Rondo has been looking bad in crunch time

[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.

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

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"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 ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

No, you got the "gist" of it totally incorrect.  My post "turned defensive" because your actions (willful or just incompetent) completely misrepresented what I stated.

You want say stupid, incorrect things?  Go ahead.  But please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I posted.

It would have taken you all of a handful of seconds to look at the actual posting before misrepresenting what I stated.

Do you realize how unstable you sound? To take such a defensive stance on a message board, of all things, over being "misrepresented" speaks volumes. I apologize if I misrepresented you. I now hope I don't find myself in a long civil suit for slandering the good name of mmmmmmmm on Celtics blog message board.

Lighten up, don't take yourself so seriously.

  This seems like a much better path to go down than just apologizing for misrepresenting him and moving on. You knew when you posted it you were attributing things he didn't say to him.

Hey, I thought you were only Rondo's mouthpiece?

[inverselock]

Seems notable to point out that Rondo is leading the league in assists (11. by a relatively large margin for that statistic (Paul at 9.7). He's also playing on a team that arguably does not have an NBA starter on a contender (including Green). Isn't our leading scorer Olynyk? C'mon man. That old "Rondo benefits so much from being surrounded by HOFers" argument is dead to me. He's working with next to nothing, and qualitatively, he's making some remarkable passes to get scrubs easy baskets. He's also fresh off injury and has had a significant amount of time off the court.

This. Rondo is our best player by a pretty wide margin. 11.8 apg on a team with no go-to scores is pretty impressive. That translates to 24ppg even without his own scoring. 

But let's trade him. Totally illogical.

Oh and let's trade Brandon Bass too, perhaps our most steady player who knocks down jumpers in his sleep, always hits his free throws, and is willing to come off the bench in favor of starting young guys, without complaint.  This is a guy who was STARTING when KG/PP/RA were here.

According to this: http://www.82games.com/1415/14BOS1.HTM

Our offensive & defensive production is pretty much the same with Rondo on and off the court.   Quite surprising considering the volume of stats Rondo accumulates.

I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass.

[Tr1boy]

The truth is maybe he won't be ever the same again.  His knee surgery/recovery has turned him into a 35 year old like player. 

The "jump" is missing. I bet he can't even dunk anymore. But he has to stop playing the way he used to play D (gamble), bc he can't recover like he did in the past and focus on preventing his man getting by him. I can live with him getting beat by the jump shot. Just not getting beat by the dribble and making it hard for everyone else

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NrmCZTgs8I

ok , well thats good to see. Why doesn't he do it in halfcourt? 

Dumb teams are running around everywhere watching their man and also Rondo. A good team is instructed to dare Rondo shoot and just focus on their man.  In this case, Rondo has to explode to the basket and make teams like this pay.  He used to drive past his man for a layup, acrobatic finish or dish it to the open jumper in the past

Now all we have seen him do is stand out on the perimeter, twist his body whatever way he can to make some interesting passes. It works vs dumb teams like the 76ers and maybe for a few quarters against others. But if a team plays playoff calibre defense, nothing happens except for the clock winding down. Rondo needs to play with more desperation in these kind of situations

[BballTim]

Seems notable to point out that Rondo is leading the league in assists (11. by a relatively large margin for that statistic (Paul at 9.7). He's also playing on a team that arguably does not have an NBA starter on a contender (including Green). Isn't our leading scorer Olynyk? C'mon man. That old "Rondo benefits so much from being surrounded by HOFers" argument is dead to me. He's working with next to nothing, and qualitatively, he's making some remarkable passes to get scrubs easy baskets. He's also fresh off injury and has had a significant amount of time off the court.

This. Rondo is our best player by a pretty wide margin. 11.8 apg on a team with no go-to scores is pretty impressive. That translates to 24ppg even without his own scoring. 

But let's trade him. Totally illogical.

Oh and let's trade Brandon Bass too, perhaps our most steady player who knocks down jumpers in his sleep, always hits his free throws, and is willing to come off the bench in favor of starting young guys, without complaint.  This is a guy who was STARTING when KG/PP/RA were here.

According to this: http://www.82games.com/1415/14BOS1.HTM

Our offensive & defensive production is pretty much the same with Rondo on and off the court.   Quite surprising considering the volume of stats Rondo accumulates.

I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass.

  You seem to be a big proponent of assists not being important because there's a lot more to a play than the last pass. Doesn't that apply to every other statistic as well? There's a lot more to a play than the guy making the basket, there's a lot more to a play than the guy getting the rebound, etc. Is that how you feel about all stats?

[inverselock]

I said "I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass."

That is all.


Edit:  Not all contributions are counted by statistics.   People like to promote their favourite players contributions by showing off stats.

[mmmmm]

I said "I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass."

That is all.


Edit:  Not all contributions are counted by statistics.   People like to promote their favourite players contributions by showing off stats.

And people like to dismiss statistics that don't confirm their biases.

[BballTim]

I said "I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass."

That is all.

  Clearly. And I asked whether that logic applies to all stats or only to assists. I'm not sure why you'd so readily discuss your theory on assists and so reluctant to say whether your theory applies to any other aspect of the game.

Edit:  Not all contributions are counted by statistics.   People like to promote their favourite players contributions by showing off stats.

   This explains your use of statistics in the post that I quoted, only a few minutes ago. It's not ok to promote players with stats, but it's ok to use them to when it's to dismiss the contributions of a player you don't like?

[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".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"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 ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

No, you got the "gist" of it totally incorrect.  My post "turned defensive" because your actions (willful or just incompetent) completely misrepresented what I stated.

You want say stupid, incorrect things?  Go ahead.  But please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I posted.

It would have taken you all of a handful of seconds to look at the actual posting before misrepresenting what I stated.

Do you realize how unstable you sound? To take such a defensive stance on a message board, of all things, over being "misrepresented" speaks volumes. I apologize if I misrepresented you. I now hope I don't find myself in a long civil suit for slandering the good name of mmmmmmmm on Celtics blog message board.

Lighten up, don't take yourself so seriously.

  This seems like a much better path to go down than just apologizing for misrepresenting him and moving on. You knew when you posted it you were attributing things he didn't say to him.

Hey, I thought you were only Rondo's mouthpiece?

  As a general rule, you should probably stop typing when you get to "I thought".

[inverselock]

I said "I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass."

That is all.

  Clearly. And I asked whether that logic applies to all stats or only to assists. I'm not sure why you'd so readily discuss your theory on assists and so reluctant to say whether your theory applies to any other aspect of the game.

Edit:  Not all contributions are counted by statistics.   People like to promote their favourite players contributions by showing off stats.

   This explains your use of statistics in the post that I quoted, only a few minutes ago. It's not ok to promote players with stats, but it's ok to use them to when it's to dismiss the contributions of a player you don't like?

As i have said before, there is always a context with statistics.   You cannot look at a single number without a context and come to an accurate conclusion.

I didn't dismiss any contributions.  I didn't use a single stat.   I said it was surprising considering Rondo's enormous stat lines that we don't appear to be particularly worse off.   That's the way I interpreted the data.

[BballTim]

Dumb teams are running around everywhere watching their man and also Rondo. A good team is instructed to dare Rondo shoot and just focus on their man.  In this case, Rondo has to explode to the basket and make teams like this pay.  He used to drive past his man for a layup, acrobatic finish or dish it to the open jumper in the past

Now all we have seen him do is stand out on the perimeter, twist his body whatever way he can to make some interesting passes. It works vs dumb teams like the 76ers and maybe for a few quarters against others. But if a team plays playoff calibre defense, nothing happens except for the clock winding down. Rondo needs to play with more desperation in these kind of situations

  Since the start of the 08-09 season Rondo has the highest assist/game average in the league during the regular season, in regular season games against playoff teams and in the playoffs as well. What you're saying is completely wrong.

[BballTim]

I said "I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass."

That is all.

  Clearly. And I asked whether that logic applies to all stats or only to assists. I'm not sure why you'd so readily discuss your theory on assists and so reluctant to say whether your theory applies to any other aspect of the game.

Edit:  Not all contributions are counted by statistics.   People like to promote their favourite players contributions by showing off stats.

   This explains your use of statistics in the post that I quoted, only a few minutes ago. It's not ok to promote players with stats, but it's ok to use them to when it's to dismiss the contributions of a player you don't like?

As i have said before, there is always a context with statistics.   You cannot look at a single number without a context and come to an accurate conclusion.

I didn't dismiss any contributions.  I didn't use a single stat.   I said it was surprising considering Rondo's enormous stat lines that we don't appear to be particularly worse off.   That's the way I interpreted the data.

  If you didn't use a single stat, what data were you interpreting?

[CoachBo]

Fascinating read.

Reminder that Rondo is FAR more important to some of you than the success of the franchise. Hence the relentless alibis for someone who clearly isn't worth max money.

Between Red's Army and this blog, I don't know why the guy has an agent.

Just hire Tim.

[BballTim]

Fascinating read.

Reminder that Rondo is FAR more important to some of you than the success of the franchise. Hence the relentless alibis for someone who clearly isn't worth max money.

Between Red's Army and this blog, I don't know why the guy has an agent.

Just hire Tim.

  Pretty cool. Maybe if that works out I could help you get a job selling popcorn, or at least sweeping it up. Seems like a good fit based on your insightful posts.

[inverselock]

I said "I think its a fallacy to assume 11assist is directly responsible for the 11shots going in the basket.   There is a lot more to a play than the last pass."

That is all.

  Clearly. And I asked whether that logic applies to all stats or only to assists. I'm not sure why you'd so readily discuss your theory on assists and so reluctant to say whether your theory applies to any other aspect of the game.

Edit:  Not all contributions are counted by statistics.   People like to promote their favourite players contributions by showing off stats.

   This explains your use of statistics in the post that I quoted, only a few minutes ago. It's not ok to promote players with stats, but it's ok to use them to when it's to dismiss the contributions of a player you don't like?

As i have said before, there is always a context with statistics.   You cannot look at a single number without a context and come to an accurate conclusion.

I didn't dismiss any contributions.  I didn't use a single stat.   I said it was surprising considering Rondo's enormous stat lines that we don't appear to be particularly worse off.   That's the way I interpreted the data.

  If you didn't use a single stat, what data were you interpreting?

Poorly worded.   Didn't use 1 single stat, rather multiple stats to draw a conclusion.

I understand its not completely Rondo's credit/fault for the data being good/bad.

Just my opinion.   Not here to start a fight.   You guys love Rondo.  That's cool.    I'm a little indifferent.

[chenaren]

Missed two free throws again with 1 minute remaining tonight. Rondo is truly anti-clutch this season.