Author Topic: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?  (Read 12672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2013, 02:55:30 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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 also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2013, 02:56:30 PM »

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11686
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?

No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!

This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.

So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year,  is this team still better without Rondo?

That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.

Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.

If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.

I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.

The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.

Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.

This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.

So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2013, 03:02:02 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?

No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!

This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.

So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year,  is this team still better without Rondo?

That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.

Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.

If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.

I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.

The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.

Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.

This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.

So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?

Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2013, 03:03:00 PM »

Offline nyceltsfan

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 383
  • Tommy Points: 31
One question that I have is what is the Celtics' record with and without Avery Bradley in the lineup?  As other posters have mentioned, the article talks about being able to defend without KG on the floor.  How much of that is attributable to Bradley?  In watching a limited number of games, Bradley's pressure defense has picked up the entire team and disrupts the opposition to the point that they do not have time to work the ball inside whether KG is on the court or not.

I am of the mindset that Bradley is an elite defensive talent and his presence is more of a cause for the team's turnaround than Rondo's absence.  What we may be witnessing is not that Rondo is a detriment, but that he is only the second-most important guard on this team.

To take this a step further, let's say the Lakers and Celtics made the Rondo for Howard swap.  The Celtics would be able to move into the future with a starting 5 of Bradley, Lee, Howard, Green and Sully (or some other PF) after the retirement of Pierce and KG.  That lineup, while not impressive offensively, would keep the Celts in every game because of their defensive ability.  Depending on how they fill out the bench, I am curious how many games a team like that can win...

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #34 on: March 08, 2013, 03:09:24 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

  That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2013, 03:11:51 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

  That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.

And I honestly think we will duplicate it. I think we will go until we run into the heat, if we don't beat the heat tho *Doesn't matter how many games it takes for us to lose* that doesn't mean we miss rondo.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #36 on: March 08, 2013, 03:14:04 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
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 also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.

Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).

I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.

Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.

If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.

   
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #37 on: March 08, 2013, 03:20:58 PM »

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11686
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
Quote from: Lightskinsmurf link=topic=63433.msg1427751#msg14If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. 7751 date=1362769388
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?

No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!

This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.

So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year,  is this team still better without Rondo?

That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.

Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.

If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.

I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.

The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.

Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.

This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.

So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?

Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

You're still dancing around my question,  the basis for which you brought into the conversation. You want to make the debate black & white in regards to whether we're better without Rondo. We've won X amount of games since he's went down, we're better. But when others argue there's other significant factors at play, you're not willing to consider it. Yet, when I ask if we don't have the same amount of success in the post season this year as we've had in years past with Rondo playing a vital role, you're ready to introduce other factors."If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is." Do you not see how totalitarian logic could be flawed.

And btw, if I opt to use several years of play to judge Rondo's importance to the team instead of 20 game stretch than I will.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #38 on: March 08, 2013, 03:21:56 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

  That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.

And I honestly think we will duplicate it. I think we will go until we run into the heat, if we don't beat the heat tho *Doesn't matter how many games it takes for us to lose* that doesn't mean we miss rondo.

Also you have to look at who last years celtics team beat to get to where they were. Hawks and sixers. If this years team plays better competition you have to take it into consideration. For example, if they lose to a bulls team with rose.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2013, 03:23:20 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

  That's kind of a cop out answer. If we're missing Rondo the teams we face are more likely to be better than us. If you added a healthy Green and 1-2 healthy shooting guards to last year's team we could have easily made the finals. If Rondo's as unimportant as people claim we should easily be able to duplicate that.

And I honestly think we will duplicate it. I think we will go until we run into the heat, if we don't beat the heat tho *Doesn't matter how many games it takes for us to lose* that doesn't mean we miss rondo.

Also you have to look at who last years celtics team beat to get to where they were. Hawks and sixers. If this years team plays better competition you have to take it into consideration. For example, if they lose to a bulls team with rose.

Hopefully a bulls team with rose is seeded 4-5, while we get to play in the 2-3-6-7 side of the bracket :) Let the Heat/Bulls kill themselves while we get by the other way! (knicks/pacers, sigh)
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 #40 on: March 08, 2013, 03:25:24 PM »

Offline RJ87

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11686
  • Tommy Points: 1406
  • Let's Go Celtics!
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 also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.

Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).

I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.

Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.

If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.

 

If you go by the rumors, as you seem to be doing, than the price for Rondo is a superstar talent. A Dwight or a Chris Paul type.
2021 Houston Rockets
PG: Kyrie Irving/Patty Mills/Jalen Brunson
SG: OG Anunoby/Norman Powell/Matisse Thybulle
SF: Gordon Hayward/Demar Derozan
PF: Giannis Antetokounmpo/Robert Covington
C: Kristaps Porzingis/Bobby Portis/James Wiseman

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2013, 03:29:35 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Quote from: Lightskinsmurf link=topic=63433.msg1427751#msg14If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. 7751 date=1362769388
Quote from: quidinqui33 link=topic=63433.msgout1427706#msg1427706 date=1362763251
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.

Great minds think alike. I have actually been asking myself that question alot lately. If this team keeps playing like this and If they can make an impressive playoff run, how important is rondo really to this team?

No numbers really indicate hes important at all to this team and our win/loss record shows we aren't missing him in the slightest. I think rondo is indeed very replaceable. Not only do I think hes replaceable, I think hes the ticket to us being a serious contender next year. He can net us a good big to play along side KG so bass can hit the bench!

This was a great read tho. One of the more interesting points is how we went from good to elite on defense once rondo went down. I got attacked for saying rondo played lazy defense alot lol. I knew my eyes weren't deceiving me. This article pretty much confirms what I always suspected. Rondo isn't as important to this team as everyone thinks.

So by your logic, if we fail to make the conference finals or can't force it 7 games as we did last year,  is this team still better without Rondo?

That's gonna be the kicker for me - just how many of these "we're better without Rondo" turn into "if we had Rondo..." once the playoffs hit.

Also, I think our defense going from good to elite as more to do with Avery coming back and rounding into shape.

You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is, "How important is rondo to this team?" Going by the numbers, the records, and just watching the games, not that important at all and completely replaceable. If he isn't needed why keep him when you can trade him for a piece we actually do really need? A serious upgrade at the PF position.

If I go on the evidence of the last few years, I'd say he's pretty important.

I've already stated previously in this thread that I don't buy the assumption that adding a healthy Rondo to this current incarnation o f the team wouldn't make us even better. If Rondo hadn't gone down, can we say unequivocally that the team wouldn't have figured it out? They showed signs of improvement before Rondo went down and just after Avery came back that people are glossing over because it doesn't fit the "we're better without Rondo" narrative.

The celtics were riding a 6 game losing streak when rondo went down. If that's your idea of improvement then whatever. Even the 6 game winning streak we went on was no where near as impressive as the 7 game winning streak we went on post rondo injury.

Yeah we won 6 straight but you could tell by watching the games something still just wasn't right, we didn't look that good winning those games. Plus you can't look back on previous years, this is a new team and plus we haven't really had much evidence to go on playing without rondo.

This year is the absolute perfect opportunity to see how much rondo is really needed. No excuses, just watch the games and lets see how we do the rest of the year without him. So far, we're doing just fine.

So again I ask you, based on you logic if we can't duplicate or exceed last year's playoff run, is this team still better without Rondo?

Again you're asking the wrong question. That's not what this thread is about. Let me help you out. The question you should be asking is "Is rondo important to this teams success" If rondo looks to be clearly missed in the playoffs Ill call it.

If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is. I didn't think we'd win with rondo so us losing without him won't change my mind on that. Its not as simple as "If we don't go these many games then rondo is missed" You have to actually watch the games to see what's going on.

You're still dancing around my question,  the basis for which you brought into the conversation. You want to make the debate black & white in regards to whether we're better without Rondo. We've won X amount of games since he's went down, we're better. But when others argue there's other significant factors at play, you're not willing to consider it. Yet, when I ask if we don't have the same amount of success in the post season this year as we've had in years past with Rondo playing a vital role, you're ready to introduce other factors."If we lose just because we lost to a better team then it is what it is." Do you not see how totalitarian logic could be flawed.

And btw, if I opt to use several years of play to judge Rondo's importance to the team instead of 20 game stretch than I will.

Now you're just saying untrue statements and you're asking a question that nobody in this thread is even talking about. To answer your question the answer is NO. It isn't that black and white and this thread isn't even about what you keep talking about. Its about how important rondo is to this team. All evidence suggests hes not that important at all to THIS team.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2013, 03:35:40 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
The Celtics offense looks better right now because the offense flows from defense and the defense has improved, compared to the start of the season.

The defense was clearly improving before Rondo was injured.  Was Rondo keeping the defense from reaching its potential? Was he just slowing its trajectory and it would have been looking like an elite defense eventually, just later in the season?  Was the defense close to a point where everything just gelled as if a switch was flipped and Rondo's injury was irrelevant to when that happened, so the timing was a coincidence?

As long as Doc has players who execute his defense and aren't worthless on offense, I suspect the Celtics will always be a team that has a shot of making the playoffs. 
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2013, 03:38:01 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
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 also doesn't take into account the fact that PP and Jet are playing significantly better now that they're healthier, Green's continued recovery from his year off, the fact that Rondo and Sully's injuries led to steady minutes and set rotations that many of the players haven't had all year, or the fact that we've played a lot of bad defenses since he's been out. The info posted doesn't "look under the hood" at all and assumes that the only thing that's changed for the Celts is Rondo being out. I can see why many of the posters here would agree with it.

Tim you've made these points ad nauseum by now. At best, they're far lighter factors than Rondo's injury. At worst, they're ridiculous (healthier Pierce? huh?).

I just don't get your refusal to believe that Rondo's value to the Cs might not be as high as you want it to be.

Regardless, the writer's point is what matters: Ainge has been shopping Rondo for a dog's age, and the Cs improved play in his absence certainly isn't going to make him stop.

If there are public acknowledgements of a speedy Rondo recovery this summer, I expect the Cs to look far and wide for a move. Rondo will get much harder to move by the trading deadline next season, or even worse, the summer of 2014. If a rebuilding team acquires him, they're going to want two full seasons to convince a grumpy Rondo to stay.

 

If you go by the rumors, as you seem to be doing, than the price for Rondo is a superstar talent. A Dwight or a Chris Paul type.

There have been plenty of rumors regarding Rondo for lesser players than those two. Regardless, rumors like that for Howard are 'leaked' by the Cs to drive up Rondo's less-than-ideal value.

They will never land a 'superstar' in his prime for Rondo. When the Hornets traded Paul, they first took Pau Gasol and change, then Eric Gordon and change over Rondo. That's an indication of his marginal market value, which certainly can't have gone up. 
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2013, 03:45:07 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58554
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
The Celtics are unquestionably playing better without Rondo.

There's also little question that the Celtics were playing beneath their potential earlier in the season.

However, the question of whether the Celtics will be better in the playoffs without Rondo than they would have been with him playing is very much an open question. 

While Rondo frustrates me at times, and the offensive system frustrates me even further, I simply don't believe we're better off without Rondo.  Perhaps Doc should adjust the way Rondo is utilized, but to think we're better without him in any capacity just seems incorrect to me.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes