. The Celtics are winning more, a fact.

However, Rondo being out being the cause of the Celtics improved play is not a fact. This is an opinion. Nothing wrong with expressing opinions here, but don't expect everyone to agree with you and don't get upset when they don't.

yup

I definitely was not liking (or enjoying watching) the type of hoops they were playing before he got hurt, but I've seen Rondo be a central figure in too many Celtics' streaks of awesomeness to discount the notion that he could be part or another one.  I don't really have a problem with pointing fingers at Rondo for the way the team was playing because that's what we do. 
Yup