Author Topic: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?  (Read 5836 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2013, 03:49:11 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4578
  • Tommy Points: 264
  • James Naismith to Dickey Betts for the jam.....
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.

Totally agree. Of course you'd rather have Rondo in the playoffs than not.

The follow-up question -- which we basically can't answer until he is traded, if ever -- is are the Cs better off with someone in trade for Rondo considering their play without him?

Rondo's hardly a perfect fit for Doc, and obviously there have been some questions about his leadership ability...

I think Rondo's trade value is damaged goods for a few reasons, including how much he's been shopped (unsuccessfully), and the continued perception he tanks a little when the spotlight isn't big enough. I don't see the Cs getting an All-Star for him -- I think they'll have to take prospects, picks or risky players in return, which only makes the situation murkier... 

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2013, 03:49:32 PM »

Offline RJ87

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3963
  • Tommy Points: 124
  • 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.

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.

How am I saying "untrue" statements when I'm repeating what you said. You keep saying "just watch and see how we do" does that not include the playoffs? Why is it okay to make the argument black and white now,  but not in the playoffs.

Don't get mad if I poke holes in your argument.
Quote
Ainge had mentioned he expects Rondo to get paid 'star money.' On that subject, Rondo said, 'I'm making star money now, really. Its a pretty good living. I'll let my agent handle those terms.'

You have to be good before you can be great. Build a team instead of tearing it down.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2013, 03:50:38 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9370
  • Tommy Points: 710
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.

Maybe the goal in a trade, if you trade Rondo, should be a mature superstar viewed as starting the downside of his career, around the same age as Pierce/Garnett/Allen in 2008.  Instead of trying to find someone young enough to be a Celtic for a decade, look for someone with the heart to be a Celtic for life.

Also, the Hornets would have received Lamar Odom, Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic, and at least one first-round pick, not Pau Gasol, in the vetoed trade.  And the Hornets didn't just get Gordon but a guy who was drafted #8 overall in Al-Farouq Aminu and a draft pick formerly belonging to the Timberwolves which ended up being high enough to draft Austin Rivers.  A healthy Rondo, a young player with upside like Sullinger or Bradley, and a likely lottery pick would be the sort of package that could bring in a superstar big, but I'm not sure Sullinger or Bradley should be traded and the Celtics don't have that sort of pick anyways.
"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 #48 on: March 08, 2013, 04:04:53 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.

How am I saying "untrue" statements when I'm repeating what you said. You keep saying "just watch and see how we do" does that not include the playoffs? Why is it okay to make the argument black and white now,  but not in the playoffs.

Don't get mad if I poke holes in your argument.

I'm not mad I just find it hilarious that you actually think you're proving any kind of point. You're all over the place right now. Yes I said watch and see how we do and yes that includes the playoffs. I never said that just because we have a better record we're better off without rondo tho, never once did i make that my sole argument like you're trying to make it seem like.

My number one argument is by simply watching the games *I know its forbiddin to actually make statements based off that on these boards but..*I saw by just watching the games how much better we were moving the ball without rondo and how much comfortable everyone looked. Add in the fact we're playing better defense and we're winning.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2013, 04:34:52 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8393
  • Tommy Points: 846
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.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2012-03-01/rajon-rondo-trade-rumors-boston-celtics-stephen-curry-paul-pierce

I have never heard any confirmation by any reliable source who actually works for the Celtics or any other organization that any of these rumors are true.  In the end, these rumors just add up to a whole bunch of speculation. 

Comments like the one about Howard deals being "leaked" by the Celtics to drive up value are pure opinion and speculation on your part.  You are entitled to your opinion, but I have no reason to believe that it's the truth. 


Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2013, 05:28:47 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22458
  • Tommy Points: 1030
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.

  If PP and Terry take (off the top of head) the same number of shots but score a combined 5-6 points less what do you think that does to our offensive rating? That's 6-7 ppp less, or the difference between between being 24th in offense (like we are) and 8th. The claim that all these factors combined are far lighter than Rondo leaving isn't IMO a very well informed comment.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2013, 05:57:40 PM »

Offline eugen

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1193
  • Tommy Points: 34
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.

"I think" mean your opinion. But the stats are the real thing. The score 13-4 without Rondo cannot be ignored. And this score is not happening suddenly

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2013, 06:00:59 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22458
  • Tommy Points: 1030
They've been playing better since Rondo went out but I don't think they're a better team without Rondo.

"I think" mean your opinion. But the stats are the real thing. The score 13-4 without Rondo cannot be ignored. And this score is not happening suddenly

  Let me know when we get to the finals, then we'll be a better team without him.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2013, 06:18:13 PM »

Offline azzenfrost

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 775
  • Tommy Points: 74
They're also 19-10 since Bradley's return and Fab Melo is the second best shooter on the team, next to Chris Wilcox. Yeah, stats. ::)
I moved the cheese.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2013, 06:47:30 PM »

Offline cltc5

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1713
  • Tommy Points: 116
yes WE ARE a better team.  we're missing a star player but that star player didnt make us a better TEAM.  He shined while no one else did.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2013, 07:40:14 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22458
  • Tommy Points: 1030
yes WE ARE a better team.  we're missing a star player but that star player didnt make us a better TEAM.  He shined while no one else did.

  He also shines when other do. He's made us a better TEAM since 2007 when they drafted him.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2013, 08:26:18 PM »

Offline foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12433
  • Tommy Points: 1506
My thinking is the same as it was early in this streak - we're not a better team without Rondo, but we can sure be learning a few things about how to be better with him.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2013, 09:05:37 PM »

Offline ejk3489

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2233
  • Tommy Points: 215
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.

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.


How did you come to that conclusion by reading that article? The whole point was that the Celtics are playing better without Rondo, but his absence was not the main cause of the improvement.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2013, 08:24:23 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22458
  • Tommy Points: 1030
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.

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.


How did you come to that conclusion by reading that article? The whole point was that the Celtics are playing better without Rondo, but his absence was not the main cause of the improvement.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

  So that was in the article and the OP left it out? Hilarious.

Re: ESPN: Celtics really better without Rondo?
« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2013, 08:39:08 AM »

Online SHAQATTACK

  • NCE
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9434
  • Tommy Points: 491
Rondo can make most teams better,  there is no question about his ability , speed and play making IQ. 

TO me the it is clear , he does not play consistent (for what ever reason) , has become a diva or sorts and lazy on defense.

Being a GREAT PLAYER and NOT playing that way every game is two different things in the real world......Rondo has been exposed ...sorry folks ... 

Celtics are 100% better off with out Rondo , if the ball dominating diva shows up on the court .  He is not an asset to any team playing during one of his moody periods.

When Rondo plays as hard as Lee and AB night in and night out the Celtics COULD be better ,  but the fact is Rondo has not produced and played good team ball and his absence points directly to that.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog