Would you rather have Rondo or Sullinger back right now?

[Neurotic Guy]

Rondo.

But in general I think it's a nice feeling to be a playoff without them.  Next year we have an older PP and KG, but add an all-sar PG and a healthy good 2nd year player.

[Boris Badenov]

Ok i think i will stop, bc i feel like a cd skipping trying to make my point. Its ok by me if its not accepted, this is a forum after all.

I pick sully now but this is based on this years play and how he gets along better with everyone else on the floor. Plus we need inside presence.

Outside of this year, i'd pick Rondo for sure. And as a first choice, i do want Rondo back next year, playing like his old self.

We were 21-23 with Sullinger and 17-11 without him. Sully's absence made the Celtics better.

We don't need a PF who made our team play less than .500 ball.

Ever since Sullinger went out we have played much better as a team.

Now that Sullinger is out, Green has blossomed into the player we all hoped we could be. Sullinger clearly was holding him back.

Surely you cannot find a flaw in this logic.

Why don't you read the post prior to explain the importance of sully. Nice try using stats to backup your argument or mock.

I thought that the record with and without the player in question is the most important thing we need to look at.

You disagree?

Because you wrote every single one of the comments below:

"i think Rondo's contribution is overstated by many in this forum. without him we were way over 500."

"The way it was it seemed was, i got my assist record, i'm considered a top pg, i'm an all star and its ok if we got a mediocre record so far"

"With rondo we were 23-20, barely in the playoffs, and without him suddenly like 15-6?"

"Bottom line is we were mere avg with him being the star and without him the team was excellent. so you guys figure it out"

"But its just too much coincidence that the day Rondo doesn't play we beat Miami and go on a long winning run."

"I think i would take 16-7 anyday of the year vs 23-20."

"Doesn't actually provide logic in how the new team is better with Rondo and what proof there is this is true. We went 23-20 and was hanging on for our playoff lives"

"With Rondo earlier this year we stunk and without him starting with the Miami game until Barb went down, we were lethal. Everyone started to play better as a team."

"this answer [about the 20-23 record] won't be accepted by many and the rebuttal will be, how can you diss a guy who once scored 40 plus in a playoff game. Its like Al Bundy reminiscing that he once scored 4 touchdowns in one game"

"With rondo and these guys in the lineup we are 50-50 this year. Without rondo and these guys we are like 16-7."

"Rondo, who walks up the ball, doesn't pass the ball to everyone even if they are free, takes risks to steal balls more frequently, stuffs stats YET we are only a 500 team"

"23-20 = half the season gone."

"Again, people earlier this year were enormed by Rondo bc of his assist totals, we got a new leader to take over pp, kg, last years playoff performances still fresh on their minds, yet we are playing 500 ball."

"But our team this year was loaded with talent, Rondo got his stats yet we still lost. When he was out due to injuries, we won."

"But like myself and others pointed out, the equation is really easy to see...In this situation, with Rondo we are playing 500. Without him starting in miami we go onto being one of the most dangerous teams in the league."

I'm struggling to find one other fact - not opinion, fact - in this entire thread that you've put forth to support your argument.

[Boris Badenov]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

[BballTim]

So my thinking when this thread came up is, from what i witnessed earlier this year, with Rondo back is, sure he will give you the stats but at what cost again??

  Hopefully it will come at the same cost it generally does, making us title contenders. It's tough to deal with but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.

  In the 11-12 season we struggled early in the season, mainly because PP and KG were out of shape. Rondo had an injury and the team went on a tear. That didn't stop the team from playing great ball late in the season with Rondo controlling the offense (18-9 finish to the season) and it didn't stop Rondo from leading the team on a deep playoff run.

  The same type of arguments that are made now were made then, only not quite as outlandish because they didn't have time to get carried away during the brief time Rondo was out. There were valid reasons aside from Rondo for the turnaround, just like this year (in spite of your not wanting to comment on them). There's no reason to believe that Rondo returning would turn out differently than last year when we were a healthy body or two away from the finals.

[Eja117]

Sully

[Tr1boy]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. The point i was ultimately making was without Rondo and a healthy team = we are better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team Rondo or not. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it (plus our inside presence is weak). If the title read would you rather have back now Rondo or Green, Rondo or KG, Rondo or Bradley. I'd not pick Rondo in these examples either

Hope you get it

[CelticsFan9]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. The point is without Rondo and a healthy team we are better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. If the title read would you rather have Rondo or Green, Rondo or KG, Rondo or Bradley. I'd not not Rondo in these examples

Hope you get it

You've stated multiple times that without Rondo we're better, and with Sully, we're better, despite the fact that our records without both of them are EXACTLY the same.

Seriously, I'd rather you just come out and say you don't like Rondo/like Sully a lot because your crap is getting really old.

[Tr1boy]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. The point is without Rondo and a healthy team we are better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. If the title read would you rather have Rondo or Green, Rondo or KG, Rondo or Bradley. I'd not not Rondo in these examples

Hope you get it

You've stated multiple times that without Rondo we're better, and with Sully, we're better, despite the fact that our records without both of them are EXACTLY the same.

Seriously, I'd rather you just come out and say you don't like Rondo/like Sully a lot because your crap is getting really old.

sorry i hurt your feelings. But if you read properly you would know that i do want Rondo back. The 2008-2010 blue collar version. And yes i don't want the new Rondo back. Its nothing new

[Boris Badenov]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. Its more like without Rondo we are a better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. You can understand it whatever way you want

If you want to present some facts to support your position, instead of just posing questions, go ahead. I'm listening.

I have read every post in this thread. In fact, I just went back and read everything again, to assemble the list of 15 separate quotes in which you talked about the record with/without Rondo as if it would settle the Sullinger vs. Rondo question.

There are plenty of facts in my posts, so if you're interested you can go back and review them. You are more than welcome to respond to those - I would argue that you're the one that's been "selective," since you haven't responded to any of them.

[BballTim]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. The point is without Rondo and a healthy team we are better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. If the title read would you rather have Rondo or Green, Rondo or KG, Rondo or Bradley. I'd not not Rondo in these examples

Hope you get it

You've stated multiple times that without Rondo we're better, and with Sully, we're better, despite the fact that our records without both of them are EXACTLY the same.

Seriously, I'd rather you just come out and say you don't like Rondo/like Sully a lot because your crap is getting really old.

sorry i hurt your feelings. But if you read properly you would know that i do want Rondo back. The 2008-2010 blue collar version. And yes i don't want the new Rondo back. Its nothing new

  If the "blue collar non-star" version of Rondo comes back he'd  better bring a younger version of PP/KG/RA back with him or we're done as contenders. Personally I'd rather see the team have a shot at a title than root for a plucky, hustling non-contender because I don't like the way our star plays.

[Tr1boy]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. Its more like without Rondo we are a better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. You can understand it whatever way you want

If you want to present some facts to support your position, instead of just posing questions, go ahead. I'm listening.

I have read every post in this thread. In fact, I just went back and read everything again, to assemble the list of 15 separate quotes in which you talked about the record with/without Rondo as if it would settle the Sullinger vs. Rondo question.

There are plenty of facts in my posts, so if you're interested you can go back and review them. You are more than welcome to respond to those - I would argue that you're the one that's been "selective," since you haven't responded to any of them.

The points i'm making is not rocket science. I'll tell you again one more time so you get it. There is no need to go back and read everything. In essence

without rondo but healthy team this year = we are a playoff calibre team. Team synergy and play is at a high level. We are easily going to make the playoffs

with rondo and a healthy team =  Rondo has the ball 70 percent of the time. No team synergy on the offensive end. No synergy in the defensive end. Hanging on for dear life to make it into the playoffs.

[BballTim]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. Its more like without Rondo we are a better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. You can understand it whatever way you want

If you want to present some facts to support your position, instead of just posing questions, go ahead. I'm listening.

I have read every post in this thread. In fact, I just went back and read everything again, to assemble the list of 15 separate quotes in which you talked about the record with/without Rondo as if it would settle the Sullinger vs. Rondo question.

There are plenty of facts in my posts, so if you're interested you can go back and review them. You are more than welcome to respond to those - I would argue that you're the one that's been "selective," since you haven't responded to any of them.

The points i'm making is not rocket science. I'll tell you again one more time so you get it. There is no need to go back and read everything. In essence

without rondo but healthy team this year = we are a playoff calibre team. Team synergy and play is at a high level. We are easily going to make the playoffs

with rondo and a healthy team =  Rondo has the ball 70 percent of the time. No team synergy on the offensive end. No synergy in the defensive end. Hanging on for dear life to make it into the playoffs.

  So are you claiming that the defensive issues were due to Rondo having the ball too much on offense? Interesting. Do you have any thoughts on why the defensive turnaround came while Rondo was still playing and controlling the ball?

[Boris Badenov]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. Its more like without Rondo we are a better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. You can understand it whatever way you want

If you want to present some facts to support your position, instead of just posing questions, go ahead. I'm listening.

I have read every post in this thread. In fact, I just went back and read everything again, to assemble the list of 15 separate quotes in which you talked about the record with/without Rondo as if it would settle the Sullinger vs. Rondo question.

There are plenty of facts in my posts, so if you're interested you can go back and review them. You are more than welcome to respond to those - I would argue that you're the one that's been "selective," since you haven't responded to any of them.

The points i'm making is not rocket science. I'll tell you again one more time so you get it. There is no need to go back and read everything. In essence

without rondo but healthy team this year = we are a playoff calibre team. Team synergy and play is at a high level. We are easily going to make the playoffs

with rondo and a healthy team =  Rondo has the ball 70 percent of the time. No team synergy on the offensive end. No synergy in the defensive end. Hanging on for dear life to make it into the playoffs.

Everything you just wrote is 100% your opinion, unsupported by any facts. What does "no synergy on the defensive end" mean, exactly? What does it mean for "synergy" and "team play" to be at a "high level"?

And, you STILL haven't responded to any of the points I raised.

If you don't want to read what I wrote previously, and respond to it, and if you want to just say that your opinion - unsupported by anything else - is that Sullinger would help the team more than Rondo, then that's your prerogative. You should stop there though, rather than obsess about our team's record this year with and without Rondo, and claim that it's somehow useful information in determining the relative value of Rondo and Sullinger.
 
Here's an example of facts, in case what I mean is not clear. In game 2 of the Miami series last year, Rondo had 44/10/8. This took place less than one year ago (i.e., this was not "2008-2010 Rondo"). It is the last playoff series in which Rondo played - which I think is the best predictor of his likely playoff performance this year.

No one has ever exceed those numbers in a single playoff game. Ever. Those numbers have been exceeded only six times in league history during the regular season.

This was ranked by ESPN's writers as one of the top 25 playoff performances in NBA history:

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8068148/nba-playoffs-top-25-performances-ever

Another article called it "one of the greatest performances in playoff history."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/7991469/2012-nba-playoffs-rajon-rondo-performance-deserved-boston-celtics-win

Players and coaches on both sides had this to say:

"[Rondo] was absolutely phenomenal," Rivers said. "He put the whole team on his shoulders. It's tough to have him play that way and not win the game, honestly, because he did basically everything right."

"I have no idea, I'll be honest," Spoelstra said when asked how one defends Rondo. "We've tried almost everything with him."

"Rondo was absolutely amazing," James said. Echoed Wade, "He played an unbelievable game."

The Celtics did lose the game, as you will no doubt note. But this was an overtime loss to the eventual champions, on the road. And the fact that it was a loss didn't seem to change everyone's opinion of how Rondo played.

And, this was not an isolated incident. For the playoffs in 2012 Rondo averaged 17/12/7, with 2.4 steals per game. He posted a 22 PER.

For the playoffs overall he was first in assists, first in steals. He was 9th in offensive rebounds and 7th in defensive rebounds. He was 4th in win shares behind Lebron, Durant and Wade.

Ok. Those are some facts behind my view that Rondo would help us more than Sullinger.

Your turn.

[BballTim]

And just in case my point is not clear, here it is, as plainly as I can make it:

In arguing the case for Sullinger you are focusing on the one fact that is totally uninformative in the "Rondo or Sullinger" decision (this was the original question in the thread). It's totally uninformative because they were in and out of the lineup for almost the exact same set of games.

20-23 before Rondo got hurt, 17-11 after.

20-23 before Sullinger got hurt, 17-11 after.

How does talking about the record - over and over - tell us anything about who would help the team more?

Does sullinger have the ball 70 percent of the time? How many min on avg does he play? How many min did Rondo play?

I think you like to do selective reading instead of reading everything.

I'm not choosing 1 to 1. Its more like without Rondo we are a better team this year . And with Sully we are a better team. He doesn't hurt the dynamics , he enhances it. You can understand it whatever way you want

If you want to present some facts to support your position, instead of just posing questions, go ahead. I'm listening.

I have read every post in this thread. In fact, I just went back and read everything again, to assemble the list of 15 separate quotes in which you talked about the record with/without Rondo as if it would settle the Sullinger vs. Rondo question.

There are plenty of facts in my posts, so if you're interested you can go back and review them. You are more than welcome to respond to those - I would argue that you're the one that's been "selective," since you haven't responded to any of them.

The points i'm making is not rocket science. I'll tell you again one more time so you get it. There is no need to go back and read everything. In essence

without rondo but healthy team this year = we are a playoff calibre team. Team synergy and play is at a high level. We are easily going to make the playoffs

with rondo and a healthy team =  Rondo has the ball 70 percent of the time. No team synergy on the offensive end. No synergy in the defensive end. Hanging on for dear life to make it into the playoffs.

Everything you just wrote is 100% your opinion, unsupported by any facts. What does "no synergy on the defensive end" mean, exactly? What does it mean for "synergy" and "team play" to be at a "high level"?

And, you STILL haven't responded to any of the points I raised.

If you don't want to read what I wrote previously, and respond to it, and if you want to just say that your opinion - unsupported by anything else - is that Sullinger would help the team more than Rondo, then that's your prerogative. You should stop there though, rather than obsess about our team's record this year with and without Rondo, and claim that it's somehow useful information in determining the relative value of Rondo and Sullinger.
 
Here's an example of facts, in case what I mean is not clear. In game 2 of the Miami series last year, Rondo had 44/10/8. This took place less than one year ago (i.e., this was not "2008-2010 Rondo"). It is the last playoff series in which Rondo played - which I think is the best predictor of his likely playoff performance this year.

No one has ever exceed those numbers in a single playoff game. Ever. Those numbers have been exceeded only six times in league history during the regular season.

This was ranked by ESPN's writers as one of the top 25 playoff performances in NBA history:

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8068148/nba-playoffs-top-25-performances-ever

Another article called it "one of the greatest performances in playoff history."

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/7991469/2012-nba-playoffs-rajon-rondo-performance-deserved-boston-celtics-win

  This is what I wonder whether people really understand about Rondo. It's true he's not a great scorer, but you can talk about multiple aspects of his game (like defense, rebounding and passing) in historic terms. Very few players in nba history can match his accomplishments or stats in those areas, especially by the time they were his age.

[tonyto3690]

I gave you guys your TPs, but really let it go.  He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.  You're wasting your time.  Better off trying to educate a brick wall about how to change the oil in a car.