Rondo has been looking bad in crunch time

[mmmmm]

So many bloggers seem to be prisoners of the moment.

Rondo was the last Celtic with the ball at the end of two extremely close games.  Obviously, it MUST be his fault that we lost.   

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

When a game comes down to the wire, getting all tunnel-visioned on the last play as the supposed reason we won or lost seems a bit myopic.

This team is only going to win games against tough opponents if ALL the players who get on the floor have positive games.

Certainly Rondo's FT shooting stunk.  But if you are trying to assert that his overall contribution to the game wasn't overwhelming positive, then imo you probably have a very skewed perspective on the game.

There are a couple of other players on our team who it's pretty easy to notice were FAR more 'negative' in their performance last night so hyper-focusing on Rondo seems pretty ridiculous.

Here is the issue: his contract is up and he PROBABLY wants max money. You have a limited time to decide.

We have almost 3 months until the trading deadline and a heck of a lot longer until Summer.

Making rash judgements based on the first 9 games of the season seems like a poor way to make multi-million dollar decisions.

All I need him to do is shoot 60% plus at the line and play better d, while doing all the other things he does easily and I happily pay him that max contract. He is coming up short in two critical areas and causing a brutal decision to be on the table when almost no one wants to do it.
That's why we see threads like this.

He's a ~60% FT shooter for his career and is likely to regress to that long term.   What sample size are you going to put more stock in?  His entire career (1402 FT attempts) or the last small handful of games (20 FT attempts)?

"and play better d" -- that one seems a somewhat arbitrary threshold for him to achieve.  Better than what?   How are you measuring it?  How are you separating out HIS defensive contributions from those of his teammates?

Last year, Rondo's defensive rating was pretty bad (112.2 points per 100 possessions) -- unless you looked at minutes that he WASN'T sharing the floor with Jerryd Bayless.   Removing the human sieve from the equation, Rondo's defensive rating immediately dropped to 108.7.  If you further remove the lineups he was forced to have the under-sized front court of Bass and Sully, it dropped even further to 106.6.

The point is - what you interpret as "better" or worse "d" by Rondo may have just as much to do with his teammates as it does with Rondo.   Don't be surprised if the assessment that Danny and his staff come up with is different from yours.

Also, the last time I checked, grabbing defensive rebounds was a HUGE part of playing defense.  So far in this short season, Rondo is BY FAR our team's best defensive rebounder, grabbing an insane 25.1% of all defensive rebound opportunities!   That's a great number for a PF/C, let alone a PG.

[Eddie20]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons. Time and again, going back several seasons, we squander leads because Rondo is simply not capable to make plays down the stretch. He's the common denominator in it all and would receive heavy praise if he would be making plays. It goes with the territory. The pressure will be there if the claim is that he's a star, best player on the team, and a max money player and should be judged accordingly, not judged in comparison to his lesser skilled teammates.

[Greenback]

Rondo should not start.  His talent equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

[rondohondo]

Rondo should not start.  His talent is equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

[greg683x]

Rondo should not start.  His talent equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

www.youtube.com/embed/JhpLYjRpg4o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tr1boy]

Rondo should not start.  His talent equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

Danny won't.  At this rate, no way Danny does not trade Rondo by the trade deadline or sooner.  Rondo getting his near triple double per game is a good thing. He can inflate his value and get back more in return. 

Danny just does not want to initiate the trade and is waiting for somebody to overpay.  If nobody does, he will take 2 1sts for him. 

Imo Danny is ready to pay Rondo near max (carry this team to 500) or trade him.  He is not going to let another 2012-2013 near disaster season happen again moving on fwd.   

[BballTim]

you just don't pay one a max type money, and he can't make 65% free throws and playing PG...
but that's not the thing that bothered me the most, it's his "defense". Dragic had a field day, schooled him all game long.
can't wait for smart to come back

  Dragic did most of his damage in the 2nd quarter when Rondo wasn't guarding him. He scored  total of 7 points in the 2nd half, a basket in the 3rd (I don't recall that), a 3 in the 4th (don't think Rondo was on him on that play, but not sure) and that basket in the last minute. So the bulk of "Dragic schooling Rondo all game long" came when other people were guarding him.

[BballTim]

If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

  That's a pretty delusional claim.

[BballTim]

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism?

  He's frequently criticized when players he isn't guarding score. How many players are held to a higher standard than that?

[Rondo9]

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism?

  He's frequently criticized when players he isn't guarding score. How many players are held to a higher standard than that?

Well there's Avery Bradley......

[BballTim]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

[Tr1boy]

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism?

  He's frequently criticized when players he isn't guarding score. How many players are held to a higher standard than that?

What about normal standards.  Why don't you criticize him for losing Dragic with about a minute to go (backdoor play).  That was big for the Suns.

[Eddie20]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

[rondohondo]

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism?

  He's frequently criticized when players he isn't guarding score. How many players are held to a higher standard than that?

What about normal standards.  Why don't you criticize him for losing Dragic with about a minute to go.  That was big for phx.

from the "avery bradley is an awful starting sg" thread I started, people were saying Bradley doesn't have the benefit of having having kg cover for him anymore, that's why his defense isn't looking as good as it used to . Why doesn't Rondo get the same excuse?

[BballTim]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".